Recent Tv

[phil25]

I thought the BBC series on Elizabeth I was dreadful and far inferior to the Channel 4 two-parter with helen Mirren. Neither compared to Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R" of the 70s.

 

The recent BBC series was banal, inaccurate in detail and thrust, badly cast with juveniles who could not act, ineptly costumed for admittedly populist reasons and dreadfully scripted. The girl who played elizabeth was a common, working class actress with scant idea of either the notion of breeding or power, who seemed act a struggle to achieve those skills and qualities that the real Elizabeth took for granted - poise, natural charisma, being born to rule and self-confidence.

 

It even lacked the style of the equally inaccurate (Burleigh cast off - he served until 1598; Walsingham at the Queens side to the end of her reign - he died 1590; Dudley/Leicester banished - he remained a major player until his death in Armada year) but brilliantly focused and achieved film, Elizabeth of a few years ago, with Kate Blanchett in the lead role.

 

Phil

[spittle]

The Kate Blanchett film where Walsingham travels to Scotland and assassinates Marie DeGuise? Where Elizabeth is repulsed by Anjou (the transvestite)?

Or Helen Mirren and Essex are with Dudley at his death bed!!! And Elizabeth actually meets Mary Queen of Scots!

PHIL!!!! The BBC version was by far the most accurate, even if it did have a few mistakes. Such as portraying Mary of Scots has the baddy. She was a victim of Elizabeth and a very nice person.

[phil25]

Mary Stewart was an emotional idiot!!! Take that as my considered judgement after many years of being repulsed by her utter willful stupidity!!

 

I agree about the meeting between the Queen's - though dramatists love the idea (Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave met in Mary Queen of Scots too). Khartoum has Gordon and the Mahdi meeting (in that case personalising their correspondence). I'll live with the meeting.

 

No IMHO the recent BBC Elizabeth was soap-opery, diminishing, with working-class actors trying to ape their betters with a total lack of conviction or success. They were out of their depth - apart from being BAD actors to start with (Essex appeared to have been cast for his bum!!).

 

As for Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain!!!

 

Radio Times had an article in which the costume designer said that they had been deliberately anachronistic in the design so as not to put off younger viewers with ruffs, hose and anything accurate - so they went for the jacket and jeans look!! I fear that the current generation of kids will grow up with a sadly distorted view and mental picture of the past on that basis.

 

Sorry, I have tried to re-watch that series on dvd, but I find it rotten to the core. Helen Mirren got closer to the spirit of the Queen (not a patch on Glenda or my fave Flora Robson - Fire Over England and The Sea Hawk). Irons had a little of Leicester's style. Essex again missed completely, I admit - though I have yet to see a convincing Essex in anything.

 

To end on a wry note, the casting of Iain MacDiarmuid as Burleigh threw me a bit - I kept expecting the Jedi to appear and the "Chancellor" to overthrow the monarchy in a devious Sith plot!!

 

As far as the Blanchett film is concerned, don't forget Walsingham's taste for boys, and Kathy Burke's working class Mary - obviously a product of deep research!!

 

Sorry I cannot agree with you on the BBC series though - I was mightily disappointed.

 

Phil

[spittle]

I own 'The Virgin Queen', Channel 4s 'Elizabeth I' and Blanchett's 'Elizabeth'. I was impressed with the Ch4 cast (Irons is a genius and Mirren isn't half bad!) but what impressed me most was Patrick Malahide (Chissum in Minder) as Walsingham. A three dimensional Walsingham was a wonderful change to the sinister Tudor Nazi I have come to expect.

 

I intend to buy Glenda Jacksons 'Elizabeth R' and would appreciate it if you could tell a little more about 'Fire Over England' and 'The Sea hawk'. Just enough to help me locate themn on Amazon.com

 

Mary Stuart was emotional and, I must agree, at times foolish which makes the idea of a coldly manipulative schemer, planning to repay all of Elizabeth's kindnesses by heading a conspiracy aiming to assassinate her totally unrealistic and grossly unfair. Mary was the victim. If she was remotely like the character she has been given on many drama's she would have distanced herself from Bothwell at the earlist opportunity and laid all the blame on his doorstep. Her emotions and the courage of her convictions far exceeded any political considerations and this resulted in her being an ineffectual leader.

[DecimusCaesar]

Radio Times had an article in which the costume designer said that they had been deliberately anachronistic in the design so as not to put off younger viewers with ruffs, hose and anything accurate - so they went for the jacket and jeans look!! I fear that the current generation of kids will grow up with a sadly distorted view and mental picture of the past on that basis

 

It kind of reminds me of the pictures I've seen for the new Robin Hood series on the BBC. All the costumes and the hairstyles are modelled on modern stuff, while other costumes look as if they belong in a sci-fi show.

It's a tendency in a lot of modern tv shows and films to go for modern styles or stuff that is recognisable to a lot of people. This is evident with 'Troy' where Wolfgang Peterson delibrately ignored historical costume reconstructions and asked the designers to 'make-up' their own clothes and armour. Even the sets were made to look recognisable as the set designers ignored the actual architecture of the Mycenaeans and went for the more recognisable Ancient Egyptian style.

Edited October 15, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Pertinax]

Dear Members , we have drifted a little from the original thread -(about the actual Roman History series) . I quite understand why , all the things that have been mentioned are part of the BBC's loss of intellectual backbone. Please try to stay on the actual series itself, irritating as it may be. If we veer off to discuss the BBCs inability to be intellectually honest in general ill divide the thread between here and Hora Postillia.This is not to be taken as an admonition, as the observations are all worthwhile, but we have to "keep roman"

[spittle]

We had a thread that started about the Ancient Rome docudrama's but progressed onto other historical mini-series of a non Roman nature.

 

The Virgin Queen (BBC), Elizabeth I (Ch4) and other Elizabeth the First films/shows were discussed but I'd like to hear opinions on

 

HENRY VIII (Ray Winston, Helena Bonham Carter for Granada TV)

 

CHARLES II (Rufus Sewell for BBC)

 

My personal opinion is that Charles II was the best programme of its kind for many years. Far supperior to either of the Elizabeth shows. Everything about this series was quality. The acting, costumes, script..... They have a hard time deciding what events to leave out but I feel they prioritised the reign of this King very well for entertainment purposes.

Henry VIII on the other hand was dreadfull! Ray Winston's dumbed down version of Henry was so inappropriate it verged on comedy, unintentionally, in many places. And Helena Bonham Carters 'Girl-power' Ann Bollyn must have been researched from books i have not had access too. If she had acted as brazenly as this in Tudor England she would have been considered little better than a whore. An insane whore.

[Pertinax]

In fairness , I must move this into the "Hora Postillia" ...but, do not be put off posting, as you can see ive spliced some relevant items into this topic from the "mother topic".

[DecimusCaesar]

I have not seen the other television programs mentioned here concerning the Tudor and Stuart dynasties but who remembers the woeful 'Boudica' brodcast on ITV a few years back? That was not in the least bit historically accurate a fact made obvious by the ending where a druid casts a magic spell sending one of Boudica's daughters to live in modern day London.

 

That program was memorable simply for being so bad, the highlights include:

 

*Little children defeating Roman soldiers in battle.

*Claudius having a party with Boudica and Prasutagus.

* an Evil Roman senator with a big smirk on his face as he watched Britons being tortured/raped/decapitated.

* Suetonius Paulinus returning from his campaign against the Druids on Mona by visiting Nero in Rome to tell him that the druids 'simply wouldn't die'. He then leaves for Britain again to face Boudica.

* The Chief Druid who had magic powers, including the ability to appear and disappear. He also had a Scottish accent when the rest of the Celts had an assortment of English accents, cockney etc.

* The Celts destroying an entire Legion by ambushing them while they slept. During the attack Boudica copulates with her new lover in a Roman soldiers tent.

 

and so on and so on... It's worth seeing just for comedic value.

[spittle]

DEAR GOD!!! I'd forgotten about that monstrosity.

It had Dr Elizabeth Corday (ER) as Boudica/Boudicea with a West Country 'Bumpkin' accent.

I only watched the first 20 minutes or so. I couldn't take any more.

 

Most of these shows are Tudor/Stuart era. One that was very entertaining, despite being hugely inaccurate was 'Gunpowder, Treason and Plot'. In that Mary Queen of Scots and Bothwell were genuinely in love. I'd always read that he kidnapped and raped her?

[phil25]

To me - the externals are often less important than the basic truth - with these TV series.

 

As with an adaptation - does (say) a TV version of Pride and Prejudice give us something of what Jane Austen tried to convey, or some modern, sexed-up travesty? I rather disliked the latest version of that book (the famous one with Colin Firth) because i could not see a controlled gentleman like Darcy ripping off his clothes and jumping into a lake as he did in an invented scene. I have warmed to other aspects of the production since, but to me that was a betrayal.

 

Equally the recent film with Keira knightly and Matthew Macfadden might have been renamed Shyness and Independence, since both charcaters were given modern rather than period defects of character to overcome.

 

Thus, to me, the epitome of a good historical costume drama (ie one based on fact) are the 70s Six Wives of Henry VIII (Keith Michell) and the Glenda Jackon Elizabeth R. These were faithful to history (even if events were telescoped) to period look and feel; in casting and managed to cram in some of the complexity of politics and court in the period.

 

By contrast the Ray Winston Henry had only one note - Henry was a sort of gangster/crime boss, let's show him as such. It altered history in unpardonable ways, and its portrayal of the period was grossly out of order.

 

Here was a great Christian and Renaissance Prince, noted for his learning, a cultured, sophisticated man, whose splendid palaces were legendary, shown living in bare walled castles, speaking in a working class way and being generally venal and brutal. The real Henry (believe it or not) was a prude!! and fastidoius in matters of dress and ceremonial.

 

Apart from that the acting was lamentable. Compare, if you are able, Michell's detailed chronicling of a man's descent from golden adolesence to obese physical corruption, with all the detail that makeup and characterisation could add.

 

Winston was Winston with a bit of padding and powder at the end.

 

Of course, series date and acting and editing styles change - but when I look at videos of the 2 series on the Tudors I have mentioned; on The First Churchills (Neville and Hampshire as John and Sarah); or By The Sword Divided - on the English Civil War - I see history recreated. It might not be perfect (and it was certainly studio bound and budget limited), but it looked and felt genuine. James Villiers' Charles II, as well as the James II (actor not known) and William III were superb (First Churchills) and you could use the series to give you a sound foundation in the period for academic purposes.

 

As for the various Elizabeths - Glenda, I felt tried to subsume herself in the real woman. Mirren by contrast gave us Elizabeth as she would have been had she been the actress 9the truth was there but not the feel or look). The actress in the BBC Virgin Queen was simply awful. But all of them (Glenda least) lacked the feel for the demeanour that Flora Robson brought to the part. Hardly a beauty (as Elizabeth by any reasonable standard was not) Dame Flora understood what bearing and dignity, and the force of personality can do (she was also a believable Tzu Si in 55 days at Peking in the 60s). Her Tilbury speech in Fire Over England is unmatched IMHO.

 

I'd also put in a word for Bette Davis (Elizabeth and Essex with Flynn and The Virgin Queen with Richard Todd. Way off in so many ways, dear Bette got the spitefulness and mean-mindedness of the woman exactly. In Essex the decor was superb too - a suggestion of Tudor architecture without the detail.

 

I could go on, but will sign off before I bore everyone.

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

I never saw 'Gunpowder, Treason and plot' but didn't the bloke who played Lucius Vorenus from HBO's Rome star in that program? I heard he was a member of the cast.

[phil25]

He was Bothwell - and very well cast with regards to looks, I think.

 

It was the script and some of the acting that was lacking in that series - the casting was imaginative (a lad from Eastenders played Darnley and looked the part).

 

Phil

[spittle]

Phil.

Please list these plays/shows with as much detail as possible then I can attempt to find them. I'd really appreciate it.

 

Vorenus/Bothwell (Kevin McKidd) also played the Duke of Norfolk in The Virgin Queen.

 

As anyone seen the Civil War (English Civil War) film 'To Kill The King' with Dougray Scott as fairfax, Rupert Everett as King Charles I and Tim Roth as Cromwell? (to be honrst Tim Roth did the only character he can act, Tim Roth!).

Despite Charles I generally getting a bad press it always speaks volumes to me that he wore two shirts for his execution to avoid his shivers of cold being mistaken for trembling fear. He must have had stromg belief's, whether they were right or wrong, to die with such dignity.

 

edited for spelling

Edited October 22, 2006 by spittle

[phil25]

Charles - as "1066 and All That" would have had it - was wrong but romantic!! He was a bit of a hero when i was younger - I see him now as a brave but very scheming, weak and duplicitous man, lacking all political judgement.

 

Everett was far too tall to play him, and the script of To Kill a King was inept. The best Charles, probably never to be bettered was Guiness in Cromwell

 

Spittle

 

Fire Over England - with Flora Robson as Elizabeth (plus Olivier and Vivien Leigh) was made c 1937. I have never seen a video or dvd, but recorded my copy from TV years ago.

 

Flora also played Elizabeth in Errorl Flynn's "The Sea Hawk" c 1940? - it should be around on dvd, I have a commercial video.

 

Flynn played Essex to Better Davis' Elizabeth in "Elizabeth and Essex" (c1940?) - again this should be on dvd.

Davis played Elizabetb again c 1950 in The Virgin Queen - I saw a dvd of this last week in a shop in London.

 

The First Churchills is available as 2 BBC dvds, as is the first series of "By the Sword Divided" (Civil War).

 

Have i missed anything?

 

Returning to the Tudors, Richard Burton was a poor Henry VIII in "Anne of the Thousand Days" but that includes the best Cardinal Wolsey I have ever seen, a rounded performance of great command and strength by Anthony Quayle.

 

If you want to see Michell's Henry - the film version of his performance "Henry VIII and his six wives" is out on dvd. Not bad. The TV series was available as six BBC videos but I have not seen it re-released as dvds.

 

Phil