The Virgin Queen (2005)

How sad is this?

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Another version of a Tudor, Elizabeth I, the Gloriana, done up quite splendidly by the BBC. The strongest aspect, as I viewed it, was neither the story, the costumes or the scenes, but the bold performance of Anne Marie Duff. She glows as a young Elizabeth, and displays strength and vanity as her aging self. Yes, the make-up could have been better, or as one suggested an alternate older actress, but the pace of Duff's performance was incrementally finer, than finer still, as she reached deeper into her character. And if one seeks out a miniature of the Queen, one sees a remarkable resemblance between the Queen and the actress. Dudley, portrayed by Hardy, was a good foil; his perhaps son, but certainly step son, Essex portrayed by Hans Matheson, were interestingly cast, not so much by the actors but rather for the dramatic interpretation brought to each character. It is only bested by the old Bette Davis version of Elizabeth and Essex in spotlighting how the Virgin Queen sought male affection, but rebuffed any control but her own.What burden the Queen, a bastard, a princess, and then a monarch must have endured in her private life, a life often dismissed for her political reign, or exaggerated for her fancy of her childhood friend, Robbie.A most worthy addition to the pantheon of Tudor drama.

If you've seen Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth in the Oscar-winning movie and the great Helen Mirren as Elizabeth in the recent HBO film, it is easy enough to dismiss Anne-Marie Duff and all of "The Virgin Queen" as a distant third in the competition. Nonetheless, I thought Duff acquitted herself quite well, especially as the younger Elizabeth, and this BBC production may actually do a better job of recreating the period than the other two. In my opinion, the HBO production is the best of the three, mainly because of Mirren, but also because it is given more time to explore the history of the period than was afforded the Blanchett film. The Blanchett movie finishes second because Cate is an excellent actress and because she is surrounded by a wonderful cast. But to say that "The Virgin Queen" comes third in the race is by no means to degrade it. I enjoyed all three productions for somewhat different reasons and, contrary to those who say "enough already," we will remain immersed in this period of history (a)because it immediately follows the era recreated by Shakespeare in his history plays and (b) because it is a hinge in history, solidifying England's rejection of Catholicism and the defeat of Spain.

What would film and TV companies do for historical dramas if Elizabeth I had never reigned? If they run out of ideas (or Dickens novels) it seems that somebody comes out with a brand new concept. "Hey! what about giving old Lizzie another run for her money? Nobody's done it for at least 6 months!" This 2005 mini-series although having authentic costumes, delivers nothing that hasn't been told (more accurately and better) a hundred times before in novels, biographies, operas, dramas, documentaries and even historical pageants.In this latest effort it seems that a lot of pieces from the jigsaw that was Elizabeth's life have been lost, and the bits that remain have been haphazardly bunched together to create some sort of patchy biography. Consequently there's very little flow to the production as a whole, with just a scant look into the inner character of the "virgin queen" in particular. As for Ann-Marie Duff's speech prior to the Armada battle, I'm afraid she didn't inspire me one iota, (even though she looked a very young 55 yrs as Elizabeth was at the time), and neither did the rest of her somewhat insipid performance. The real Elizabeth needed to be, and was, made of sterner stuff.Overall the sketchy script is equally uninspired, and is only adequately performed, however if one can watch it without being too critical of historical mistakes, it is in parts enjoyable...that is if you're an ardent Gloriana fan. This production falls far short of the wonderful Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R", albeit even that series now looks a little stagy and dated.I really do think it's time to give "Good Queen Bess" a miss...at least for another six months, maybe even a year. The poor old dear must be completely worn out watching down from high, at all these seemingly endless reproductions of her life. Then in the meantime someone could just come up with a bright new idea. Another Dickens perhaps?

I'm afraid invidious comparisons are inevitable when two of the four major television channels choose to bring out 'mini-series' on the life of the same monarch within the same year. This is the BBC's offering, better-funded, better-researched (or so it was claimed) and filmed in the UK instead of Eastern European locations. Sadly -- and I speak as a devotee of Aunty Beeb -- it simply isn't a match for Channel 4's earlier production "Elizabeth I". Not only is it not *as* good, by the end of the series it wasn't even *good*. (Too much attention paid to the technicalities of the ageing make-up on the principals and too little to the characterisation, perhaps?) I think it simply tries to bite off more than it can chew. Channel 4 succeeded because they cast a middle-aged actress of great experience to portray Elizabeth in her later years. Anne-Marie Duff is a convincing wispy Princess, but her character doesn't seem to acquire the necessary gravitas as she supposedly ages. And the final two episodes felt badly rushed, in particular the decision to gloss over the entirety of Elizabeth's reign post-Essex in the course of a single voice-over, and her death-scene in a few sentences. There is too much prurient focus on Elizabeth's virginity and very little on the Virgin Queen's real-life record as mistress of statesmanship and manipulator extraordinaire -- she knew how to project herself as larger than life, but the BBC doesn't seem to know how to do the same, leaving the great speeches to fall limply. Channel 4's rendition of the great Tilbury speech ("I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king -- and a King of England too") brought the hairs up to thrill at the back of my neck. This one was something of an anti-climax.Historical accuracy, for all that much-vaunted research, seemed dubious, from Essex's haircut to Queen Mary's death. This is light-weight stuff, without the insight into character that would justify such liberties in the name of dramatic licence. I'll believe in Channel 4's adult version of the relationship between the greying Elizabeth and Leicester before I'll believe the aged-up immaturity shown here, between a couple who never seem to progress beyond teenage crushes and jealousies. We see little of the Queen, and a lot of the virgin -- more soap-opera than history.Ambitious, but ultimately thin and unsatisfactory. All surface and no depth.