Thank you for showing this. My mother (who has past away) loved everything on the Tudor Dynasty (she liked to call it that) after taking a trip to England with my Dad. Granted, it was in 83, and only a week but still, when she got home, she got books, and watched everything she could on the subject. So thank you, this brings back memories in a good way... because she also got me hooked on the period as well 😊
"That's a silly place to put a head on a spike" *Man unsheathes blade, ready to disembowel the Spanish ambassador* "Look at him, he's cute. Like a puppy!" A thoroughly enjoyable and highly entertaining presentation by the charming Dr. Paul. Hope to see more in the future.
The actress who played the best depiction of Elizabeth I was Glenda Jackson. Those outside the UK, may not know her, but her depiction in the 1970’s is seen as the best ever.
Loved this so much! Thanks for such a deep examination of these films, Dr. Paul! 11:53: Christopher Eccleston is actually playing the Duke of Norfolk 34:33: Ugh, the flower headdress. No, you're not missing anything. They make such weird choices The Golden Age with the costuming. In addition to the giant flower in this scene, there's also an enormous bow on the front of a blue gown and what I like to call the "Taco Shell" headdress in the scene with John Dee. 43:00: I love your appropriate frustration with the way Robert is dealt with. It's so frustrating that the ridiculous betrayal story story they gave him in Movie 1 meant he couldn't be in Movie 2 (He's actually in the novelization, and they have some lovely scenes). It's especially annoying considering there's so much drama in the real story; both in regard to how unpopular Robert was and the strange and suspicious death of his wife, which ignited rumors that Elizabeth and Dudley had something to do with it. I don't know why film adaptations shy away from that story when it feels too dramatic to be true.
I was so disgusted with the treatment of Robert in "Elizabeth," that I refused to watch the sequel. I also hated the fact the first film put Elizabeth in "white makeup" when she was still a young woman. Ugh!
Good thoughts. However I think the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth in the first scene was quite well set even if not accurate. It represented Mary’s “confinement” and loneliness without obviously stating her pregnancy troubles blatantly. Nuanced well
I suspect they cut the "heart and stomach of a king" line from Golden Age because they used it already (somewhat modified) in the first film, in which she says: "I may be a woman, Sir William, but if I choose I have the heart of a man! I am my father's daughter. I am not afraid of anything." I think that when they made the 1998 film, they had no clue they would be able to make a sequel. So they just did their best to fit in all of Elizabeth I's most iconic quotes and sentiments. But then I'd bet they felt a little weird about repeating that one line when they found themselves making Golden Age a full nine years later. Though I personally think they should have just included it, since it was heavily tweaked the first time anyway.
@@skepticalbadger yes I know. It's just something I noticed since it is one of my favourite pieces of music. It's always bothered me for some reason lol not saying it was a bad choice, just saying it stands out to me every time I watch it. 🤷🏻♀️
Yes, the 2005 mini-series was brilliant (and subsequently overlooked in favour of later productions). Anne-Marie Duff was an excellent Elizabeth, and I thought that the insular machinations of court were very well represented. Ian Hart as William Cecil was also a great choice.
I think that was the wrong Thomas Howard portrait painting that came up there, that was the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, the one who Ecclestone is playing is the 4th Duke of Norfolk of the same name. The 3rd died in his early 80's whereas the 4th was the one who was executed during Elizabeth's reign.
Interesting thought that occurred during the coronation scene: that was the last coronation of the King/Queen of England that wasn't also K/Q of Scotland, as James I/VI was her successor
Mary Tudor is played by the fabulous Kathy Burke in Elizabeth. She's very well known in Britain but more as a comedian, comedic actress and writer. But, occasionally, she'll do these more heavy dramatic roles, and it's always fun to watch. She's also in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Nil by Mouth, perhaps her greatest dramatic turn. She was awarded best actress at Cannes for her role in that film.
As a kid, seeing this particular movie set me on a Tudor reading road that lead to a British History reading road that continues all these decades later
The most accurate depiction of Queen Elizabeth I put on screen is without a doubt, the 2005 Tom Hooper miniseries, "Elizabeth I", with Helen Mirren playing Queen Elizabeth I. The 1971 TV series, "Elizabeth R.", starring Glenda Jackson, is a close second. The Kate Blanchett movies don't even close.
I'd like to hear a neurologist's or doctor's analysis of what beheading would be like. She was most certainly praying during those fifteen minutes? Lifted from Wikipedia: "Physiology of death by decapitation- Unconsciousness occurs within seconds without circulating oxygenated blood (brain ischemia). Cell death and irreversible brain damage occurs after 3-6 minutes with no oxygen, due to excitotoxicity." So according to that, any lip movement after 6 minutes was reflexive twitching.
I'm looking forward to watching this! Your house of Dudley book was very well written I'm banned from watching Tudor stuff on TV with anyone else as I can't keep my mouth shut when it comes to unrealistic scenes or actors I have a master's in history and hopefully a PHD one day too Here goes .......I'm going to watch your up load now
my love of these movies growing up is what helped to get me into history, though i now do classical history and archaeology. that being said, my name is Casey Creech, but my REAL last name is Beaton - my family is what is left of Clan Beaton, and we have an ancestral castle called Creich Castle. my ancestors include Lady Mary Beaton, one of Mary Stuart’s Four Marys, and Cardinal David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, Scottish Ambassador to France for James V of Scotland, Papal legate of Scotland, and the last Cardinal before the Reformation 🙃 he kind of sucked and was assassinated but it happens i guess 🤷🏻♀️
Of all the inaccuracies in Tudor films, I don’t think Elizabeth and Mary meeting is an issue itself because of the letters like said here. Like in the Mary Queen of Scotts film from 1970s starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. The Margot Robbie and Saoirse Ronan one was terrible. But the symbolism here is powerful.
"I have a Hurricane in me' Oh god... now I realize wherre those hacks from Rings of Power sttole the infamous 'there is a tempest in me' scene. Stole this as they have stolen so so much more, I guess.
I think the all time benchmark for Elizabeth I, at least how I imagine her from what I have read about her (not sure how historically accurate it is) is Glenda Jackson in the miniseries Elizabeth R from the 1970's. Personally, I think Cate Blanchett was at least take some notes from her (particularly the deep voice she uses).
I love these movies very much, and very closely identify with Cate's character. These scenes are hard for me to watch, particularly the "Confess!" as if I had been there myself. It's why I have such a hard time with christianity in general. Similar accusation happened to me.
Never liked these movies The first one is OK, but the second is not much. The Tilbury speech scene is rubbish. If you are making an historical movie , especially with such a famous speech surely you should respect history
I loved both of these movies and it spurred my interest into learning more about Elizabethan England. Thats where I learned how inaccurate the movie was. And when it was time to watch the sequel I was better prepared and as a Virginian seeing Clive Owen return from Virginia in 1588 with native americans and indigenous food I was laughing at how ridiculous it had gotten but still enjoyble movies.
58:34 Sorry Dr Paul, you are wrong. One can stand on the White Cliffs of Dover and see Calais on a clear day. A large battle that size with dozens of warships afire would clearly be seen from the Kent coast in England. You are correct that Tilbury is found in the mouth of the Thames. It has no cliffs and faces North. Add to the fact it is around 60 miles away from Calais as the crow flies over the county of Kent.
I'm surprised to see such a positive review by a Tudor historian. Both films have a lot of problems and I'm not sure why we are being so gentle about it here. Just to name one: While it was great to not have Mary & Elisabeth meeting, it's a nonsense presentation to have her speaking English with a Scottish accent. If she had an accent after all, it would have been French, since she grew up at the French Court and spend many years there. She even was the actual Queen of France (vs. the English only claiming to be)
Dr Paul said, near the beginning, that it was a shame that they couldn’t make her have the dark eyes that she inherited from her mother, but apparently the actress couldn’t wear the contacts.
@@brightphoebesays Sorry, I misread your comment as you wondering why they hadn’t and I thought maybe you’d missed that part, sorry. Blame it on brain fog and tiredness, I have slept about 5 hours in the last 72.
Great performances, but not Oscar-winning. She was nominated for best actress for both Elizabeth movies, but didn't win either. Cate did win BAFTA and Golden Globe awards for her first performance of Elizabeth, but her Oscars were for roles in other movies. Suspect they didn't include the "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman... etc" line in her speech at Tilbury because they already anachronistically had her say that line in the first film.
With 8 out of 10 for the first movie - how much would you give for a lot better productions such us the 2 parts with Helen Mirren? The representation of all foreigners is really disgusting. However looking back I liked to have a more nuanced version of Mary Queen of Scots in "The golden age". Samantha Morton maybe the best actress in both movies by the way.
These 2 movies are riddled with inaccuracies one is almost lost as where to begin. Just a few spring to mind regarding the first film, Elizabeth. The muddled time-line is annoying. Archbishop Stephen Gardner could not have been involved in a plot to over-throw Elizabeth the queen because he died in 1555 before she ever become queen. Elizabeth and Dudley were not together at Hatfield House in 1553/4 because Dudley was locked up in the Tower of London ( where he and Elizabeth did see each other ). An assassination attempt on Elizabeth involving a "poisoned dress" is not known to have happened; nor is an attempt to kill her with a crossbow in the early years of her reign. Walsingham really only became a trusted adviser to the queen around 1570, years after Elizabeth was crowned. The screenplay is fast and loose over the 4th. Duke of Norfolk - the false scenarios and role he plays are many. Visually, the use of Durham Cathedral as a Tudor palace, as Joanne Paul does state, is ridiculous and bizarre and Hatfield House is nothing like the castle depicted in the film. Although in the second film, Tilbury has flat terrain and Calais is not visible from there, nor almost anywhere else in England except the area immediately around Dover Castle ( which is on cliffs ). Michael Hirst who wrote both screenplays must have had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek with his efforts.
It's funny how Protestants always come out squeaky clean in any of these depictions of post-Reformation conflicts. I would love to see a movie about poor Henry VIII defending himself heroically against those evil, snarling papist monks! Wow, I love history!
@@LindsayEllison-ih2hd My comment was not directed at history itself but at revisionist depictions of it, which these and other movies clearly are. Henry may have continued observing the Roman rite but in dissolving papal authority and seizing the property he was denying the apostolic succession and therefore no longer a Catholic, however one may feel about that. Dr. Paul herself mentioned that the portrayals of Catholics here are clearly meant to demonize them. That is what I was talking about here.
@@LindsayEllison-ih2hd the pope represents the apostolic succession. He is the latest in the line from Peter, Linus, Clement and so on. To flout papal authority IS to deny the succession.
@@ralph0149 no he is a part of the succession. The apostolic succession refers to bishops. All bishops consecrated post reformation under Henry viii were done so in RC schism. And pope was bishop of Rome, whose authority Henry considered under that of a king.
Was that the Duke of Anjou? I thought he was meant to be someone who was a candidate early in Elizabeth’s reign for her hand, who turned out to be probably gay. Maybe they mashed those historical figures together as one character.
"She also appears to be in cave or something. She would have been in a palace..." A stone palace without electric lights. It would had taken a LOT of candles to make it not look like a cave at night.
History Movies usually have no problem puttung dozens and dozens of candles everywhere. This was propably done to make her look like a villan in the dark.
The walls in Tudor era castles were cover in cloth-of-gold/cloth-of-silver tapestries. The walls absolutely sparkled from refacted candlelight, adding to the lighting in the room.
@@krn2683 Exactly. It's also why candlesticks would often have a mirror or gold/silver/metal backing - the candlelight would be reflected and amplified in it (not sure if it was already done in Tudor times, but I don't see why not). In general, it's almost surprising how much light a single candle can give off if you place it higher. There's no reason why someone who had plenty of money to afford candles would not treat themselves to them (if only as a status symbol). What would be the point of wearing all those expensive fabrics and jewels if you can't show them off nicely?
@@krn2683 you can try some experimental archeology by hanging up a light color and dark color sheets behind a candle and seeing how the brightness changes. Or doesn't change.
A typical candle produces around 13 lumens of light, going in all directions. A perfect reflector behind it can double the useful light shining into the room, to maybe 26 lumens. A typical electric light bulb produces about 800 lumens. You would need 30+/- candles to equal a single light bulb. And I imagine the expensive clothes and jewelry were viewed in the daytime.
I think the Tilbury speech is poorly done. Elizabeth in a full suit of armor astride a horse? That is absurd. As others have said, Helen Mirren does a much better job - and delivers the key lines (". . . but I have the heart and stomach of a king . . ."). That miniseries is far superior to these two movies.
@@lauragutierrez893 Was there more of the it? I'm afraid I bailed after the first word - an hour is a long time to give up to sub standard content. It's a pity - I've enjoyed some History Hit content.
@@ianmacfarlane1241Dr Paul gives her opinion here and pretty good factual corrections regarding timelines etc. She is a self admitted Dudley fan and has written a book about him. She points out, many times!, in her review of the second film where he is absent completely and that they have in fact used Raleigh as a stand in for both Dudley and Drake.
Oh great, the feminist activist historian is back. Won't be watching this one. For an actual historical review of these movies I encourage everyone to watch History Buff's videos on the subject
No offence to History Buff, whose videos I also very much enjoy, but to reject the opinion of someone who actually specialises in the era in question, and to prioritise instead someone who (as the name itself implies) simply has a general interest in history, just because the specialist is [checks notes] aah, a FEMINIST... Yeah, that says more about you than her. Also, she's simply following the format of these "historian talks about x" videos, which by definition gives her less freedom to point everything out than someone with their own channel like History Buff, and she clearly comes from a gentler perspective than him, where she accepts movies for what they are and looks for the positives instead of raging that they aren't documentaries.
My goodness, you sound so insufferable and judgemental. Who cares if she's a feminist?? That doesn't take away from her intelligence on this subject that she specializes in.
@@AW-uv3cb So...in your opinion this video is less factually accurate and knew would get more information from watching the channel I suggested? Ok, thanks for agreeing with me! Also, if you can't see why someone wouldn't want to listen to a historian who is clearly biased due to her own radical political and social beliefs resulting in her knowledge likely being skewed then I guess you've likely entirely misunderstood why I choose not to listen to her.
Yes what would be the point of shaving the heads of the condemned, unless they wanted the hair for wig making... I found that scene upsetting. I always find very short hair on women upsetting because of this scene, and because of chemo cancer treatment patients. Why would any woman want to evoke either?
Because she finds it comfortable? Because it suits her personal style? Because she makes the choice based on her own priorities and it's got nothing to do with chemo or convicts? Seriously, are you for real? I used to wear a pixie cut because I just liked the way it looked on me and I liked not having to dry it and style it. I also have friends who'd shave their heads for that very same reason and they looked great. The thought of any cancer or convict association never even entered our minds, lol, so if that's all you can think about when you see short hair on a woman, and you're actually upset by what other women do with your hair... seriously, are you actually for real? It's a bizarre take.
@@AW-uv3cb Well now you know what some of us think but never said so. I'm allowed to say what I think in a youtube comment btw. I wasn't saying it to you.
Man, Joseph Finnes was a whole thirst trap back in the day.
Thank you for showing this. My mother (who has past away) loved everything on the Tudor Dynasty (she liked to call it that) after taking a trip to England with my Dad. Granted, it was in 83, and only a week but still, when she got home, she got books, and watched everything she could on the subject.
So thank you, this brings back memories in a good way... because she also got me hooked on the period as well 😊
It was the Tudor dynasty. At present, we have the Windsor dynasty, whereby a monarch comes from the same family head.
It appears that the actress who plays Mary, Queen of Scots here now plays Catherine de Medici in The Serpent Queen.
Samantha Morton she's also a main character in the Harlots tv show really great actress😍
@@bonnielass75 she matched Sean Penn's great performance in Sweet and Lowdown without saying a single word!
The first Mary Tudor is Kathy burke.
Well in this case she went from "historically very inaccurate film" to "historically monstrously inaccurate series".
SAMANTHA MORTON ❤❤❤
“The actress” 😢 I was offended lol she is and will always be FIRE
"That's a silly place to put a head on a spike"
*Man unsheathes blade, ready to disembowel the Spanish ambassador*
"Look at him, he's cute. Like a puppy!"
A thoroughly enjoyable and highly entertaining presentation by the charming Dr. Paul. Hope to see more in the future.
I would love to hear her review of the Elizabeth film with Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons as Elizabeth and Dudley.
The actress who played the best depiction of Elizabeth I was Glenda Jackson. Those outside the UK, may not know her, but her depiction in the 1970’s is seen as the best ever.
YES! The icon Joanne Paule is back. Love her.
PLEASE do the Helen Mirren two parter mini series from HBO where she plays an older Elizabeth and Jeremy Irons plays Robert Dudley
Yes! Loving the long form reaction!
Loved this so much! Thanks for such a deep examination of these films, Dr. Paul!
11:53: Christopher Eccleston is actually playing the Duke of Norfolk
34:33: Ugh, the flower headdress. No, you're not missing anything. They make such weird choices The Golden Age with the costuming. In addition to the giant flower in this scene, there's also an enormous bow on the front of a blue gown and what I like to call the "Taco Shell" headdress in the scene with John Dee.
43:00: I love your appropriate frustration with the way Robert is dealt with. It's so frustrating that the ridiculous betrayal story story they gave him in Movie 1 meant he couldn't be in Movie 2 (He's actually in the novelization, and they have some lovely scenes). It's especially annoying considering there's so much drama in the real story; both in regard to how unpopular Robert was and the strange and suspicious death of his wife, which ignited rumors that Elizabeth and Dudley had something to do with it. I don't know why film adaptations shy away from that story when it feels too dramatic to be true.
I was so disgusted with the treatment of Robert in "Elizabeth," that I refused to watch the sequel.
I also hated the fact the first film put Elizabeth in "white makeup" when she was still a young woman. Ugh!
Good thoughts.
However I think the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth in the first scene was quite well set even if not accurate.
It represented Mary’s “confinement” and loneliness without obviously stating her pregnancy troubles blatantly. Nuanced well
I watched Elizabeth 1 when it was released in cinemas and still like to occasionally watch both movies. Guilty pleasure😊
Cate Blanchett is Elizabeth I!! she is incredible!!!!
I suspect they cut the "heart and stomach of a king" line from Golden Age because they used it already (somewhat modified) in the first film, in which she says:
"I may be a woman, Sir William, but if I choose I have the heart of a man! I am my father's daughter. I am not afraid of anything."
I think that when they made the 1998 film, they had no clue they would be able to make a sequel. So they just did their best to fit in all of Elizabeth I's most iconic quotes and sentiments. But then I'd bet they felt a little weird about repeating that one line when they found themselves making Golden Age a full nine years later. Though I personally think they should have just included it, since it was heavily tweaked the first time anyway.
I love the usage of Mozart's Requiem in the hair cutting scene. It didn't get written for another 200 years. 😂
Eh? It's not diagetic - it's part of the movie's score.
@@skepticalbadger yes I know. It's just something I noticed since it is one of my favourite pieces of music. It's always bothered me for some reason lol not saying it was a bad choice, just saying it stands out to me every time I watch it. 🤷🏻♀️
I have always enjoyed the 1995 BBC production of The Virgin Queen. One of my favorites.
Yes, the 2005 mini-series was brilliant (and subsequently overlooked in favour of later productions). Anne-Marie Duff was an excellent Elizabeth, and I thought that the insular machinations of court were very well represented. Ian Hart as William Cecil was also a great choice.
She never comments on the cathedral like castles in both films. This bothered me a lot because Tudor places were rabbit-warrens of halls and rooms.
I'm so excited about watching this later
Me too. Have to watch this again.
Love Dr. Paul!! Thank you for this video
I think that was the wrong Thomas Howard portrait painting that came up there, that was the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, the one who Ecclestone is playing is the 4th Duke of Norfolk of the same name. The 3rd died in his early 80's whereas the 4th was the one who was executed during Elizabeth's reign.
Interesting thought that occurred during the coronation scene: that was the last coronation of the King/Queen of England that wasn't also K/Q of Scotland, as James I/VI was her successor
Mary Tudor is played by the fabulous Kathy Burke in Elizabeth. She's very well known in Britain but more as a comedian, comedic actress and writer. But, occasionally, she'll do these more heavy dramatic roles, and it's always fun to watch. She's also in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Nil by Mouth, perhaps her greatest dramatic turn. She was awarded best actress at Cannes for her role in that film.
*Cate* Blanchett is perfection in this.
Love a deep dive: thank you!
Great content, thank you.
As a kid, seeing this particular movie set me on a Tudor reading road that lead to a British History reading road that continues all these decades later
Fantastic video
The most accurate depiction of Queen Elizabeth I put on screen is without a doubt, the 2005 Tom Hooper miniseries, "Elizabeth I", with Helen Mirren playing Queen Elizabeth I. The 1971 TV series, "Elizabeth R.", starring Glenda Jackson, is a close second.
The Kate Blanchett movies don't even close.
But you can't deny the presence and vibe of the Kate Blanchett versions
Thanks for the referrals
Rot. Never saw Jackson on a horse.
Well, two British series compared to US films. The British version should be a lot more accurate. Series also have more time to cover events.
No, Glenda Jackson played the role the best. Those outside the UK may not know her. She played her as close to records.
Hey it may not be perfect but holy CRAP did Kate Blanchett chew the scenery!
Scenery-chewing is not supposed to be a compliment...
I'd like to hear a neurologist's or doctor's analysis of what beheading would be like. She was most certainly praying during those fifteen minutes? Lifted from Wikipedia:
"Physiology of death by decapitation-
Unconsciousness occurs within seconds without circulating oxygenated blood (brain ischemia). Cell death and irreversible brain damage occurs after 3-6 minutes with no oxygen, due to excitotoxicity."
So according to that, any lip movement after 6 minutes was reflexive twitching.
PLEASE do a break down of the Helen Mirren 'Elizabeth I' Limited Series from 2005.
You can see calais from certain high points in kent.
I like the content warning at the start. Some people indeed find historical inaccurary distressing.
Great presentation. Thank you.
And how great is Cate Blanchett! One of the great talents of our (Cate and I being about the same age) generation.
This was bloody interesting..thank you so much for your insights.
Love this woman, and this video series in general. Instant click
Helen Mirren gets to do the 'body of a weak and feeble woman' line in Elizabeth 1. Also a great film. 😉
I'm looking forward to watching this! Your house of Dudley book was very well written
I'm banned from watching Tudor stuff on TV with anyone else as I can't keep my mouth shut when it comes to unrealistic scenes or actors
I have a master's in history and hopefully a PHD one day too
Here goes .......I'm going to watch your up load now
The 'heart of a king' was actually used in the first film which is why I suspect they didn't use in the second
Mmmm Clive Owen is the beautiful one... : ) But I love how Cate says "a p-huddle!" I take on that attitude a lot.
my love of these movies growing up is what helped to get me into history, though i now do classical history and archaeology. that being said, my name is Casey Creech, but my REAL last name is Beaton - my family is what is left of Clan Beaton, and we have an ancestral castle called Creich Castle. my ancestors include Lady Mary Beaton, one of Mary Stuart’s Four Marys, and Cardinal David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, Scottish Ambassador to France for James V of Scotland, Papal legate of Scotland, and the last Cardinal before the Reformation 🙃 he kind of sucked and was assassinated but it happens i guess 🤷🏻♀️
Of all the inaccuracies in Tudor films, I don’t think Elizabeth and Mary meeting is an issue itself because of the letters like said here. Like in the Mary Queen of Scotts film from 1970s starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. The Margot Robbie and Saoirse Ronan one was terrible. But the symbolism here is powerful.
Man Galadriel gets around. I think she wore a big headress and threw swords in another little franchise.
One of my favourite Elizabeth the first looks is from the the tv series a discovery of witches..
"I have a Hurricane in me' Oh god... now I realize wherre those hacks from Rings of Power sttole the infamous 'there is a tempest in me' scene. Stole this as they have stolen so so much more, I guess.
I think the all time benchmark for Elizabeth I, at least how I imagine her from what I have read about her (not sure how historically accurate it is) is Glenda Jackson in the miniseries Elizabeth R from the 1970's. Personally, I think Cate Blanchett was at least take some notes from her (particularly the deep voice she uses).
Dr Who should have been at the coronation of Charles III.
I love these movies very much, and very closely identify with Cate's character. These scenes are hard for me to watch, particularly the "Confess!" as if I had been there myself. It's why I have such a hard time with christianity in general. Similar accusation happened to me.
Is this a new version of old content?
I think it's an extended version of a segment from old content
Never liked these movies
The first one is OK, but the second is not much. The Tilbury speech scene is rubbish. If you are making an historical movie , especially with such a famous speech surely you should respect history
Great stuff !! I would love to get her take on the Gunpowder series (HBO).👍👍
I'm so glad you bought up the eyes!!! The eyes are essentially the bolyn and Elizabeths charm. That was one of issues with the film
I loved both of these movies and it spurred my interest into learning more about Elizabethan England. Thats where I learned how inaccurate the movie was. And when it was time to watch the sequel I was better prepared and as a Virginian seeing Clive Owen return from Virginia in 1588 with native americans and indigenous food I was laughing at how ridiculous it had gotten but still enjoyble movies.
58:34 Sorry Dr Paul, you are wrong. One can stand on the White Cliffs of Dover and see Calais on a clear day. A large battle that size with dozens of warships afire would clearly be seen from the Kent coast in England. You are correct that Tilbury is found in the mouth of the Thames. It has no cliffs and faces North. Add to the fact it is around 60 miles away from Calais as the crow flies over the county of Kent.
thx for pointing that out. I have had the same though when she said that.
Thanks.
Shot in film, what a gorgeous movie
I'm surprised to see such a positive review by a Tudor historian. Both films have a lot of problems and I'm not sure why we are being so gentle about it here. Just to name one: While it was great to not have Mary & Elisabeth meeting, it's a nonsense presentation to have her speaking English with a Scottish accent. If she had an accent after all, it would have been French, since she grew up at the French Court and spend many years there. She even was the actual Queen of France (vs. the English only claiming to be)
I always wondered why they didn't give Cate brown contacts!
Dr Paul said, near the beginning, that it was a shame that they couldn’t make her have the dark eyes that she inherited from her mother, but apparently the actress couldn’t wear the contacts.
@@lauragutierrez893 Yes, I know, that's why I made the comment. Glad to finally know.
@@brightphoebesays Sorry, I misread your comment as you wondering why they hadn’t and I thought maybe you’d missed that part, sorry. Blame it on brain fog and tiredness, I have slept about 5 hours in the last 72.
was that lilly allen in the dance scene ??
Great performances, but not Oscar-winning. She was nominated for best actress for both Elizabeth movies, but didn't win either. Cate did win BAFTA and Golden Globe awards for her first performance of Elizabeth, but her Oscars were for roles in other movies. Suspect they didn't include the "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman... etc" line in her speech at Tilbury because they already anachronistically had her say that line in the first film.
With 8 out of 10 for the first movie - how much would you give for a lot better productions such us the 2 parts with Helen Mirren?
The representation of all foreigners is really disgusting. However looking back I liked to have a more nuanced version of Mary Queen of Scots in "The golden age". Samantha Morton maybe the best actress in both movies by the way.
Wouldnt mary queen of scots sound French?
Oui
The number of adverts is appalling
Premium family plan fixes that. Js
These 2 movies are riddled with inaccuracies one is almost lost as where to begin. Just a few spring to mind regarding the first film, Elizabeth. The muddled time-line is annoying. Archbishop Stephen Gardner could not have been involved in a plot to over-throw Elizabeth the queen because he died in 1555 before she ever become queen. Elizabeth and Dudley were not together at Hatfield House in 1553/4 because Dudley was locked up in the Tower of London ( where he and Elizabeth did see each other ). An assassination attempt on Elizabeth involving a "poisoned dress" is not known to have happened; nor is an attempt to kill her with a crossbow in the early years of her reign. Walsingham really only became a trusted adviser to the queen around 1570, years after Elizabeth was crowned. The screenplay is fast and loose over the 4th. Duke of Norfolk - the false scenarios and role he plays are many. Visually, the use of Durham Cathedral as a Tudor palace, as Joanne Paul does state, is ridiculous and bizarre and Hatfield House is nothing like the castle depicted in the film. Although in the second film, Tilbury has flat terrain and Calais is not visible from there, nor almost anywhere else in England except the area immediately around Dover Castle ( which is on cliffs ). Michael Hirst who wrote both screenplays must have had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek with his efforts.
The Blanchett movies avoided the truth whenever possible.
It's funny how Protestants always come out squeaky clean in any of these depictions of post-Reformation conflicts. I would love to see a movie about poor Henry VIII defending himself heroically against those evil, snarling papist monks! Wow, I love history!
Henry viii was never a Protestant? He was a reformer but a devout catholic until he died. Clearly you don’t love history
@@LindsayEllison-ih2hd My comment was not directed at history itself but at revisionist depictions of it, which these and other movies clearly are. Henry may have continued observing the Roman rite but in dissolving papal authority and seizing the property he was denying the apostolic succession and therefore no longer a Catholic, however one may feel about that. Dr. Paul herself mentioned that the portrayals of Catholics here are clearly meant to demonize them. That is what I was talking about here.
@@ralph0149 but he didn’t get rid of apostolic succession? He was a fervent Catholic in everything but papal authority.
@@LindsayEllison-ih2hd the pope represents the apostolic succession. He is the latest in the line from Peter, Linus, Clement and so on. To flout papal authority IS to deny the succession.
@@ralph0149 no he is a part of the succession. The apostolic succession refers to bishops. All bishops consecrated post reformation under Henry viii were done so in RC schism. And pope was bishop of Rome, whose authority Henry considered under that of a king.
Was that the Duke of Anjou? I thought he was meant to be someone who was a candidate early in Elizabeth’s reign for her hand, who turned out to be probably gay. Maybe they mashed those historical figures together as one character.
Oh...Tom Hardy will always be my Robert Dudley.
"She also appears to be in cave or something. She would have been in a palace..."
A stone palace without electric lights. It would had taken a LOT of candles to make it not look like a cave at night.
History Movies usually have no problem puttung dozens and dozens of candles everywhere. This was propably done to make her look like a villan in the dark.
The walls in Tudor era castles were cover in cloth-of-gold/cloth-of-silver tapestries. The walls absolutely sparkled from refacted candlelight, adding to the lighting in the room.
@@krn2683 Exactly. It's also why candlesticks would often have a mirror or gold/silver/metal backing - the candlelight would be reflected and amplified in it (not sure if it was already done in Tudor times, but I don't see why not). In general, it's almost surprising how much light a single candle can give off if you place it higher. There's no reason why someone who had plenty of money to afford candles would not treat themselves to them (if only as a status symbol). What would be the point of wearing all those expensive fabrics and jewels if you can't show them off nicely?
@@krn2683 you can try some experimental archeology by hanging up a light color and dark color sheets behind a candle and seeing how the brightness changes. Or doesn't change.
A typical candle produces around 13 lumens of light, going in all directions. A perfect reflector behind it can double the useful light shining into the room, to maybe 26 lumens. A typical electric light bulb produces about 800 lumens. You would need 30+/- candles to equal a single light bulb.
And I imagine the expensive clothes and jewelry were viewed in the daytime.
Didn't they burn heretics to purify their souls?
It was to share the love of the Roman Catholic Church for God
@@DBEdwards Yes a really warm toast love.
she is really cute
Im just here for this pretty girl
cool.
I think the Tilbury speech is poorly done. Elizabeth in a full suit of armor astride a horse? That is absurd. As others have said, Helen Mirren does a much better job - and delivers the key lines (". . . but I have the heart and stomach of a king . . ."). That miniseries is far superior to these two movies.
A "few" historical quibles....lol
Kangz? 🤔
Cate Blanchett and all the other actors are wonderful, but I can’t stand these movies - terribly inaccurate regarding the history and relationships
Wooooould
Don't bring politics into it or Metatron and his lackeys will get'cha
Second
"Raaa - lay"
This is the first time I've been put off a history video after a single, solitary word.
Congratulations, History Hit - excellent work.
Must admit, am struggling and confused by the pronunciation here!
@@lauragutierrez893 Was there more of the it?
I'm afraid I bailed after the first word - an hour is a long time to give up to sub standard content.
It's a pity - I've enjoyed some History Hit content.
@@ianmacfarlane1241Dr Paul gives her opinion here and pretty good factual corrections regarding timelines etc. She is a self admitted Dudley fan and has written a book about him. She points out, many times!, in her review of the second film where he is absent completely and that they have in fact used Raleigh as a stand in for both Dudley and Drake.
Oh great, the feminist activist historian is back. Won't be watching this one. For an actual historical review of these movies I encourage everyone to watch History Buff's videos on the subject
exceeds this one by a country mile in terms of quality.
No offence to History Buff, whose videos I also very much enjoy, but to reject the opinion of someone who actually specialises in the era in question, and to prioritise instead someone who (as the name itself implies) simply has a general interest in history, just because the specialist is [checks notes] aah, a FEMINIST... Yeah, that says more about you than her. Also, she's simply following the format of these "historian talks about x" videos, which by definition gives her less freedom to point everything out than someone with their own channel like History Buff, and she clearly comes from a gentler perspective than him, where she accepts movies for what they are and looks for the positives instead of raging that they aren't documentaries.
My goodness, you sound so insufferable and judgemental. Who cares if she's a feminist?? That doesn't take away from her intelligence on this subject that she specializes in.
@@AW-uv3cb So...in your opinion this video is less factually accurate and knew would get more information from watching the channel I suggested? Ok, thanks for agreeing with me! Also, if you can't see why someone wouldn't want to listen to a historian who is clearly biased due to her own radical political and social beliefs resulting in her knowledge likely being skewed then I guess you've likely entirely misunderstood why I choose not to listen to her.
Yes what would be the point of shaving the heads of the condemned, unless they wanted the hair for wig making... I found that scene upsetting. I always find very short hair on women upsetting because of this scene, and because of chemo cancer treatment patients. Why would any woman want to evoke either?
Do you find bald men upsetting too?
Because she finds it comfortable? Because it suits her personal style? Because she makes the choice based on her own priorities and it's got nothing to do with chemo or convicts? Seriously, are you for real? I used to wear a pixie cut because I just liked the way it looked on me and I liked not having to dry it and style it. I also have friends who'd shave their heads for that very same reason and they looked great. The thought of any cancer or convict association never even entered our minds, lol, so if that's all you can think about when you see short hair on a woman, and you're actually upset by what other women do with your hair... seriously, are you actually for real? It's a bizarre take.
@@TheEnecca Yes
@@AW-uv3cb Well now you know what some of us think but never said so. I'm allowed to say what I think in a youtube comment btw. I wasn't saying it to you.
Darlings, I had to laugh at Protestant Heretic !