I am an incredible sucker for films with historical settings, no matter what the genre – and, occasionally, no matter what the quality. In the past, I have sometimes found myself developing a sneaking affection for films and television series that aren’t exactly known for their quality (here’s looking at you, Mummy remake. And you, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys...), simply because said films and T.V. shows unfold in a historical (or at least quasi-historical) era in which I have some interest.
I suppose much of my affection for historical pieces stems from the fact that I majored in history while in college; I have never completely gotten my fascination with the subject out of my system.
That said, I have rarely been too upset when a film takes a bit of liberty with the historical record. As long as a given film justifies these liberties by telling a story in an artful and interesting way, I’m usually able to make my peace with the decision to fudge the facts.
For example: Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth (1998) condensed the events of many years into a narrative chronology of roughly twelve months; it killed off historical characters in manners (and at times) that completely diverged from the historical record; it changed the ages of certain characters; and it altered the stature and importance of others.
And yet, in watching a film like Elizabeth, I really don’t mind these changes. The film is well acted, marvelously shot, and exciting.
I’ve had a similar reaction to many other historical films. I will even admit to having quite enjoyed A Knight’s Tale (which features a good-natured performance by the late Heath Ledger), director Brian Helgeland’s wholly anachronistic jousting film, in part because it made no secret of the fact that it was gleefully tearing up the history of England and laying waste to the biography of Geoffrey Chaucer. The film had no pretentions of being a serious historical document.
Of course, even I can’t find it in myself to love all films set in the past. For every quality historical film (or, as in the case of A Knight’s Tale, every film that’s at least good goofy fun), there is another that is a genuine dud: films, like Wyatt Earp or Cleopatra, which bore the viewer to tears.
So where am I going with this?
A few days ago I noticed that The Other Boleyn Girl (a film based on Philippa Gregory’s novel) will open in theatres in roughly one week’s time. The film’s plot hinges on an interesting historical moment (the beginnings of Henry VIII’s relationship with Anne Boleyn), and while Henry VIII isn’t exactly fresh cinematic territory, I am frequently interested in seeing the machinations of Tudor England play out on screen. Unfortunately, the few things that I’ve read about the film aren’t all that encouraging (see some of those reviews here and here); the film’s trailer has also struck me as a bit unexciting and clichéd. Of course, trailers can be misleading, and I do not like to judge a film without seeing it myself – but I’m not holding out much hope for this one… sigh. I’ll have to hope, I guess.
In the meantime, however, I thought I’d generate a list of films (or, in two cases, a miniseries and a sitcom) that deal with the English monarchy in ways I find to be interesting (or at least entertaining). To delineate my rather simple criteria: the movie must deal directly with a monarch and/or his or her family and household. This immediately disqualifies a film like Shakespeare in Love, in which Elizabeth I appears but briefly, or any of the film versions of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood, in which King Richard often appears as a purely incidental player.
Beckett (1964)
This film, directed by Peter Glenville, stars Peter O’Toole in his first appearance as King Henry II, and Richard Burton as Thomas a Beckett, an old friend whom Henry appoints Archbishop of Canterbury in the hope of easing his difficulties with the Church. It doesn’t, and the two men’s friendship winds up being severely tested. The film, while certainly not the greatest historical drama ever made, is a sturdy piece of work that benefits hugely from the work of its two leads, as well as a fine supporting cast that includes John Gielgud.
The Lion in Winter (1968)
O’Toole plays Henry II again in this 1968 film, directed by Anthony Harvey. This time O’Toole stars opposite Katharine Hepburn (who plays Henry’s exiled wife, Katharine of Aragon), and while the film is solid all around, it is most memorable for being a superb showcase for its two leads. They are fantastic, dominating their every scene without undermining the other actors. James Goldman’s script provides them ample opportunity to shout some particularly good dialogue at each other. An excellent musical score by John Barry (who also composed the James Bond theme) highlights the action.
Elizabeth (1998)
Shekhar Kapur’s excellent film does, as I have already mentioned, play fast and loose with a number of historical details. By the end, however, the viewer is fully prepared to grant him the right to these alterations, so exciting and stylish is the film. The cast is excellent, but this is unquestionably Cate Blanchett’s movie. She dominates the frame, and is utterly convincing playing an intelligent but slightly naïve woman who unexpectedly ascends the throne, becoming a canny and ruthless leader in the process. The closing minutes of the movie owe a great deal to The Godfather.
A far better film than its 2007 sequel, The Golden Age.
Elizabeth I (2005)
This time it is Helen Mirren’s turn to play Queen Elizabeth, and she is extraordinarily good in the role. Originally aired on HBO, this miniseries explores the later years of Elizabeth’s reign, her long romance with Robert Dudley (Jeremy Irons), and her foolhardy dalliance with Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Mirren does an excellent job of conveying Elizabeth’s commanding presence and intelligence, as well as her humanity. She is supported by a fine cast and a literate script, but this is Mirren’s show all the way.
Blackadder II & Blackadder the Third (1986/1987)
That’s right – I’ve just gone and put a twenty-year old British sitcom on this list. Those who know what Blackadder is may understand why I’ve listed its second and third seasons here, but I’m willing to bet that there are a number of people who have never even heard of the show.
The premise of the series is simple enough: each of the show’s four seasons follows the exploits of a particular member of the Blackadder family tree (all named Edmund, all played by Rowan Atkinson) during some particular era in history.
The show’s second season, Blackadder II, follows the title character as he serves in the court of an infantile, vaguely demented Elizabeth I (played with gleeful gusto by Miranda Richardson). The third season follows yet another Blackadder (Atkinson again), now working as a conniving, tenuously loyal servant for George, England's stupendously stupid Prince Regent (Hugh Laurie, in his pre-House days).
Elizabeth and George may be supporting players in these two seasons, but they are major supporting players. They appear in every almost every episode and are crucial to the action. They are also so well played by Richardson and Laurie that the characters become (in their own bizarre, delirious ways) almost believable incarnations of these historical figures. Almost.
Richardson plays Elizabeth like an overgrown brat suffering from a mild case of lunacy; she is so clearly having fun playing this role that the viewer is perfectly willing to go along for the ride.
And few people play blustering idiots better than Hugh Laurie. Those who have only seen him on House will know that he is a good actor, and that he can be quite funny when he chooses to be. Those people owe it to themselves to watch him here as the buffoonish Prince Regent. He essentially steals the entire season right out from under the feet of Rowan Atkinson and the rest of the cast. His interaction with frequent collaborator Stephen Fry (playing a particularly nasty Duke of Wellington) in the seasons' sixth episode, for example, is a classic of physical and verbal comedy.
Black Adder III
Add to My Profile More Videos
Mrs. Brown (1997)
Judi Dench plays Queen Victoria and Billy Connolly plays John Brown, a lowly member of Victoria’s staff who gains her trust and affection in the years following the death of her husband, Prince Albert. Their close friendship, of course, causes gossip and rumor in Victorian England. The two leads are excellent, lending a great deal of weight, believability, and genuine feeling to this modest story. Worth a watch.
The Queen (2006)
Or, Helen Mirren strikes again. Here she plays that ‘other’ Queen Elizabeth. She is excellent, this time managing the difficult feat of humanizing a queen often perceived as overly distant and formal. The heart of the film, however, lies in the relationships between the Queen and Tony Blair (a thoroughly convincing Michael Sheen) and the Royal Family and its subjects. A very good film.
No comments:
Post a Comment