Elizabeth
Elizabeth (Produced & Directed by Steven Clarke, 2000) Elizabeth is a 280-minute A&E/United Productions Channel 4 film biography of Elizabeth I based on the writings and lectures of famed Tudor scholar and historian Dr. David Starkey, who appears as both the program’s presenter, and on-screen commentator. The monumental scope of this four-part film covers the Virgin Queen’s childhood to her death in 1603.
I admit hesitating to review this film because Elizabeth’s life and reign has been covered in so many written, film biographies and fictional accounts that there would seem to be nothing new to glean from one more attempt to discuss her achievements again. My concerns were groundless, however, as Dr. Starkey’s insightful ideas and commentary often shed new light on “Good Queen Bess.” Starkey, for example, chucks the notion that Elizabeth may have feared men because of what some modern historians perceive as her father’s abuse toward her as a child. To be sure Henry VIII, after executing her mother, declared Elizabeth a bastard, and banished her from his court. He rarely invited Elizabeth back to court, and communicated with her through impersonal court messengers.
Dr. Starkey strongly suggests that Elizabeth, rather than hating or fearing her father, craved his affection as apparently some neglected children do. Of course, Henry never reciprocated her love. Starkey further contends it was the actions of Thomas Seymour, who had married Katherine Parr after Henry’s death, which may have caused Elizabeth to become wary of the attention of men. According to Starkey, the overly ambitious Seymour, who became her guardian, may have sexually molested the teenaged Elizabeth. He most certainly had designs on marriage with her. Edward VI’s advisors got wind of Seymour’s scandalous behavior and plotting, and had him executed in 1549.
This production does an excellent job in portraying Elizabeth, not as the iconic caricature portrayed in many texts and films, but as an intelligent, highly educated (a trait she shared with Henry and all of his offspring,) multi-faceted character whose reign was full of contradictions. Elizabeth, for example, begins her reign by stating her intention to remain unmarried and a virgin so she could devote her energies to ruling her kingdom. Although she sticks to this promise, her “real” reasons for remaining unmarried are still debated by historians, and Elizabeth kept this vow only at great personal cost.
Dr. Starkey contends that not only did Thomas Seymour’s aforementioned sexual advances make Elizabeth wary of men, but perhaps more importantly, her own desire for personal power drove her to spurn the marriage bed. Remember, Elizabeth, like her step sister, “Bloody” Mary, was attempting to project and maintain power in a man’s world. No easy thing to accomplish. Also, Elizabeth did fall in love, not once, but twice. Her first fling was with Robert Dudley, a courtier, who was already married. Dr. Starkey believes that Elizabeth would have forsaken her vow, and married him, but he was extremely unpopular at court, and his wife died under very suspicious circumstances. The queen would continue to bestow favors on Dudley throughout his life. It is not known just how intimate their relationship was. Her second serious love, which occurred later in life, was Henry, Duke of Anjou. Henry, much younger than Elizabeth, was the brother of Charles IX, king of France. Elizabeth even undertook a betrothal ceremony with him, but she shortly thereafter repudiated the contract due to political and religious considerations.
No account of Tudor or Stuart England can ignore the impact that religion had on English politics and society. When Henry VIII launched the Reformation in England, he unintentionally set off a powder keg that would reverberate throughout the 16th and 17th centuries and beyond. Dr. Starkey quite correctly identifies religion as the apparent underpinning for the real struggle for power that plagued England in these centuries, but I only wish he had made a more detailed distinction between the various religious factions competing for dominance in this period. Dr. Starkey only identifies Roman Catholics and Protestants as players in the power game. I assume he does this to make the intricacies of the time more comprehensible to the average viewer.
In reality, there were three competing religious factions in Tudor and Stuart England: Anglicanism; Roman Catholicism, and Puritanism, or Calvinism, if you wish. Anglicanism would become the mainstream official religion of the monarchy and the majority of the English people. Roman Catholics would be relegated to the fringes of the religious and political scene, and would remain a small, but fairly influential group throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. The last faction, the Puritans, started out as a small, but unified group, whose influence would grow throughout the period.
Elizabeth, in her hearts of hearts, identified with Puritans, but once again we see her all too contradictory human nature take center stage. When she assumes the throne, Elizabeth, puts aside her personal views, and declares Anglicanism, not Calvinism, the official religion of the realm. This was a shrewd, calculated move on her part, as she was attempting to adopt a middle ground to appeal to most of her subjects. At the same time Elizabeth adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude toward religious belief by allowing her Roman Catholic and Puritan subjects to discreetly, and in the case of Catholics privately, practice their faith as long as they do not “rock the boat.” Dr. Starkey points out that throughout her reign, Elizabeth occasionally ordered the execution of religious dissidents, especially Roman Catholics, but he makes it abundantly clear that these took place in the political context of plots, real and imagined, surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots, and Philip of Spain.
Throughout the film Dr. Starkey portrays Elizabeth as calculating and sometimes brutal. Her viciousness, at times, even seems to have exceeded that of her father, when she ordered the execution in 1569 of more than 700 Roman Catholics, not on religious grounds, but because they were accused of treason. Yet, he points out that Elizabeth could show a softer, more feminine side even when ordering the ultimate punishment for those accused of treason. She hesitated for months before ordering the death of the Earl of Norfolk, and kept Mary, Queen of Scots, imprisoned for almost 20 years before finally giving in to her advisors and ordering her decapitation. Starkey reports that Elizabeth actually wept after she ordered the execution of the Earl of Essex, who certainly deserved to die.
Dr. Starkey manages to project a sustained, well-balanced portrayal of his very interesting, multi-dimensional subject. Even during the “Gloriana” years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, he presents Elizabeth in very human terms. She is seen at the height of her popularity as still insecure in her power, and as a ruler whose administration had become somewhat stagnant and, even, corrupt. Elizabeth’s unwillingness and inability to decide on a successor persisted until the very end of her life. Dr. Starkey suggests that it was the younger Cecil, not Elizabeth personally, who settled on Mary Queen of Scot’s son, James Stuart, to succeed to the English crown as James I.
In closing, I believe both casual and expert viewers will be taken with this most interesting film. Dr. Starkey manages to make Elizabeth, arguably the most effective female ruler in Western history, come alive by portraying her both as a strong, decisive ruler, and simultaneously very human as she struggles to govern her kingdom, and to maintain her grasp on power.
Tom Ciani Raritan Valley Community College tciani@comcast.net
