One must remember when watching historical costume dramas, that historical costume dramas are not history. However, if you take too many liberties with history, the drama is unlikely to be successful.
As an aspiring historian specialising in the Tudor and Elizabethan periods, I was interested to hear that a production starring Helen Mirren, Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy had been announced for Channel 4. Before it aired, I read that the historian Dr David Starkey had been on set and was much impressed. So I had high expectations when the first episode came on.
Surely it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing film 'Elizabeth' (1998 starring Cate Blanchett). For me, Glenda Jackson will always be Elizabeth - her performance in 'Elizabeth R' makes you want to believe in reincarnation.
Helen Mirren in this drama is also excellent. Her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in her later years lets you see the woman behind the monarch. Jeremy Irons was good as the Earl of Leicester, her lover. The relationship between the Queen and Leicester was explored lightly in this production - not nearly as much as it focuses on Elizabeth and Essex (Dancy). Dancy made an superb Earl of Essex - he seems to have grasped the character with ease (the attitude, the stamina, the ambition) and probably deserves more credit than anyone for his performance. Many other members of the Queen's council were depicted accurately and exceptionally well (William Cecil's son in particular is notable here).
However...
Some of the historical inaccuracies were pretty annoying. I know all about dramatic effect etc, but a few of these liberties seemed pretty pointless. For example: (SPOILERS ALERT)
I also feel that they 'sexed up' the relationship between Elizabeth and Essex a bit in the second episode - just a bit, mind. The chemistry between these two was still portrayed very well, and I was very impressed (especially with Elizabeth's sudden change from being adoring to ruthless).
Talking of ruthlessness, the Tudor court is represented with a harsh realism of a sort. The executions (which aren't for people of a weak constitution, I might add), the arrests (noteably of the Queen's doctor), etc are very well put across and really make you think about how it was during the Elizabethan era.
What I really admire about this drama is the costumes! They are stunning, and very accurate for the time (unlike ITV's awful 'Henry VIII'). Simply lovely to look at.
I am very impressed with Channel 4's researchers on this series - they were obviously knowledgeable and any errors made were not too terrible, and simply for dramatic effect.
I thought that all the good costume dramas came from the BBC, but they better watch out, C4 is hard upon their heels... ;)
As an aspiring historian specialising in the Tudor and Elizabethan periods, I was interested to hear that a production starring Helen Mirren, Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy had been announced for Channel 4. Before it aired, I read that the historian Dr David Starkey had been on set and was much impressed. So I had high expectations when the first episode came on.
Surely it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing film 'Elizabeth' (1998 starring Cate Blanchett). For me, Glenda Jackson will always be Elizabeth - her performance in 'Elizabeth R' makes you want to believe in reincarnation.
Helen Mirren in this drama is also excellent. Her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in her later years lets you see the woman behind the monarch. Jeremy Irons was good as the Earl of Leicester, her lover. The relationship between the Queen and Leicester was explored lightly in this production - not nearly as much as it focuses on Elizabeth and Essex (Dancy). Dancy made an superb Earl of Essex - he seems to have grasped the character with ease (the attitude, the stamina, the ambition) and probably deserves more credit than anyone for his performance. Many other members of the Queen's council were depicted accurately and exceptionally well (William Cecil's son in particular is notable here).
However...
Some of the historical inaccuracies were pretty annoying. I know all about dramatic effect etc, but a few of these liberties seemed pretty pointless. For example: (SPOILERS ALERT)
- The meeting between Elizabeth and her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. (This never happened, their correspondence was in letters). I feel this scene lacked any real depth, and could've been so much more.
- Elizabeth being at Leicester's side when he died. Again, didn't happen. However, this scene was rather strong and you are made to feel sympathy for the Queen - who is losing the man whom she (perhaps) really trusts in a world full of treason and conspiracy.
I also feel that they 'sexed up' the relationship between Elizabeth and Essex a bit in the second episode - just a bit, mind. The chemistry between these two was still portrayed very well, and I was very impressed (especially with Elizabeth's sudden change from being adoring to ruthless).
Talking of ruthlessness, the Tudor court is represented with a harsh realism of a sort. The executions (which aren't for people of a weak constitution, I might add), the arrests (noteably of the Queen's doctor), etc are very well put across and really make you think about how it was during the Elizabethan era.
What I really admire about this drama is the costumes! They are stunning, and very accurate for the time (unlike ITV's awful 'Henry VIII'). Simply lovely to look at.
I am very impressed with Channel 4's researchers on this series - they were obviously knowledgeable and any errors made were not too terrible, and simply for dramatic effect.
I thought that all the good costume dramas came from the BBC, but they better watch out, C4 is hard upon their heels... ;)