I went to watch Elizabeth – the Golden Age – as I had mentioned a few weeks back and I was pretty impressed, despite a few jarring notes (Francis Drake barely gets a mention in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, rather like overlooking Nelson at Trafalgar). But the film was overall good entertainment, if not dead-accurate scholarship. One thing stuck in my mind on the way home: the man who played Philip II of Spain was very convincing in the role of a religious maniac, a man swinging between rhapsodies of hatred for Elizabeth and tearful despair. I thought to myself: “This guy looks like a stunt double for the current leader of Iran”. I mean, he really does. Creepy.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Something from the moviesNovember 12th, 2007 |
 22 comments to Something from the movies |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yes it was a good Philip II – even down to the bow legs.
Like a spider at the centre of a web – but an incompetant spider (thanks be for that).
Your account is better than the Daily Telegraph review -you note that Drake WAS mentioned (although not enough) as was Howard. Of course Elizabeth getting on in years was also mentioned (more than once) – indeed the ageing of the Queen was a central theme.
The final battle is shown in symbolic form – something the reviewers did not grap.
However, film and television reviewers tend to make such mistakes as thinking that flashbacks are time travel – so I suppose we must be greatful that their reviews have any connection at all with what they have supposedly watched.
I like the way that the film did not whitewash Elizabeth or Walsingham (for example Walsingham did indeed use torture – although he had to pay for the instuments and torturer himself) – but also showed that their enemies were worse.
Had Spain defeated England, the Dutch would also have fallen.
A form of Counter Reformation Catholic Church (very different from the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation) would have come to control of Europe – and it would have been a Catholic Church under the thumb of statism of the type shown by the Spanish Crown (allied to the Empire in Europe).
All liberty in Europe – not just religious, but scientific, civil, and economic, would have been crushed.
” but also showed that their enemies were worse.”
Nonsense. Elizabeth was at the head of a theocracy ( for what else was a state a head of State also head of the established religion) who persecuted her catholic citizens – which the movie admitted were 50% of the population during the middle of her reign – they did not convert because of personal choice alone, but because of the penal laws, in particular the ban on public office, and the recusant tax , which she raised to extraordinary levels.
England would have had a nutty bottom-up protestant revolution anyway( the descendants of which are seen to this day in the cesspool of far-right bible belt christianity in the US) but the majority would have stayed Catholic without state sponsored theocratic laws*
The movie was atrocious. A protestant myth for a protestant people.
* which to be fair also discriminated against the dissenting bible munchers.
Damn right and a damn good one as well. Magnificent cinematography, as one is accustomed to from Kapur, with some amazing shots of Wells, Winchester and Ely cathedrals doing great jobs standing in for Richmond and Whitehall Palaces. Very enjoyable re-telling of an often done tale, albeit with a hefty dose of poetic license about Raleigh, Elizabeth and certainly about poor Mary Queen of Scots who spoke with a French accent and certainly not with a slight Glaswegian one.
eoin – victory for Spain would also have been very bad for the Roman Catholic Church (for example, in Spain the “Holy Office” was under the control of the State not the Church).
As for England – Elizabeth was not concerned with making widows into men’s souls. It was not a matter of theology it was a matter of poltical loyalty (although on religion – if half the population were Roman why was the death of bloody Mary greated with joy?)
On regulations there were indeed many harmful regulations in England (even leaving aside the religous ones) – but regulations were far worse in Spain.
And Spain had an administration to put these regulations INTO PRACTICE.
The economic regulations in England were a dead letter – especially in the north.
Had Counter Reformation forces of the type Philip II represented won, England would have had the administrative structure imposed upon it – as would Holland and the rest of Europe.
In short England and all Europe would have shared the decline that Spain was to suffer in the 17th century.
But, Mr. Paul Marks, the movie isn’t about the history. It’s engaged in the usual English provincialiams, where they are the wonderful enlightened people against the ludicrously evil Spanish oppressors. And ignoring how brutal a tyrant Elizabeth herself was. She gets to prance around in armor and talk about vague freeedom-loving things.
Not so Patrick.
For example, Walsingham’s use of torture is shown – as is the short temper of the Red Haired Elizabeth herself.
As for armour – she did wear it.
Is it my fault that the lady was a Red Neck? Of course Elizabeth was also very bookish (for example she was a much better scholar than Philip II was) – but then Red Necks sometimes are (which comes as a shock to the left).
Religion is complicated.
For example the Christianity that the first Patrick supported in Ireland had no place for clerical celibacy (among the ordinary clergy) and had little connection to Rome.
And even if we are only concerned with the position of the Pope – you must remember what side the Pope supported in between William III and James II.
The Pope supported William III – and for good reason, James II was a puppet of Louis XVI.
And a Europe dominated by Philip II would have had his foot on the neck of the Church just as much as a Europe dominated by Louis XVI a century later. A more far seeing Pope would not have supported Philip. But then a Pope (Pius V – at least I think it was) also celebrated the massacre of St. Bartholomew in France in 1572 – not seeing that it harmed the reputation of the Roman Catholic cause more than any other single event.
For example, guess who was in France at the time – Walsingham. Such events convinced him that Catholics could not be trusted, that sworn word meant nothing to them. This is very bad theology (it is not what Roman Catholic doctrine) but it was sound political observation.
Certainly Roman Catholics were oppressed in Ireland (against the will of William) and this was a great crime – but the Dutch Blue Guard never doubted that they were fighting on the right side.
And do you know what religion must of them were?
Alas for my malcoordinated fingers and my senile brain – of course the Louis opposed in 1690 was Louis XIV.
Many years ago a book was published which posited the consequences of a successful Armada & Spanish hegemony….the ‘non-discovery’ of electricity and, among others, communication by (very efficient) semaphore……right up to modern times (publication).
Does anyone remember the book and/or its title?
I covered some of the same territory on my site….primarily regarding the torture angle, and our current practices in the U.S.
(Link)
Eoin confuses me…in the same entry he seems to be defending Catholicism against what he says is Protestant propaganda, then insulting Christianity in general. I know Protestants and Catholics have their differences, albeit small outside Ireland in this day and age, but they’re all Christians. And the hysterical handwringing over theocracy, huh, most nations in that era did have national religions…weren’t the now Swedes and Norwegians officially all Calvinists at the time? So by his definition they’d practically ALL be theocracies. Of course I could just be feeding the trolls, if so, sorry.
Permanentexpat – you might be thinking of Keith Roberts’ “Pavane”
The leaders of all major states at the time were in the same category; the question is how they wanted to go in enforcing it; given the Inquisition’s horrors, I think I know which was worse.
A prediction that one cannot prove or disprove, I’m afraid.
English provincialism?
Yeah, right, whatever! Drake was one of the first people to circumnavigate the world, the great state of Virginia is named for Elizabeth, the greatest Empire the world has ever seen was founded by us… Elizabeth’s story is a myth, a deep myth, almost a foundational myth for modern England and therefore the modern world. In anycase the Tudors were Welsh so blame RAB.
There is a Borges short story about a leopard suffering in a medieval menagerie and at the end of it’s appallingly tramelled life God tells the leopard it’s purpose in life and the reason why God allowed it’s suffering – to inspire a single line of Dante. I don’t care about the historical truth of Elizabeth, I care about the myth of the weak and feeble woman who had the heart and stomach of a King, and a King of England. I suspect a fair few of the lads who defended us all in 1940 were inspired by that.
Anyway, I’d rather be ruled by the Virgin Queen than by an inbred Hapsburg or indeed a miserable Scottish solicitor.
Squarkbox:
Yes….many thanks.
Sheesh! I knew it would all be my fault somehow.
Ok we fess up. It was all a dastardly Druid plot to destroy the Catholic Church. Worked like a dream!
I havent seen the film yet but I think I will now. I could do with a bit of straightforward patriotic uplift for a change, instead of being the bad guys all the effin time!
On torture. When I was in Ischia Castle on holiday, they had a torture museum there. Some really nasty devices indeed.The male chastity device was amazing.Like a sheath of metal plates enclosing the right honourable, with nails sticking out. Take that to a gay orgy and you’d be man of the match!
The thing is though, torture was part of the penal code. It was mandatory unless the victim confessed straight away. There were strict rules to it. You could only torture people for one hour in every 24.
Can you imagine almost getting a confession at the end of the first hour, but not quite!?
Off you go then Pepe, back to your cell. Same time tommorrow?
This continued right up to the 19th century.
Well, exactly RAB,
I once saw a cheery exhibition of “implements of the inquisition” in La Mancha (I think). What struck me most was the spiked iron chair that they would heat to red-hot, confine the poor sod to, and then (as if that wasn’t enough) do other things as well.
I am under a D-notice from certain members of the commentariat so I shall not divulge the details of the “rectal pear”. Suffice to say it wouldn’t have gone down (or should that be “up”) well at a gay orgy. Unless it was one hosted (allegedly) by Michael Barrymore.
Oy.
Yes, I hear that thankfully Mr Barryore won’t be doing Aladdin this year ….
Yeah, Julian but you heard the BBC are going to pilot his sitcom, “Only Pools and Corpses”.
Hey, “Nick M” is clickable now – should I go take a look? Why, I just might!
…which is why they’re called the “good old days” by us conservatives.
:=P
“Putting the question” was indeed part of the divide between the English Common Law and the “Roman Law” of Europe.
Walsingham used torture to get information (to prevent plots) – not to win convictions.
It was rare – not the standard of the system.
“That does not matter, once you cross the line you are as bad as the enemy and….”
O.K. fine, whatever.