Talk:Elizabeth: The Golden Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The portrayl of Spanish in Film[edit]

Something should be written about the strange portrayl of the Spanish. They were made to seem like swarmy mediteraneans akin to Islamic militants. I felt that the the portrayl was very negative, condecending, and overly exagerated. The messenger to Elizabeth did not even look Spanish but seemed more like a caricature of Spanish people being "Moors". There are people in Spain that look just like the British. What gives with the utter "non-European" portrayl of the Spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What did you expect from British Media types? Of course they are going to portray Spanish people as resembling Arabs. It fits their bogus racial supremacy theories despite scientific DNA data to the contrary. In actuality, Elizabeth I was not all she was cracked up to by the propagandistic British historical establishment. That mad woman embroiled England in a war(1585-1604) against Spain that actually bankrupted it and forced her successor, King James I, to sue for peace with Spain and sign a peace treaty that was largely on Spanish terms. Moreover, is it not strange that the only mention of that war that lasted from 1585 to 1604 was the Armada battle of 1588. All the great English heroes like Drake, Frobisher, Hawkins, Norreys and so forth either ended up either defeated or killed by Spanish ground and naval forces as they gradually gained the upper hand in that war after 1589. Even the romanticized Sir Walter Raleigh was executed by his own King under the threat of war from Spain after his violated the 1604 peace treaty by attacking a Spanish colony. I challenge any Anglo centric historical revisionist to refute all of my facts. If the maker of that movie cared about accuracy in portayal of the Spanish Ambassador, he should have referenced the left side of the following portait link painted by an English artist at Somerset House in 1604:

--Scipio-62 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


The film takes much artistic license and contains many, many historical inaccuracies. Many critics have noted this. If a published source has said something about the portrayal of the Spanish, it can be included in the article. I've found these:
Mary F. Pols of the Contra Costa Times said, "That's really the movie's overarching problem. It dances through history, making us feel as though such spectacles as the defeat of the Spanish Armada took place in the course of an afternoon, and that what really mattered was what everyone was wearing at the time."[1] Ed Gonzalez gave the film 1 1/2 stars out of 4 and said, "The way Elizabeth: The Golden Age tells it, the Spanish Armada's defeat by the British Empire was the orgasm The Virgin Queen never had."[2] Film critic Tony Medley wrote "It is told in such a histrionic and superficial manner by director Shekhar Kapur and writers William Nicholson and Michel Hirst, that the cast is left to thrash around to save it. The story of the destruction of the Spanish Armada is particularly noxious."[3]--Pixelface 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think some people may be missing the point here: the deciding factor in such portrayals in not the actual merits or otherwise of the Spaniards.
In this film the English are the Good Guys, and the English are fighting the Spaniards. Therefore the Spaniards have to be the Bad Guys, kick puppies and so forth, and in particular, be visually distinguishable from Englishmen. Hollywood considers it too confusing for moviegoers if both sides have both good and bad characteristics, or even worse, look alike.
If the film were about Wellington's peninsula campaign in the Napoleonic wars, the Spaniards would be Good Guys and act noble (although still having funny accents, of course).
Likewise, if Mel Gibson is winning the War of Independence for the United States, then the English have to be psychotic monsters. It's nothing personal. Paul Magnussen 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It did feel that the film was trying to call Spaniards 'Dirty Moors'. I mean for pete's sake does anyone remember the messenger that was sent to Elizabeth? The guy looked mixed black. And no that isn't saying that there is something wrong with being mixed black, but it clearly looked like the sterotypical portrayl of Spaniards being "Moors". I mean they didn't even try to portray them as Southern European (with the exception of Phillip). Just my opinion.

The fact remains it cast the Spaniards as two-dimensional malevolent, tree destroying - hehe, manipulative, ugly, evil, scheming etc etc in the most black and white terms (I may not be Spanish but I don't like my intelligence insulted). Such generalisations, obviously, have caused offence. Efforts to find published opinions as to this matter should be continued, at least to make the reader aware of issues regarding offensive racist content. (((It's such an average film it's going to go the way of all mediocre pictures - obscurity)))

In fact, I liked their portrayal. It's British payback for all the movies that portray the English and stuck-up, malevolent, scheming, backstabbing snobs. The only thing I didn't like is that the voices are too forced; they do not sound Spanish at all. For those of you not familiar with Spanish voices, Alatriste has some near-perfect examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. So British payback for all the movies that portray the English and stuck-up, malevolent, scheming, backstabbing snobs is just doing the same to others? The movie is as pro-British as it could have been. History is the victim here, though. (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people are overreacting here. If you actually watched the movie carefully, you would have noticed that King Phillip I and his daughter Princess Isabella, not to mention all the Spanish soldiers were shown to be fair-skin and exactly as how they were supposed to look like in real life. The only Spanish persons who had darker skin was the Spanish Ambassador to England. The actor in question seems to be of Indian ethnicity. Even so, many movies have actors who are not of the ethnicity of the characters they are playing. And for all we know that particular Spanish ambassador character could be mixed. So? Does everyone think that, just because he has darker skin, he cannot be Spanish? Does casting a character that has dark skin as the antagonist = being racist? Antagonists can be of all sorts of races/ethnicities and belong to all sorts of affiliations. If anything, the film portrays extremist Catholics unfavourably rather than targeting Spanish people or Catholics as a whole. Darker lighting is reserved for Elizabeth's enemies to of course, project the cliched imagery of good vs evil. Besides, this films protagonist is Queen Elizabeth I, of course it's going to be told from her perspective. People who opposed her are naturally going to be the film's antagonists. There is no good and evil in history, only different perspectives and ideologies.Mineowyn (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mineown, with regard to your quote;

"Does casting a character that has dark skin as the antagonist = being racist"

No one is trying to portray dark skinned people as as racists. But English speaking movies throughout it's history have clear pattern of portraying Spanish people as dark skinned racial bastards to suit their false racial dogma theories. Its that fake racial dogma that was promoted by English speaking writers throughout the centuries as a way of making the Spanish people less White and thus easier to hate by it's readership. This demonization of the Spanish people continues to this very day. I once saw a Benny Hill comedy skit where all the people at an open air Spanish market were portrayed as shoplifters. Not to mention the obvious phobic views of this dreadful and historically false movie in the way Spanish people are portrayed. I personally don't care if Spanish people are disliked in the UK, but continually promoting bankrupt racial theories lends credence to the many criticisms of this movie. --Scipio-62 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)


Claims of Anti-Catholicism[edit]

I’m going to edit this section because it’s long and its language is repetitive and not NPOV, giving the impression as it does that the criticism is entirely valid. Film critics aren’t historians. One of the critics quoted in the section also says other critics have all but ignored the church-bashing, which implies the perception isn’t widely shared among his colleagues. Lachrie 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is ridiculously long, it just repeats the same basic claim again and again in a very POV fashion. Not very encyclopaedic at all. Ranny11 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree wholeheartedly. It's a sensitive subject and requires significant elucidation. The section as it now stands is certainly NPOV. - Ledenierhomme 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is, in fact, POV. It's essentially the same sentence being repeated for every critic that has made mention of anti-catholicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this movie have scenes of blatant anti-Catholicism; for example when Mary is being executed, the Catholic aides with her are presented as demonic creatures. Obviously, since Shekhar Kapur is not a Christian at all, this film is not a "Protestant attack on Catholicism", rather an Secularist and Atheist attack on Christianity and religion in the West. You only have to read the left wing drivel he spouts in interviews to see what the deal is. - Bell of Le Ball (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies[edit]

I’m a bit troubled by this section. Some of the criticisms are very speculative and may be spurious. I think they should be sourced.

We don’t actually know if Mary Queen of Scots had a Scots accent or not. She wrote letters in Scots (which was still a language of state in that period) and could pronounce a speech ‘in Englishe with a verie good grace’.

I’ve also read at least one nineteenth-century account of a Portuguese crew huddling around a priest on the quarterdeck and praying in the middle of a storm, leaving the ship to be saved by the foreign passengers.

Elizabeth may not have addressed her troops astride a white steed while wearing a suit of shining armour, but after reviewing the recent secondary literature, it seems most historians are still inclined to accept the traditional story that she appeared on a horse, holding a marshal's baton and wearing a cuirass, with a page carrying a silver helmet before her. Several witnesses or contemporaries do allude to Elizabeth’s martial appearance on that occasion.

From Susan Frye, ‘The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury’, Sixteenth Century Journal 23/1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 95-114:

James Aske in Elizabetha Triumphans (1588) describes Elizabeth as 'an Amazonian Queene' reviewing her troops ‘Most bravely mounted on a stately steede / With trunchion in her hand (not used thereto) / And with her none, except her Liutenant.’ [Frye, p. 105]

According to Burghley’s ‘Letter to Mendoza’ (1601), at Tilbury the Earl of Ormonde carried the sword of state before her. [Frye, 96]

Dr. Leonel Sharp (1623), an eyewitness, writes: ‘The Queen the next morning rode through all the Squadrons of her Army, as Armed Pallas, attended by Noble Footmen, Leicester, Essex, and Norris, then Lord Marshall, and diverse other great Lords. Where she made an excellent Oration to her armie …’ [Frye, 101] Lachrie 08:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As for daggers and swords at court, a 1580 painting supposed to be of Elizabeth dancing with Leicester shows a seated courtier wearing a dagger in their proximity. Another painting of c. 1600 depicting Elizabeth with her ministers shows the queen preceded by gentlemen attendants armed with swords. Lachrie 09:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i heard sir walter did lead the ships after the spanish armada, infact he was lighting the way well chasing them during there retreat and stopped half way through to chase a spanish ship he thought was valuble —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the unsubstantiated charge that was made against Drake before the battle of Gravelines. Drake reported he had been checking out a group of Spanish sails sighted further out, and had extinguished his lamp so as not to cause confusion in the English fleet. Howard apparently accepted Drake's explanation, and the accusations were ignored. Raleigh may have been at sea, but he doesn't appear to have taken a prominent part in the battle. Instead Drake and Howard vied for the credit. Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The scene with the prayers and candles and iconography at sea isn't at all implausible. Doris K. Arjona, 'The English American on the Spanish Galleons', Hispania, 23/4. (Dec., 1940), p. 353, contains an account by Thomas Gage of a voyage on a Spanish ship in 1625 when Dominican friars lighted candles and prayed before an image of the Virgin Mary while on board a ship at sea: ' ... before midnight the wind turned to the north, which caused a sudden and general cry and uproar in ours and all the other ships ... hallowed wax candled were lighted by the friars, knees bowed to Mary, litanies and other prayers sung aloud to her till towards the dawning of the day ...' Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Very detailed information, Lachrie, thankyou!) (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)== Dramatic licence vs. Historical inaccuracies ==

Having read the public comments of the director and the lead reported in the press, I’m persuaded that the problem with using the negative term Historical inaccuracies in describing a film is that it’s value-laden, stigmatising and probably unjustifiable. It’s approaching drama from an overtly historicist point of view, which on reflection is actually quite unreasonable, in that it rests on and perpetuates a naïve expectation about what drama is and can be. The film-makers entertain no such illusions, and this actually explains their great freedom with the material. The creative process of selection and presentation means a film or a play can never be a literal rendering of events. Instead it uses a variety of figurative devices to transmit meaning. It’s clear from the approach the director has taken, and from his own explanations and those of Blanchett, that The Golden Age is intended to work as a sort of Camelot. It’s a conscious exercise in myth-making, and not a historical presentation. Treating it as if it were actively contributes to the confusion, rather than elucidating the nature of the artistic problem. Drama is emphatically not history, and in this case it is patently not pretending to be. A film has its own dramatic conventions, which terms like Dramatic licence or Artistic licence better encapsulate, without being prejudicial to the medium, which Historical inaccuracies can only ever be. I will therefore restore the change unless a better theoretical justification can be offered for abandoning it. Lachrie 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Dramatic License' may well include 'Historical Inaccuracies' but the former is a wider topic and the latter is specific. History was portrayed and, regardless of intent, history was portrayed wrongly at times. 'Dramatic License' may include things non-historical in nature (modes of speech, costume, art, set decoration, filming locations) so I would argue 'Historical Inaccuracies' is significantly more accurate and specific a description.

To claim that ‘history’ is portrayed ‘wrongly’ or 'inaccurately' is clearly prejudging the directorial intention, and privileging historicism over drama, when from the film-maker’s own point of view, the historicism has to be subordinated to the needs of the drama. We can evaluate the medium better by looking at it in its own terms. The film isn't intended to be historically accurate; indeed, the director even denies that this is possible. Strictly speaking, creative decisions aren't ‘errors’, because they're intended to produce a specific dramatic effect. ‘Historical accuracy’ might be a reasonable criterion to judge the content of a factual documentary or a docudrama, but a literal retelling is clearly not the aim here. The director’s interpretation of the national mythology is more symbolic than literal, so using a term like ‘historical inaccuracies’ is markedly less correct and specific than ‘dramatic licence’: modes of speech, costume, art, set decoration, locations are all matters of history that are conventionally adapted in drama and film, without ordinarily exciting historicist prejudice. It's more reasonable to present the same information about creative changes without applying inappropriate criteria to it. Lachrie (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not for ranting.--Johnbull (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine - Ok (I was enjoying my rant - got a little carried away - and you're right; actually thought much in the film was good ...)

Discussing how to improve the article, by using one term or another, was exactly what they were doing. (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The bit about Philip walking strange, after seeing the film I am under the impression that he only walked like that in one scene and because he was walking with his kid daughter, because he had to reach down to hold her hand and walk at the same time. I wonder if some editor was a little too sensitive about the way Philip walked in this one scene with the child that he thought he should post a lengthy rant about it on this article... JayKeaton (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I don't think we can deal between the drama stage and the historic stage, "Eizabeth : the golden age" is only a movie, this is all. Plus as said the director, he did not intend to produce a historical stuff, he just uses a part of history (often used since ten years)to make a movie. Well for people as I am, we can of course feel a frustration when we see so much historical inaccuracies, or some maybe deliberated views of history (almost whig cocerning this movie). One big problem for me is today, more and more people watch movies inspired of real facts and think that was reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

loosely based on[edit]

I don't think "loosely based on" should be used in the lead, because this film is very much base don the real life Elizabeth, the real life Spanish, the real England, real Spanish king... and well, it would seem to me that the movie is centered around all these events. I think that perhaps someone who didn't like this movie decided that "loosely based" would be a better term to use. JayKeaton (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Any resemblance between this movie and what really happened is mere coincidence. (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The List[edit]

The massive list of everything that two anonymous editors see as wrong with this film is getting out of hand. Not only is most of it OR, a lot of it is based on small non notable sources taken out of context from websites/people that are in no way notable at all. I think that the entire list should be deleted and it should instead be condensed into one small paragraph. I can only see two things on the list that are even close to notable. The rest is OR/rubbish and should be deleted. JayKeaton (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The film is notable, as are the historical events it interprets, to the extent that the dramatic interpretation has elicited public controversy. The purpose of the section is to discuss significant deviations from fact as established in verifiable published sources, and arbitrary deletion of observations that meet these criteria is simply inappropriate. (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But I hardly see how things that were NOT in the film are notable. How is the Dutch not appearing in the film notable? How is it more notable then not mentioning that the ships had rats on board, or who the Spanish's supports/sympathizers, or the names of every single general/commander in each army? We cannot list things that did not appear in the film, that would be madness. And I would hate to nitpick the nitpicking that is the list, but mentioning Mary's accent twice because "She may not have" had a certain accent, or she may have had a certain accent? She may or may not have farted blood, nothing that she may or may not have had can be notable on the list. And the horrible sources, I randomly look at two. One of them is impossible to look at as it requires registration and the other marked as November 2006! How can it possibly be a credible source when the film was not even released until two months ago! The whole list has gotten out of hand, it is full of original research, full of sources that range from "student papers" to this source which is not even in English and only full of ads for other non relevant articles. JayKeaton (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The film-maker can be accused of committing a lie by omission. I would agree with you to the extent that exclusion of the Dutch contribution in order to aggrandise England is a slightly more debatable issue than the others, as the Dutch role in the battle was largely indirect (and it would also be better if the contributor could cite an English-language source). That's not the case for Drake, however, whose marginalisation from the action at the expense of Raleigh (who probably wasn't even a participant) is nothing short of incredible. The disappearance of Leicester and other key participants in national politics is another major departure from history, and serves to exaggerate both the role of Raleigh and the personal leadership of the monarch. The degree of Mary's cultural affinity with Scotland has always been a contentious issue among historians and nationalists who wish to claim her as a national symbol, and the problem of her accent in the film has been raised by a number of historians whose remarks have been reported in the press, as they always are when a major film depicting Mary comes out. As for your impugning of legitimate sources, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is the most reliable and academically authoritative reference work on British historical biography in existence. It is used to establish historical fact as a basis for comparison. Every university library in the English-speaking world will have a hard copy or electronic access rights. Most of the other sources are peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, published full-length books by accredited professional historians, and newspaper articles either about the lives of the persons and events or discussing the way these were portrayed in the film. None of these are primary sources requiring any original reseach. They're secondary or tertiary sources, and their use is unimpeachable. (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The citation with a retrieval date of 2006 is obviously just a typo that can be fixed. (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"unimpeachable", >_> You really think so? JayKeaton (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The statements are verifiable as they come from reliable published sources: mainstream media and academic scholarship. The point about using the Bridge of Sighs for location-filming seems fairly trivial (as it's just background and its appearence isn't critical to the story) and citing a Dutch-language source isn't ideal. Omitting the Dutch from the story may be slightly misleading, but to be fair to the film-makers, the absence of the Dutch from the action does reflect the contemporary English perception of the battle of Gravelines. On 29 July 1588 Admiral Howard complained: 'There is not one Flushinger nor Hollander at the seas.' A letter from Borlas to Walsingham on 3 August 1588 also says a west wind interrupted the Dutch blockade by forcing the Dutch ships back into the Scheldt, and the same wind prevented Parma from venturing out, though given the presence of the English fleet it's unlikely he would have done so anyway, so the Dutch role in the decisive battle does seem to have been pretty marginal. (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Blanchett quotation is sourced and verifiable, and I have checked Susan Frye's article about Tilbury in the British Library and it certainly does not support your claim. Please do not attempt to falsify sources or misrepresent genuine ones. Deliberately falsifying the content of the article is tantamount to vandalism. (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What does [4] that source have to do with anything? It's just a website that promotes dutch writers, and the url doesn't show anything except a list of books that you can buy JayKeaton (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a link to the website of Uitg. Balans, the publisher of the Dutch-language source on military history cited in the reference: J.R. Bruijn en C.B. Wels, Met man en macht, de militaire geschiedenis van Nederland 1550-2000 (Amsterdam 2003). (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your soapbox and I believe that you are committing a synthesis of published material with the goal of serving to advance you're own position, which constitutes original research under the official policy of the English Wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The listed points are straightforward, verifiable statements of historical fact from reputable sources which taken together advance no particular agenda, whereas you are demonstrably misrepresenting sources in order to commit otherwise unjustifiable deletions, apparently in order to advance some position of your own. (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The final point concerning the Dutch contribution is however dubious and as I have located an English-language source contradicting that claim it can probably be deleted without prejudice to the accuracy of the article. (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I do hate to say it, because accusing people of something is never nice, but I really do believe that almost everything in that list was created with the intention of pushing bias by cherry picking sources, which is in violation of Wikipedias official policies. You may not, or may, have created some of that list originally, but by reverting deletions of the list you were not just reverting edits. You were adding everything back in, which is the same as you approving it or typing it up yourself. You added it back in which means you are responsible for it, so my claims of policy breaking still stands. JayKeaton (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale is dubious for the reasons already given above, and you have neither attempted to substantiate your claims with reference to specific examples, nor have you offered any explanation for previously giving false justifications for deleting sections of the article by demonstrably misrepresenting the content of sources that they cite. Pretending to have read what you clearly have not is a breach of good faith, and I regret to say that in my opinion your hostile editing amounts to vandalism. (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But I have read that source, what makes you think I haven't? JayKeaton (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Having just visited this page, I have to agree that the Dramatic License List has got one person's POV stamped all over it. It is not so much whether the facts it states are true or not (though many are so trivial as to be irrelevant [colour of the actresses eyes ?!]), but the terminology and language used is POV. For example, taking the first paragraph alone :
The film accepts completly the Black Legend against Spain, and shows him as a creepy character. The real Philip was a great king, clever, good administrator, and a person with a great sense of justice, not a ruthless and fanatic tyrant. The film was so exagerated that offended the Spaniards. There are many lies. For example, while history says that the real Philip, when received the news about the defeat of his fleet, accepted it quietly, and even didn´t moved a muscle, in the film, the character starts to cry, some that Spanish audiences considered ridiculous. This kind of changes caused that the film bombed in Spain
To illuminate - use of word 'completely' is an over emphasis ; there is no explanation of the term 'Black Legend' ; use of 'creepy' is POV ; 'great king, clever, good' again over emphasis & POV, which needs proof ; 'offended the Spaniards' needs sources ; 'many lies' is blantant POV &/or needs sources ; the example then given needs sources ; 'some Spanish audiences considered ridiculous' needs sources ; 'caused it to bombed in Spain' needs sources ; use of 'bombed' is subjective  ; not to mention the ill grammar & spelling.
That's only one paragraph ! The rest of the list is just as bad ! (I seriously have better uses of my time than to go through the whole lot). Please, this needs a serious rewrite without an uptight editor reverting things ! It is afterall, as everyone involved on the film has stated, a work of fiction The Yeti (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited it to the bare essentials. Hope it's better, but feel free to revert, add or change it. Dr Benway (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


from the synopsis bit: "..young Austrian archduke who has become infatuated with the Queen."

I just saw the film and I don't think the archduke was infatuated, he just memorized some sentences in English as if. Of course this opinion is not sourced. If the sentence as it stands isn't sourced as well I would like to change to ".. young Austrian archduke." Pukkie (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i was never completely sure whether he had memorized some lines, or he knew a little bit of English and had a lot of difficulty speaking. I think I recall him having a conversation that couldn't have been preorchestrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-hispanism in the film[edit]

It is obvious that the film is anti-spanish and a piece of british propaganda. They not only fail to depict the calmed and strong character of Phillip II, but also fail to depict his physical appearance, he was blond and with blue eyes. Of course, this was not the kind of image that they wanted to give to the evil king of Spain, as he would be too similar to the heroic and tolerant british people. There should be a section talking about anti-hispanism in this film. It is clear that it is full of it. It could also talk about the lies that turn this film into british propaganda. Elizabeth I killed thousands of catholic priests, so she was obviously as intolerant as anyone of the time. Of course, this is not showed in the film. It was not the kind of image they wanted to give to the heroic and tolerant English queen. (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP contributor above writes: Phillip II. . .was blond and with blue eyes. I found this inserted into the article without any verification, so looked at Philip II of Spain where there are a few reproduced portraits from life, mostly hatless. I would regard Titian and Moro as trained observers; and if they gave him dark hair, that's good enough for me. So out it went. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth I is not the great heroine the English speaking world makes her out to be. That mad woman embroiled England in a grinding and unsuccessful war that forced her successor, James I, to sue for a peace treaty that was mostly on Spanish terms and yielded England nothing. To my deep disgust, I was falsely taught in the public school system how after England defeated the Armada of 1588, they came to dominate the seas and Spain shriveled into a 3rd rate power and rapidly declined into nothing. The reason British movie makers continually portray Spanish antagonists the way they do is because British society is obsessed with matters of race and racial purity to the level of a few notches below the 3rd Riech. British movie makers typically portray themselves as tall blond Nordic looking "good guys" and the Spaniards as short, dark skinned and Arab looking. Its sad to see that in this day and age, this kind of garbage is still being filmed for mass audiences.--Scipio-62 09:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

Er, isn't Universal Pictures an American Hollywood outfit? I see, too, that the director is from Bollywood and one of the English writers is a born-and-bred Catholic. The other writer (Hirst) did not exactly glorify the English monarchy in his scripts for The Tudors. And he said he had been paid "to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history ... And we wanted people to watch it." As with the wild west or the Spanish Civil War, etc, those who crave legitimate history need to go to the library rather than watch flicks. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Why is France listed above UK under 'Country' in the infobox? Why is France listed at all? Just curious. Bjenks (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No answer? Well, I'll get rid of it. The filming locations are 100% U.K., anyway. Bjenks (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dramatic licence section purged[edit]

In copyediting this overlong section, I found that certain items were becoming a venue for debate about extraneous issues including the prejudiced portrayal of Spaniards and other nationalities, and about various POVs on the English Reformation, religious animosities, burning of martyrs, etc, etc. We must all agree that there are more appropriate places than this for such debate, and that most dramatised film depictions of "history" are as heavily fictionalised as the American Wild West. I have therefore tried stripping out the unnecessary complications, and hope that folks will give my edits careful consideration before jumping in to revert them. I should add that I retained the blog citation of Cate Blanchette only with difficulty, because the publisher, imho, lacks the credentials of a reliable source. However, with rewording, it does help to establish that we are dealing with a movie of bias and entertainment, not a documentary. Maybe that's why there seems to be a dearth of reputable criticism and analysis of this film. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Cate is shown wearing armour in the poster for the film. It is not clear that Elizabeth ever wore amour. The poster calls Elizabeth a "Warrior" but she seems to have done little fighting. The Spanish Armada mostly was defeated by bad weather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Cate seems to be legitimate and not a product of incest. She differs from Elizabeth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And the point is.....? - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is that the film is a silly lie. The further point is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, then I believe those issues are covered by "Dramatic license" and "Critical reception", but feel free to add to those sections if you have the sources. Otherwise, this page is for discussion on improvement of the article, not for discussion of the topic. Do you have anything applicable, or should this section be deleted? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)