I’m pretty sure I was British in a former life. Nothing fascinates me more than British history. I love British people. If I go nowhere else before I die, I will go to England. My obsession is a blessing and a curse.
In 1998, Cate Blanchett starred in the movie Elizabeth, about Queen Elizabeth I. I can’t tell you if it was a good movie, as far as acting, sets, story, all the “important” stuff. I can’t tell you because it was so historically inaccurate that it just managed to make me very angry. For example, in the movie, Mary, Queen of Scots, died in her own bedroom, murdered by a spy planted to act as her lover and gain her trust. In fact, Elizabeth imprisoned Mary for several years and then executed her.
My boyfriend at the time hated that I was angry about the lousy history in the movie. He said it wasn’t the job of filmmakers to educate. And he’s correct. But if you’re going to make a movie about actual historical people and events, shouldn’t you at least attempt to come close to the truth? Maybe I’m alone in this, but I feel strongly about it.
Fast forward twelve years to 2010. Once again, we find Ms. Blanchett starring in a period piece about my favorite country. This time, she’s Marion Loxley in the latest incarnation of Robin Hood.
I tried last week to talk Chris into seeing MacGruber solely because The Love of My Life Val Kilmer is in it. Chris would have gone if I’d pushed the issue, but the reviews were tending towards the “don’t bother” side and being a movie based on a recent Saturday Night Live skit, I decided the bad reviews were likely correct and decided not to put Chris through the torture of bad comedy solely for a Val fix. So we went to see Robin Hood instead.
I’d heard mixed reviews about that one, but it was Robin Hood, so how bad could it be? I won’t go too much into a
review here. If you’ve seen the previews, you can pretty much tell what you’re getting. It’s a period action film based on the legend of Robin Hood. I enjoyed it. I finally even get the appeal of Russell Crowe (although, I think it’s the characters he plays more than it is Russell Crowe himself that attracts adoring women).
What I found really, really awesome about seeing this movie, though, was that watching it made me realize (once again) how much I know about the history of England. Several months ago, I read Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Life by biographer Alison Weir. The King John in the Robin Hood legend was Eleanor’s youngest son and the last of her children to be crowned King of England after the death of Richard the Lionheart.
So, while the movie is based on the life of a fictional character, it also included Richard, John and Eleanor (and John’s wives), along with King Philip Augustus II of France, who was constantly at war with England during the 12th and 13th centuries. The movie is set with the politics of the old and new British kings against the French following the Third Crusade.
The movie got a lot wrong — either by design or ignorance, who knows? — but I still enjoyed it. I think having so recently read the book helped me enjoy the movie in a way many people didn’t simply because I could put it all into context. I knew from the incredibly well-researched and fabulously written biography the characters of the people portrayed. You see, Eleanor had four sons with Henry II who eventually became kings. Each one was worse than the last. Watching them play out their arrogance and ignorance on screen was like watching the book come to life, even if the details were wrong.
I think what makes me less annoyed with Robin Hood than Elizabeth is that the screenwriters of Robin Hood had to make up a story with a fictional character at its center, while Elizabeth was about a real person and real events in her life. There should be a higher standard there.
At least, however, the new Robin Hood was far more historically accurate than the Kevin Costner version of 1991 (which, by the way, I loved, if only for the Bryan Adams song). You see, Richard never returned from France. He died of an arrow to the arm that became gangrene and then blood poisoning. In the new Robin Hood, it was an arrow to the neck that killed him instantly. I suppose that makes sense. A long, drawn-out death wouldn’t have been much fun to watch before getting to the movie’s point. 🙂
In the end, I just adore the romanticism of it all.
I heard from a friend who saw the new movie is like a prequel to the story most of us know as Robin Hood. Historical context aside would you say that’s accurate?
I do agree that when you’re doing a historical movie based on a fictional character you have a bit more artistic license with the story. When you’re doing one on an actual figure, I think there is a higher standard that would be followed.
Anytime something happens in a movie that I don’t quite understand, or know to be impossible, I just chalk it up to movie magic.
Yes, it’s mostly a prequil. It shows what occurs that pushes him and his “Merry Men” into Sherwood Forest.
this was awesome to read, partly because I’m not into British History at all and it educated me a little =) I do however love their accents, lol. But also because we want to see Robin Hood and I think it’s a ‘go’ now.
It got mixed reviews, but I really did enjoy it.
i’m happy i don’t know anything about the history of England because Elizabeth was a good movie.
i don’t think i’ll see Robin Hood. isn’t Cate Blanchett in Robin Hood too?
Yes. Cate plays Maid Marion.
I will probably wait until it’s available on Netflix since I would prefer to yell at the historical inaccuracies in the privacy of my own home. (My friends appreciate this as well.) I recently saw “The Young Victoria” and spent the entire movie grinding my teeth because of the inaccuracies…
(Actually in Elizabeth, it’s Mary of Guise who was seduced by Walsingham, not Mary, Queen of Scots – one of the few things they got right, but oh so wrong at the same time. *sigh* Hollywood-ed up history.)
Hmmm. I guess I need to re-watch it. I thought it was Scots Mary. It’s also been about 10 years since I saw it!
My husband wanted to take our 17 yr. old to see it, and since it looked fairly good, I wanted to tag along. Our family ended up seeing it. I thought it was more historically accurate. I got tired of all the heads literally rolling, though I’m not a blood and guts movie person. I thought Crowe and Blanchett were both very good – how he won her heart through “courting” as it appeared. It was more believable than the romantic Costner movie. Good review!
It was a little gory. I’m pretty sensititive to that usually, but this movie didn’t seem to be just an excuse for gore. It actually had story and in general, the blood and guts parts were pretty mild compared to other movies. I also kept in mind that in that time in Europe, that was really what was going on! It had its moments of good history and its moments of bad. But I did enjoy it.
I still like the Kevin Costner version, though. It was just sweet. 🙂
I have to warn you that I spent a good deal of my life as an Anglophile, only to move to London in 2003 and absolutely HATE it there. England produces terrific music/history/books/stuff, but living there is a bit of a different ball of wax.
A couple people I know have moved there and don’t like it. I would never move out of the US permanantly, but I would like to experience living in another country someday. Just for a little while. It’s nice to know, though, that I may not really be missing much.
I have met a lot of Brits on this side of “The Pond” and have really liked each and every one of them, though. I know there’s a lot about modern England that I probably wouldn’t like, though.
When I was in France, especially Versailles, I felt a deep connection to the rich culture, buildings and history of the area. I haven’t seen Elizabeth and I don’t intimately know the history but to me it’s a not a question of whether or not it’s ‘up to them’ to educate the audience properly, I just think they would be better off staying as accurate as possible while still being able to tell a good story.
When I see movies that inspire me and say that they are ‘based on a true story’ I’ll often look up the actual events. The more the movie is closer to ‘true’ than ‘based on’ the more I uphold their storytelling abilities.
My point is: I think it is worthwhile for films to remain as close to the truth as possible so that we can enlighten as well as entertain.
I agree! I saw Black Hawk Down and then read the book. It was really disheartening that Hollywood felt the need to change so many of the details for the movie. It’s not like the real event wasn’t heart-wrenching and dramatic enough. Most of English history is incredibly dramatic to begin with. The real stories are engrossing and entertaining and interesting without embellishment.
Hi there.
The Mary that is murdered in her bedroom in the first movie by Francis Walsingham was Mary of Guise, not Mary of Scotland. Mary of Scots was portrayed in the second movie as having been kept prisoner by Elizabeth and executed for treason. Looks like you got angry for nothing 🙂