My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Currently reading...

Personal favorites

Search my library


Library Thing


Victorian Studies

Authors

Fine Arts

Buy Books!

Sitemeter

Amazon

« Department of creative packaging | Main | Further misadventures in GoogleBooks »

October 16, 2007

Comments

John Thomas McGuire

I saw the film last week, and tend to agree with the general tone of your review. Too many fancy camera angles, too much pompous dialogue, and too much glowering from Geoffrey Rush. The miniseries with Helen Mirren, which I just saw, was about three hours longer, but MUCH better.

Rich Puchalsky

See here.

Jeff

I haven't seen the movie (or the first one, for that matter, although I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in one of my Netflix queues), but it sounds like it tries to do a lot of the same stuff as Benjamin Britten's opera "Gloriana"--based at least partly on Strachey's "Elizabeth and Essex"--which he composed for the current Elizabeth's coronation. It didn't go over very well, as I understand it.

The opera is very much about queenly performance, including the requisite dressing-room scenes with maids brushing her hair while she highlights the distinction between public and private personas. The most memorable scene (for me, anyway) comes when Penelope, Lady Rich, outdresses Elizabeth at a ball. Elizabeth makes her take off the dress, then disappears from the celebration so that she can make another entrance, this time in Penelope's dress. She knows she looks a fool (different sizes, etc.), and she reflects the humiliation back onto Penelope. Vicious stuff, and it plays as a weird mix of catty and imperiously un-feminine.

george

post differences between history and the movie

The comments to this entry are closed.