One of my pet peeves about movies is that they will often have two characters having private conversations in what appears to be a public setting, but the public is apparently deaf or lacks ears. It drives me nuts. Sometime's they're literally talking about the guy who's standing three feet away.
Me too. I also hate the opposite thing movies do where two people are talking at a normal volume despite being on the opposite side of the room to each other, or are at a loud place such as a club or factory or something..
@@cheesecake2545 I'm not talking about the framing. I'm talking about when a character will physically grab another characters arm, walk two steps, and then talk about the character they just dragged them away from.
In "Shakespeare in Love", the fact of women not being allowed on stage is not only acknowledged, but it's a main prop of the plot: Viola disguises herself as a boy in order to join the acting troupe, and many complications ensue from there, including how she actually ends up performing. The script, in which Tom Stoppard was heavily involved, is intelligent and and historically aware, including in its liberties. I think you should take back that debit because the entire story hinges on Viola working against the ban on women on stage.
But she is very obviously female here. One of those guys at the front would have noticed that she had real breasts. This is the climax of the film, so understandably some creative licence is allowed, but it still stretches credibility. Considering how this story treats Anne Hathaway as a throwaway line and makes Shakespeare out to be a womanising cad, her review was surprisingly favourable.
@@katherinegilks3880 Yeah, but they DO actually address this, because even if everyone can see she's a woman, Queen Elizabeth (her being incognito at the theatre is probably the least realistic thing tbh) says in front of everyone "yes the illusion is remarkable..." and affirms Viola's male identity. I don't think ANYONE in that room actually BELIEVES it, but once the Queen has said it, NOBODY in that room is going to argue with her in that moment. It's Queen Elizabeth's way of neatly getting everyone out of a sticky situation so that Viola and the theatre company don't have to face any consequences from Tilney and his censorship squad enforcers. Which may not be entirely realistic, but as a variation on the Deus Ex Machina device Shakespeare himself used to solve many of his plot problems easily and quickly, Queen Appears and Says It's All Okay is pretty effective! And in a movie that pays homage to Shakespeare and theatre tropes so thoroughly, I'll totally accept this one, too.
The point is that she is a woman and the audience would have noticed immediately and the play would not have ever really continued until end. She knew where the movie was filmed so she knows about the basic plot. Also personally, does anyone else think it’s funny how Viola apparently was able to put her huge long blonde hair beneath a boy wig? Paltrow clearly just removed the blond wig and put on another with a modern bald cap first. It just takes me out of her costume changes even though it’s just such a little thing!
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Well, not necessarily: the stage is a kind of magical location: I attended a play about the Brontes, in which there were two actors. Emily and Anne were represented briefly by two containers of water carried from one side of the stage to the other and poured empty, while the actor playing Papa Bronte lamented their deaths. The audience was completely caught up and gasped when the water was poured out. It made no sense, but the illusion was real so the audience bought it. If the story and presentation is strong enough, the audience may very well have been distracted from reality.
Honestly the historical accuracies aren't that glaring imo. They just mess with the timing of things. Otherwise I think the artistic liberties are fine, especially with the amazing talents of the director and Cate Blanchett. The first Elizabeth movie is a classic.
Elizabeth loved dancing - yet another similarity she shared with her mother Anne Boleyn. The fact that Good Queen Bess allegedly carried a miniature of her mother’s likeness until her own death has always broken my heart.
I don't wanna be a downer but there's no evidence the redish-blond woman in the miniature was meant to be Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth could never develop an emotional connection to her mother as she grew up in an own household and saw Anne only a few times until she was executed when Elizabeth was not even 3 years old. It's more likely it showed a woman she had an emotional connection with, for example Catherine Parr (face and hair color would fit), Cat Ashley - or Elizabeth herself in a younger stage of her life.
I love how genetics kind of work in that way. How Elizabeth may have had some traits of her mother’s without ever REALLY knowing her. She died when she was so young, yet sometimes acted as her mother. I love when you hear about that with just any people that they act like a parent or show traits of a parent they never got to know. I just think it’s sweet.
@@0308frank The face and hair colour fit Anne perfectly. There is no evidence Anne had dark hair, it's just a myth that keeps getting repeated. It would make more sense if she had fair hair, as is also depicted in the Holbein sketch.
@@neilalam127Elizabeth would never have done that. It would be a very poor political decision. Also Ann was nasty to Mary and had no problem separating Mary and Catherine. She wanted Mary to be her lady maid Also Mary and Elizabeth are entombed together kinda awkward for Mary to be buried with her evil stepmother.
@@A-G-A-G Claire Foy's acting was lovely, but I can't get over those big blue eyes! Anne's most famous feature were her black eyes. Just a little thing but it bugs me.
There are sources to say that Anne’s ladies and the crowd did weep due to the fact that she died with dignity , it wears also a huge shock to the country that a queen would actually be executed . There are sources that Ann kept looking around to see if there would be a last minute pardon and historians suggest that even master Kingston had not prepared a proper coffin to place her body in after death because no one actually believe that she would be executed until it was too late . It had never been done before and most did believe it was a power play by Henry and that she would be pardoned and sent to a convent . Also I’ve read a few comments on here and I really wish that history classes stopped using the other Boleyn girl as a tool to teach history . It’s perhaps the most inaccurate depiction of Tudor history and characters out there and the fact that schools allow this to be shown as factual is so disappointing . I honestly think , though it has its own inaccuracies , that the tudors tv show is a better example to use in history lessons . I was actually impressed by the small details it got right that other films and series either got wrong or completely ignored , like Ann discovering Henry and Jane together and blaming this for her miscarriage. I know Hollywood will always want to dramatise but I think most of the time the truth is even more fantastical and interesting so I’m not sure why films seem to either play it down or just ignore facts
@@Alejojojo6 ahhhh you must be one of those internet people who just like to piss on everyone else I’ve heard about . Can I ask how you don’t know I’m not a historian ? Have you done your own research ? No ? Didn’t think so . Thank you for your pointless comment though , it’s always fun
Honestly, the only accuracy of the Other Boleyn girl I thought was the costumes. The costumes were right on, especially with the hoods and head pieces.
Pretty sure there are accounts that Anne's gentle women did cry as they were so moved by the way she handled herself at her execution. Even though they were appointed attendants who were not supposed to have behaved kindly to her. I think that's why it has been remarked upon in some historical accounts?
there's some thought that she was granted ladies at her execution that were more friendly towards her, but it's still possible that the hostile women who spied on her for Kingston and Cromwell were just moved by the shock of a woman who was recently considered their queen be brutally murdered in front of them, and by her dignity at facing her death with courage.
2:10 I can actually answer this one! Mini ice age! The previous winter froze the Thames, and in 1536 winter was late in receding and this is early morning. It probably was pretty cold. Also Tudor nobles lined their clothes in fur as much as possible anyway.
not to mention we literally know what anne was wearing at her execution and it included a short fur cloak like the one shown in the other boleyn girl!!
If you watch all of Shakespeare in Love, the fact that Viola is a woman playing Juliet is not only explained, but leads to a great quote by QEI. Also, his marriage is mentioned earlier in the movie.
Yes I wonder if she’s really watched this film as the whole driving force of the plot is a woman trying to act a female role which was banned, and further, her class would have made it out of the question too. I am surprised she did not comment on judi dench as queen elizabeth in her older years as the lines she is given are quite plausible - a woman in man’s world etc
Has she really never seen Shakespeare in Love? The women-not-allowed-on-stage rule is not overlooked, it’s a major plot point. Other than this I appreciate all her other comments and commentary.
@@PomegranateStaindGrn She's rating it based on historical accuracy, not based on the movie plot. And a women on stage is historically inaccurate. How are you entirely unfamiliar with this history. Ridiculous and renders your commentary irrelevant.
@@PomegranateStaindGrn The entire point of this series is her reviewing clips from various shows/movies she hasn't watched based on their historical accuracy. She's not rating the entire thing.
I was surprised to hear her say that the women who accompanied Anne Boleyn to her execution would not have wept because they didn't like her very much. There is a famous contemporary account of those same women refusing to allow any of the men to touch Anne's body after her death, insisting instead that they themselves carry the corpse (and presumably the head) to the arrow box which became her coffin. This has led many historians to believe that these woman were actually very emotionally attached to Anne, and therefore probably different women to those who attended her in the tower, women that she referred to as her enemies.
I've read that too. Most of the contemporary accounts were written by men who hated her or were written so long after her execution that they're not first hand accounts and instead relied heavily on gossip and innuendo.
I did read somewhere that Marie de Guise wrote to her daughter’s governess, to ensure that she ‘did not lose her Scots’ tongue’- which might imply that she might actually have spoken Scots, but with a French accent (which would not surprise me, given that a fair portion of the Scottish Court were part French, to a greater or lesser degree at that time). I believe the _Elizabeth I_ mini-series with Helen Mirren was more accurate with the Tilbury Speech, & the costume.
'Tongue' means language, rather than accent, I would suggest. However, Mary's maids and governess during her childhood in France were Scotswomen, so it's not completely unlikely that she would have had a hint of Scots when speaking English.
@@soniamacdonald9193 Ehh, not really. Mary hated Scotland. She desperately loved France, and had been raised there entirely. She was accused of being too french by her Scottish enemies
@@theshadowling1 She was but she didn't "hate" Scotland lol she loved her people. OBVIOUSLY her enemies would use that, but it's not fair at all to say she hated Scotland. Also, she DID spoke Scots
She did speak Scots, BUT she didn't speak English which is the funny part. So technically it wouldn't be accurate for her to speak English at all, but we can't hold that against them.
@@soniamacdonald9193 She didn't speak English. She wrote with Elizabeth in French. She spoke Scots and Elizabeth spoke English so French was common ground.
I saw a trailer for _Mary Queen of Scots_ and my first thought was, "You know, Mary should really have a French accent because she was raised in that country from a young age." And then I saw the black lord and the Chinese Bess of Hardwick and I thought, "Oh, the producers aren't concerned with historical accuracy."
@@cbear9263 It's because all media based courses in university teach this ideology - Which then goes on to affect the real world media as well as the Government. It is primarily of left wing political spectrum which is involved in identities being malluable and not set in stone (which history is set in stone). It is why after different genders being accepted socially it now moves onto actual history . It's a very unhealthy thing to do for cultural strength and something you wont see done say in africa with a white man playing a african king. It's a type of racial sado masochism (the racists pretending to be anti racists etc). People who feel guilty for being white - is a trend. Despite Black slavery against whites existing- The Barbary slave trade involved african slavers kidnapping native british people and selling them in Africa - They do not teach this history and so people have a biased view on the past as if one race needs to be punished more than others.
I was under the impression that the idea is if the actors are good enough we aren’t supposed to pay attention to their skin color, or at the very least say “what a good actor, they were a good choice despite the racial disparity.” That being said, they will never cast an asian or caucasian person as Martin Luther King.
@@possumaintdead I agree with where you come from - i didnt really have much of an issue with a african lady playing a actor in a shakespeare play at the globe theatre. But it definetely took me out of the immersion - I think a distinction needs to be made if a show is historical - or a dramatisation of a period. Because it was a dramatisation I didn't have a big issue with it - but in the case of a show called anne B it definetely is a modern thing not done before . I think its important for children to teach the true representation to avoid confusion . unless explicity a dramatisation i.e like shakespeare
@@romainvicta3076 what confusion? i'm sorry but i'm not particularly concerned with the fact that a 7 year old thinks Anne Boleyn was black. most people don't know jack shit about tudor history anyway, and in the off-chance that child grows up to study it then they'll know that she was white then. it's not like the world is going to shift on its axis every time someone learns that Anne Boleyn was white. what's the big deal?
"The other Boleyn girl" is a nice movie, but it is so unbelievable inaccurate. When we watched it on the classroom, we were watching to discuss about the reformation of the church but my teacher asked me to leave because I was constantly saying "that's not what happened... That's not right... That's inaccurate... That's dumb..." 🤣
TBH I'd have done the same as you. I haven't watched that movie in years but the inaccuracy of it is insane. Also sometimes you find with movies like this that the costuming saves it, but not in this case! Not with Anne and Mary wearing french hoods that look like headbands half the time.
So sit down with your teacher see if she or he could of shown a accurate depiction of this subject. My mom was a woman studies teacher and world cultures teacher. You’re teacher should of know far better to show that one but to voice this in this manner, not so nice
The best portrayal of Anne Boleyn I’ve seen is Geneviève Bujold in Anne of the Thousand Days. She’s young and at first a bit naive, but also intelligent and self-assured. Like all movies, it does take liberties, but those liberties are done in service to the characters. The best scene of the film is a meeting between Anne and Henry after she’s been imprisoned in the Tower of London (which never happened), where Henry has begun to believe the accusations of adultery (accusations Henry himself ordered be made, at least in the film). He tries to get Anne to agree to an annulment and leave England, but she refuses, since she’d vowed to never have an illegitimate child, and an annulment would make Elizabeth a bastard. Then, because she has nothing left to lose, Anne says “Look for the rest of your life at every man that ever knew me, and wonder if I didn’t find him a better man than you.” She then goes on to declare that Elizabeth would rule after Henry, and be the queen of a greater England than Henry could ever have built. She finishes this truly amazing monologue by saying “My Elizabeth shall be queen, and my blood will have been well spent.” The whole scene is, while historically inaccurate, the best bit of writing and acting I’ve ever seen.
It might have been well-acted but ''the best''? How can it be the best portrayal if it's a complete fiction AND overdramatic at that? How can it be ''best written'' if it's so pompous and overblown? Sorry...
Oh and to anyone who loves this sort of video: I highly recommend Claire Ridgeway’s channel, The Anne Boleyn Files, as well her likewise titled website, and the series of books she’s written about Anne Boleyn and the Tudors. She doesn’t just focus on Anne, but also goes into extensive detail about the history surrounding her and the Tudor dynasty. She’s very diligent about being accurate. You can literally learn at least one new fact every day by following her research.
Claire Ridgeway has an excellent YT channel. The fact that she writes historical non-fiction books makes her Tudor videos both historically accurate and filled with information.
I read that Elizabeth did an hour or so of vigorous dance (basically aerobics) every morning until middle age. Galliards, with lots of leaping in the air and crossing the ankles multiple times. And she made her ladies join her which many hated.
I think he made a very dashing Robert Dudley and pretty much portrayed a young Robert as I could picture him. But the movie plot ultimately did a major disservice to Dudley's reputation.
On Elizabeth the Golden Age speech. I was also shocked regarding that, literally her most famous speech. But I think they had lifted part of the speech and slotted somewhere in the first Elizabeth film and they couldn't or didn't want to use it twice as the two films are supposed to be sequels. It's been a while since I watched the films so I could be misremembering. Obviously when they did the first film they had no plans for a second and so probably saw no harm in grabbing her most famous speech and slotting it in elsewhere.
You are absolutely correct. In the first movie Elizabeth does say "I may be a woman, Sir William, but if I choose I have the heart of a man!" I know both movies take liberties with the facts but I love them fiercely.
Okay, here's the thing: you really can't go after "Shakespeare In Love" the way you go after purportedly historical films like the others, because it is so obviously and openly a fantasy (though it really was very accurate in period details, as you note). Also, you cannot actually have watched the movie, or you would know that Gwyneth Paltrow's character actually being a woman who is a last-minute replacement for the boy who is supposed to play Juliet IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AS IT IS INTEGRAL TO THE PLOT! Indeed, it gave Simon Callow as Master of Revels his best outraged line: "That woman IS A WOMAN!" So the brilliant playwright Tom Stoppard, who wrote this, and everyone else involved with this film, knew perfectly well that women's roles were performed by young male actors; as I said, this knowledge is the premise on which the entire plot of the film is based. You should watch it; it won all kinds of awards, including the Oscar for best picture.
And it was such a good riff on the theatre convention that Shakespeare used to great effect in various comedies. In *As You Like It* Rosalind's epilogue breaks the fourth wall by speaking to the audience as the actor who had played the heroine, who had played a young man, now as a "woman" giving the epilogue who then says that If he WERE a woman s/he would kiss all the beards that pleased her. Whew! "Shakespeare in Love" was pretty darned Shakespearean!
It’s extremely jarring to see someone tout Shakespeare in Love’s Oscar win as a positive (or appropriate) thing, or even as a reflection of the film’s quality itself. It’s fine to like the film, I get the appeal for sure, but from a historical perspective it’s extremely disingenuous to assert that it deserved most (if any) of the Oscars it won. That films’ Oscar record, including most notably its defeat of Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture, is arguably one of the most disgraceful moments in modern Academy history. It is also, inarguably, all Harvey Weinstein’s fault. The results of the 1999 Oscars were entirely due to his characteristically over-aggressive campaigning, as well as Miramax’s deliberate manipulation of media narratives and a high profile smear-campaign against the competition. Many of the techniques Weinstein refined during the ‘99 season became staples of his practice and allowed him to consistently dominate the Academy Awards in a way no one Producer had since the height of the Studio system - which, obviously, also afforded him the power and influence he used to continue his reign of terror as a sexual predator, (including harassing Gwyneth Paltrow during the making of Shakespeare in Love). Unsurprisingly, many of these tactics were also explicitly against Academy rules. They would even put Weinstein on notice the very next year, after the press revealed that he’d very clearly (and deliberately) broken rules about throwing parties with both Oscar voters and nominees in attendance. These two videos do a great job of breaking down the techniques Weinstein used to game the Oscars, using his campaign’s for 1999’s Shakespeare in Love, and also 2002’s Chicago, The Hours, and Frida, as case studies. I cannot recommend them highly enough, this is THE best classic film channel on TH-cam. m.th-cam.com/video/6tihITlPAn4/w-d-xo.html m.th-cam.com/video/z4GvecFjLkU/w-d-xo.html
hmmm... But isn't the point of this video assessing historical accuracy of given motion picture in the light of Tudorean Era realities? Nothing to do with plot or it's integrity. Just pure: woman would not be on the stage and acting. Red X. Cheers! I. PS I haven't watched it either.
The best depiction of Anne Boleyn's execution is, imo, Claire Foye in Wolf Hall. Foye perfectly captured Anne's dignity and bravery in death, and the production team accurately recreated the bleakness of how the execution would have been. The best depiction of Elizabeth, for me, is Glenda Jackson. But the best recreation of the speech at Tilbury was by Helen Mirren. It was just perfect.
I don't agree about Claire Foye. The scene is fantastic and her acting is fine but she seems extremely frightened and insecure in her last scene, she's shaking and even starts crying when they cover her eyes. Though not as hysteric as Natalie Portman, she's still miles apart from the bravery and dignity Anne was praised for. I think Natalie Dormer gave a grand depiction of Anne's execution: agitated, yet couragous and graceful. I also like Geneviewe Bujold who gave Anne's execution an detached, almost outer-wordly tune.
I absolutely agree. Claire Foye’s depiction of Anne’s execution was by far the best. Even the inclusion of the thunder in the distance which echos Thomas Wyatt’s poem which includes the line ‘around the throne the thunder rolls’. Or ‘circa Regna tonat’. I hated Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn. Some of her facial expressions were awful when trying to appear intense and ‘sexy’.
They really screwed up the costumes in Wolf Hall, though. They are actually better than many other productions but because the set was magnificent, the poor effort on the costumes stood out. The headdresses looked like kids made them for a school play.
In Shakespeare In Love, Viola was playing a woman playing a man playing a woman, which was referenced explicitly and also emphasised by the fact that at the end of the film she becomes Viola in Twelfth Night, who does the same thing. I’d have loved to have seen the films analysed once seen the whole way through!
If you've ever seen a man in drag, well, an audience would be able to instantly tell if it was really a woman playing a man playing a woman. It's like a reverse t-trick, never convincing.
Shakespeare in Love has a sweet spot in my heart. I enjoyed it very much. And it was portrayed several times, explicitly, that women were not allowed to act in the theatre and Gwyneth Paltrow was using the disguise as Master Kent to conceal her identity.
yes I remember but there was no way he would have kissed Juliet or touched her on her mouth with his lips when they were on stage because she was supposed to be played by a man.
In the Two Queens, the meeting of Mari and Elizabeth turned out to be a dream Elizabeth had and in Shakespeare in Love, Viola was pretending to be a man dressed as a woman. The producers of this video should have mention this to the expert
Hollywood knows that the average person has a fantastical imagination of what history and important historical events were like. Obviously, the history lover knows that certain ideas the general public hold about both the more ancient and recent past are not exactly accurate
I was at TIFF for the festival premiere of The Golden Age, and there was a Q&A afterwards with the director. When asked why the Armada speech was changed rather than using the actual speech, the director explained he'd already used parts of it -- including the "heart and stomach" line -- in the first film, Elizabeth.
I'm a bit surprised that a professional Tudor historian would insist Mary Stuart wouldn't have had a Scottish accent. Mary spoke Scots and French as a child but learned English a bit later. Randolph, Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to the Scottish court, sent back a dispatch saying he offered to speak French with Mary but she wanted to improve her English in preparation for, in her mind, her inevitable succession of Elizabeth. She spoke broken English but definitely with a brogue: Randolph's exact words were she spoke "haltingly, but with a pretty Scots accent." The problem with Mary's English here is not the accent, but the fluency: she didn't speak it that well. It actually annoys me when they give Mary a French accent, thinking they're being accurate. It's the worst in the HBO Elizabeth, because every other physical detail about Mary Stuart in that is ABSOLUTELY on point, and they go and give her a French accent when she speaks English!
Mary was raised in France from the time she was about 6 years. I think that is why many people believe she had a French accent. And she didn't say she spoke with a French accent. She said they didn't think she had a Scots accent.
@@jomc6734 That’s the thing though, this is meant to be an “expert” - it’s strange she’s opine on something she doesn’t know, and if we are to accept that she thought she knew, it’s weird she’s unaware of one of the few primary sources about Mary Queen of Scots..
@@jomc6734 Dr. Nicola Tallis said - ".. she probably had a french accent rather than a Scots one". Clearly, a statement indicating Mary had a french accent.. well, probably.
I think complaining about accents in historical films is often misplaced. In all these movies, Elizabeth is speaking with a Received Pronunciation accent, about 250 years before it would have sounded like that.
I mean I know Anne was said to have stayed composed in the moments before her execution but saying “Pull yourself together!” to someone before they get their head chopped off for a crime they did not commit is stone cold 🥶. I think the movie made this choice because throughout the film she’s kind of unlikable and they really needed you to see her humanity and understand the tragedy of what was happening. Not a fan of that movie though.
I don't think she's saying "Pull yourself together, Anne Boleyn " I think it's more like, "Pull yourself together, Natalie Portman, you're supposed to be portraying a real person who was famously VERY calm in this moment."
@@danaglabeman6919 Then that’s a criticism for the director and writer, not Portman. She’s an absolute professional, and no doubt was delivering the performance she was directed to. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
this historian was egregiously harsh. these are not documentaries. To sit through Mary QoS without a climatic mtg between the two... they're movies. Are you not entertained? lol and, yes, Portman didn't make that choice, the director did
I was upset after watching this movie. None of the sisterly love from the book is acknowledged. Uncle Duke's influence completely ignored... Just one more demonisation of Anne Boleyn
both Shakespeare's marriage and viola dressing up as a boy were major plot points in Shakespeare in Love...so not sure how it loses points for quite literally having a plot I guess...
I think what is meant here (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that of course women weren’t allowed on the stage, which is why Gwyneth’s character dresses up as a boy dressing up as a girl, which is the nuance of the film which was missed by the academic in this video. I love when she also states that it’s a bit weird that they ignored that Shakespeare was married because Shakespeare himself definitely ignored the fact that he was married! It’s perfectly in-keeping with the reality of his life! And I think you’re right about the Oscar thing! 😅
It’s hard to suspend your disbelief so much that you could imagine people falling for a woman like Gwyneth Paltrow being a man in drag. I think that’s the main problem here.
The Historian completely missed the boat on Shakspeare in Love was the whole thing she was a woman on the stage, it was a plot point. Also, they did mention that Shakspeare was married in the film. What having Historians watch movies and comment on the historical accuracy misses is some movies are meant to tell a dramatization of history (Elizabeth, Elizabeth Gold Age, Mary Queen of Scots), while others are Historical Fiction (The Other Boleyn Girl, and Shakspeare in Love). It's kind of like getting WW2 Historian to watch Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Taratino and comment on Hitler didn't die in a movie theater in Paris, when Taratino said it himself he did it because it made sense for the story he was trying to tell, and was a complete work of fiction.
Well these people were very real, and it is frustrating to have people blatantly get details wrong. To someone familisr with history these details appear stupid and melodramatic. Historians can be really invested ij the people they sre studying and it is frustrating to see people put no effort into getting details about real things that happen right
@@matteusconnollius1203 the thing is historians will admit that they don't know much about Shakespeare, the point is the historian came off not knowing the movie and knowing that the writer directly addressed her points in the movie.
As a historian and someone who works in the performing arts, this is something that is frustrating but also completely understandable. The reason historians often feel the need to point out the inaccuracies (despite our sympathies for artistic license and the needs of storytelling) is because these films are often shown in educational environments as a way to capture some sense of accuracy, truth, aesthetics, or information about the periods and peoples being taught in the classroom. Shakespeare in Love is an especially egregious example! It's a wonderful film and portrays a brilliant story around historical characters and events. But it's also just historically inaccurate in SO MANY WAYS. Ultimately, it does more harm than good when shown in contexts where education is the aim (rather than entertainment). And historians do their work in those environments. So, when we're asked to bring our professional perspectives to something like this, it makes sense why we defer to accurate historical story[telling] rather than consider the artistic license necessary for entertainment.
To be fair, this is more of a "dream sequence" and the movie didn't claim they factually met in real life. They even said this in the promos for the film. You're supposed to see this as movie magic, as a "meeting of the minds" so to speak, or what either imagines it would be like meeting the other.
Thank you for doing this! Of course like many Tudor history nerds, I'd seen these movies and had picked up on some things. Having a historian go through with her criticism was so much fun and very informative. Thanks from the USA!
I love seeing other people get as upset and angry at Hollywood for changing history which is already dramatic and interesting enough! I know the movies are not trying to be documentaries but these people existed and their legacy is remembered by what people now think is gonna attract an audience. Elizabeth & Mary not meeting is pivotal in their relationship and why Mary was executed, it’s highly thought if they did meet Elizabeth wouldn’t have had her killed her.
right you are, it's all dramatization based on a few characters and facts... and doubly right about Elizabeth probably not wanting to meet her it's sad to me that dramas are accepted as fact , like Shakespeares Richard III becoming accepted as killing his nephews, when most historians agree that there is no evidence of that and that there were plenty of other people who benefitted from their deaths, one man does not become king alone, he has a whole group of ambitious motivated supporters i have even heard it stated as fact in a video documentary not just a fictional film which is most annoying
Could be a few things. Perhaps that was the image they were looking for the horse to match Elizabeth's own flowing locks. The horse's mane could fall that way naturally, as with the Friesian horse, or for dramatic effect. With show presentation here in Australia some people will plait the mane & tail to give a fuller appearance if the mane & tail is on the thin side.
I’m not an expert but the scene in Elizabeth is technically true but at the wrong time, yes she knew about his marriage to Amy. But after Amy died Robert Dudley married one of Elizabeth’s ladies Lettice Knollys without her knowledge which angered her. But that happened much later down the line.
Yes thank you! I was just going to say, this scene is pretty clearly about his kind-of secret marriage to Lettyce Knowles! I don’t know why this historian didn’t acknowledge that! Is she unaware of his second marriage?
@@allyme223 I guess in context of the film itself she was right to call it out, as the scene is still referring to his first marriage not to Lettice. The film is pretty guilty of condensing so many events into one. But would’ve been nice if she at least referenced the second marriage that the scene was actually based on.
I also hated that they made Queen Elizabeth look like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland in that scene from Mary Queen of Scots! I just can't unsee it. All that's missing is some blue eye shadow. Alas, movies are for entertainment, and they often send people (like me) running to find out the actual history, so at least there's that. The Tudors did have a few really fascinating little easter eggs thrown in that actually did happen per contemporary report. They were nice to catch and felt like a little reward for having studied the actual history.
You can tell she hasn't seen the whole movie of Shakespeare in Love bc the movie addresses the fact that women weren't allowed on the stage, and that Shakespeare was married. Totally unsurprised that TOBG was inaccurate. It showed Anne actually being guilty of the fabricated charges, and the script has her act very out of character to what we know of her.
The fact that she didn’t finish the Golden Age speech made me roll my eyes. That part of that iconic speech is said in the movie, as well as a few the iconic lines that were documented by people of that time 😂 for example the one about Her too being able to control the wind
It feels painfully realistic but I'm not a fan of Anne shaking in fear. When they cover her eyes she even starts crying. That's far away from the majestetic bravery Anne is said to have demonstrated in her last moments. Even her enemies gave her that.
The thing about Shakespeare in Love that I think it deserves a higher score is if you watch the full movie, Viola is pretending to be a boy so she can act. Shakespeare figures her out, but keeps her because he's caught feelings. They also mention he's married, but that his wife and him are separated, and Anne Hathaway (his wife) is in Stratford upon Avon. So, both marks you noted against it are addressed earlier in the film. It is a work of fiction, so I don't think it deserves a 10, but definitely 8.5 on a history base.
Maybe you could do a sequel about the TV series The Virgin Queen, starring Ann-Marie Duff as Queen Elizabeth I. They at least got the Tilbury speech correct. The movie Stage Beauty about a famous actor named Kynaston who used to play women's roles in theater would have been an interesting addition too.
Oh thank you thank you thank you for this! I’m absolutely obsessed with Tudor history, yet I can not at all bring myself to watch The Other Boleyn Girl. I tried and it was simply too painful (what a waste of time, money and proficient actors!) because the inaccuracies are offensive. Same goes for Elizabeth’s famous speech: how could they screw that up? I also did really appreciate the accuracy of Elizabeth’s love of dancing and all the details that were spot on regarding that and other aspects of her character. Some people may find it ridiculous to get so upset about such things, but these were real people and real events that had a tremendous effect on the world, so when “Hollywood”, or whomever, is sloppy or deliberately deviates from the truth for the sake of melodrama, I feel it’s an injustice to both the people who lived the history and those who are consuming the story without realizing which bits are fraudulent. If you had been Anne or Elizabeth, how would you feel if you found out that your proudest or most vulnerable moments (and in a life that was so public and wherein your reputation was such a tenuous situation so much of the time) were later portrayed with complete inaccuracy? Anne was vilified during and right after her life, and was the victim of so much slander. Given all the time that has passed, and our ability to take a step back and analyze the truth of her and her family (although there’s still so much information lacking that I/we wish we had access to), one would think we could avoid such entire fabrications as The Other Boleyn Girl! Anyhoo, I could go on and on, I really could, but the gist of it is: thank you for the fact checking. Now if only we could prevent these misrepresentations from happening in the first place!
I completely agree - these were REAL PEOPLE who often went through the most harrowing tragedies and whose honour was very dear to them. Taking such liberties when supposedly making a "historically inspired" piece feels like rank disrespect to the real individuals involved. Imagining what might've happened when no observers were around is one thing, or creating a totally alternate history, but misrepresenting the characters, actions and emotions of actual historic persons really feels ethically wrong to me? Similarly, I'm a big fan of accurate costume, setting & action in historic films because real people lived those lives... AND because of how inaccurate representation can hugely skew peoples understanding of the past. Think for example of most people's weird-ass mental picture of the Viking age, purely built by popular media!
the fact that Viola is a woman is a major plot device in the story of Shakespeare in Love... she is a woman pretending to be a male youth who is acting as a woman on stage. It's not that the script just randomly gets this wrong and doesn't understand the history, it's that the character is trying to get around the rules of women not being allowed to be on stage because she wishes to indulge her passion for acting... and pursue her attraction to Will.
Exactly. The whole premise of the movie is that it is illegal (besides the romance lol). They literally close the Rose because of it, then attempt to incarcerate all players at the Globe because of it. I feel she did not watch the whole movie. Definitely not a red X.
@@mdiddio she's rating it based purely on historical accuracy not based on how it fits the fantasy movie storyline. And women on stage is historically inaccurate regardless of whatever made up story is being told therefore a big red X
@@sullasfavouriteproscriptee 😂😂😂 Again, the movie itself states she was not supposed to be on stage, making the movie HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Why can't you folks handle that this historian is incorrect, didn't actually research, etc?
@@mdiddio why can’t you understand that’s not the premise of why she’s here. Also she doesn’t get time to research the movie, she is shown a clip with no context, get off your high horse
I think they'd already used parts of the Tilbury speech in the first Elizabeth film, which is why they changed it for the second. It is annoying though, as it's so iconic but i guess they didn't know that they'd get the chance for the sequel. And yes, she's clearly never actually watched Shakespeare in Love.
A little more insight like “she’d never take off her wig because that shows weakness” And a little less obvious questions like, “why did they take this clear artistic license?”
I'd kill for an historically accurate Tudor film. Doesn't even need to be about the usual King Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth I (though it could be); just about a person in Tudor England, with historical reference material **actually attended to closely.** I want history to beat Hollywood just once! (And I mean *all* the history nerds would see it repeatedly, and history is dramatic enough; aka not like it would be boring or like they'd lose money).
I remember myself being disappointed when they omitted the ‘heart and stomach of a king’ bit. It was the only bit of the speech that I remembered! I like Shakespeare in Love for all the little jokes too. Like the wherreyman saying “‘ere, you’ll never guess who I had in my boat today” (like a typical Black Cab driver), or the joke about Kit Marlowe being killed over a dispute about the bill Judy Dench also does a great job as Elizabeth…
Not a fan of this kind of movies, but I really loved the historian, she looks gorgeous, has a beautiful voice and focuses on giving accurate information rather than personal opinions. Please get her back for another video, there's plenty more Hollywood bullshit to pick apart on this subject.
One of my issues with Elizabeth is that the made William Cecil so old. I love Richard Attenborough but Cecil was about 10 years older than Elizabeth. I also think they seemed to smash aspects from the later years of her reign into the movie. For instance, I think Dudley's secret marriage could refer to his marriage to Lettice Knollys, not Amy Robsart. Also the Duke of Norfolk wasn't executed early in the reign either.
So most likely the horse in the "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" clip is probably a Bashkir Curly horse or a Friesian horse which both breeds have wavy and curly manes. They're also pretty expensive.
When I saw the description "Top Tudor historian rates..." I was expecting David Starkey, but Nicola Tallis showed she also has the screen presence to do this sort of thing as well. I thouroughly enjoyed her commentary.
She makes several disconcertingly inaccurate statements in this video though... I don’t understand why she insisted things were inaccurate off of her own assumptions when we have actual primary sources on them. She could have said “oh that doesn’t *seem* right,” or better yet, just looked it up. Or it could’ve been edited out of the final cut considering this is a video entirely about fact checking history. Mary Queen of Scots did have a Scots accent. In fact she spoke Scots far better than English. We have reports from people who actually spoke to her saying that she had “a pretty Scot’s tongue” despite growing up in France. Also, yes she lived in france, but are we just forgetting she was attended to and effectively raised by a staff of Scotswomen? Anne Boleyn’s ladies in attendance at her execution did indeed weep. We have accounts of it. They were initially tasked with spying on her during her imprisonment, but they came to believe her innocence, and by all accounts were distraught at her actual execution. We don’t know for sure that any actually disliked her, we just know they were appointed to her in her imprisonment because they weren’t her favourites. Also, not really a historical concern, but why did nobody quickly explain to her why Viola was being played by a woman? It’s a central plot point. She was pretending to be a man playing a woman.
Another point about “Elizabeth” - Elizabeth had been a guest at the Dudley wedding. The Other Boleyn Girl didn’t follow the book very well and I’m afraid there will never be a good, solid filming of a Philippa Gregory book that won’t be bastardized by some cheap screenwriter. Philippa follows the history as much as possible and tells you when she’s had to invent filler on other things, although sometimes she definitely goes with the legend where truth might not be as exciting. So it’s not like they didn’t have history and her book to go by, and they still had to fill in with absolutely poppycock. Thank you for pointing out the movie makers’ failure to translate a truly great story. On “Shakespeare in Love”, which I hope you will watch completely, actually has Viola dressed as a man and originally cast as Romeo in the play before Shakespeare figures out she’s a woman and there’s a good reason by the end as to why all you saw happened. It’s a piece of fancy that doesn’t offend me as a history buff, and not having to point out faults in the story let’s me just enjoy the show.
Philippa Gregory writes rubbish novels and the worst is The Other Boleyn Girl. The movie attempts at times to inject some actual historical fact that the novel gets wrong. Both are pretty awful, but between the two I'd say the movie is 'slightly' better than the book, which angered me the more I tried to finish it.
The only thing accurate about Philippa Gregory novels was that those people existed. In the book she has Mary Boleyn in the crowd watching the execution when she was already in Dover at that point in real life. Mary never intervened and her daughter wasn’t attending her aunt which is all the things that were in that book and all the things that she claimed happened
Not so well known but 'The Virgin Queen' with Anne Marie Duff does show her wearing the white dress and pretty accurate on the Elizabeths speech aswell. Lower budget but worth the watch!
Its been an argument between film watchers since movies began. How much of a true historical story should be true to the source and how much room is allowed to create fictional scenes that propel the dramatic storyline. Heck, even Shakespeare played fast and loose with history in his own plays.
Really loved this! Thanks for talking about the movies would LOVE to see you talk about The Tudors with Jonathan Rhys Meyers (the writers themselves have said it's not completely historically accurate and they acknowledge that but wanted to tell a good story too).
In defense of Mary Queen of The Scotts, and Shakespeare in Love, they're both fanfiction. Pretty good fanfiction. For instance, Shakespeare in Love completely glosses over Anne Hathaway, William Shakespeare's wife. She goes full shojo manga level crossing here, and the audience actually thinks she's a guy when she's acting out that scene. And it's said to be the inspiration for Viola's character in Twelfth Night; I actually think it kinda makes sense because I can see GP playing that character and nailing it. People really liked pitting her against Blanchet for her performance in one of the movies discussed here. I only pick Blanchet over Paltrow as a personal fave because I think she played a better character, Queen Elizabeth, and knocked it out of the park. Paltrow did a great job playing "Master Kent", but sadly that takes a back seat to "the romance" after JF's character finds out about her identity. If that movie had gone on with her needing to keep up the charade with him only finding out about who she is in the end, and she told him she loved him there, I think it would have been more "her movie". But I guess cough cough HW wanted to badly have GP do a nude scene since she is a woman who's so out of his league he was never going to get her to do it consensually. Which is horrible to think about. Glad she walked it off like a champ. They should have given her more, she deserved better.
In the Mary Queen of the Scots scene, who are the black courtiers, where are they from and why would they be there? She goes on about the black clothes but not the black men, which would be far more interesting.
I agree with her assessment of Shaspeare In Love. That was pure fantasy, but they went to such extremes in trying to capture that time and place in history, that the audience gets a true taste of Elizabethan England, through a piece of fiction.
Thank you, Dr. Tallis, for bringing up the fact that Mary, Queen of Scots would have had a French accent and not a Scottish one from her many years in France from a very young child. I also would like to mention that is what I like about Genevieve Bujold portrayal of Anne Boleyn in "Anne of the Thousand Days". Being French Canadian from Quebec, Genevieve had the French accent which Anne Boleyn certainly would have from her time in France from a very young child. There are many things that I can say about the miscasting of the many, many Henry VIII's, with exception to the splendid Keith Michell, and Katherine of Aragon's, with the exception of Annette Crosbie, but that's for another video.
Any time I see a clip from Shakespeare in Love I am yet again just dumbfounded that's the same actor who plays Commander Waterford in The Handmaid's Tale. Just can't wrap my head around it!
Mays were a lot colder in those days. Maybe not to the extent that you'd need winter clothes, but I do think it made the scene more...dramatic idk? Like cool tones to represent death. I'm grasping here, but I support the creative licensing there.
As a writer, what I adored about "Shakespeare in Love" is just the way it portrays the process, how much writers crib from real life, the moments of doubt and lack of inspiration, and the flurry of those moments when you get inspired and really get into The Zone. I can't speak to any of the struggle of the actors or the chaos that goes on behind the scenes, but I've had a couple of actor friends call it accurate. Now, as a fan of Tudor and Elizabethan era clothing, I have LOTS of quibbles -- all the men walking around with their doublets undone or completely off, everyone in boots instead of shoes, etc -- but overall it's just a lovely movie to me.
Had to set the record straight for my friend in PE thanks to The Other Boleyn Girl. However Elizabeth R, starring Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth Ist is my favorite & I feel is the best portrayal, so far to Elizabeth’s character.
Hang on, in Shakespeare in love its a big part of the storyline that she isn't allowed on stage so she disguises as a man, its like a major plot in ths movie
I was OK with this fictionalized version of Mary and Elizabeth’s meeting. We’ve seen plays in the past brilliant ones at that describing fictionalized meetings between historical figures so why not because we’re all wondering what they might’ve said to each other. And I can’t help it it was just so beautifully acted.
9:25 When examining how historically authentic this scene is, are we just going to ignore that there's sub-Saharan Africans present at court stood in front of Mary, or is it just Mary's fake Scottish accent we're going to critique?
I thoroughly enjoyed the tv series Elizabeth R as Glenda Jackson did an excellent and convincing performance. Love to hear a historical analysis on that
The "Why is Mary speaking with a Scottish accent" took me out 😂. I suppose its because directors cant be bothered to crack an actual history book. Mary was raised in France so I'm thinking a French accent would have been a better choice. 😂
I don’t think Dr Tallis actually watched Shakespeare in Love apart from a couple of scenes. If you’re going to comment on the film you should at least see all of it. 1. The whole point of the film was that women were not allowed on stage and 2. It was acknowledged that Shakespeare was married and in fact it was the trigger for a very dramatic scene.
I feel like being kinder to "Shakespeare In Love" is fair as it isn't trying to depict actual history. The other movies were trying to depict real events and either misrepresenting history, or making things up whole cloth.
Elizabeth was definitely aware of Dudley's marriage. Her own younger brother (king at that time) was in attendance. I've read an account that she was too, but with only one resource saying so, Im not sure if that much was true. But she definitely knew.
"Why are they dressed in black, and Mary has a Scottish accent? Never mind all the black courtiers with Afros, though, that would get me into trouble to mention."
The whole women not being allowed on stage was a HUGE part of Shakespeare in Love's plot. She did play a woman playing a man playing a woman. Ugh...watch the whole movie if you are going to critique it.
I really like these ruthless experts, a proper historian with some claws :) No The Tudors though, was expecting that, but maybe for later? Though one has to address the elephant in the room; "Mary Queen of Scots" she takes issue with everyone being dressed in black, but not with Elizabeth's envoys/ambassadors being black/dark skinned? How is that historically accurate? I guess she either doesn't dare OR she's been given directions not to mention it...
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
One of my pet peeves about movies is that they will often have two characters having private conversations in what appears to be a public setting, but the public is apparently deaf or lacks ears. It drives me nuts. Sometime's they're literally talking about the guy who's standing three feet away.
Me too. I also hate the opposite thing movies do where two people are talking at a normal volume despite being on the opposite side of the room to each other, or are at a loud place such as a club or factory or something..
@@pappy374 Right, if that were real life at least one person would be screaming "WHAT?" over and over until they decide to leave.
@@cheesecake2545 I'm not talking about the framing. I'm talking about when a character will physically grab another characters arm, walk two steps, and then talk about the character they just dragged them away from.
Plays have characters giving asides to the audience, and the other characters somehow never hear it, either. I guess that drives you crazy, too.
@@reamick theater is different
Was REALLY hoping she'd take a look at the Showtime series, "The Tudors" with Jonathan Rhys Meyers.
They gotta save something for the sequel.
I don't think she'd survive it. It's SO bad smh
That's like a whole video on its own, and it would be all red X's. 😂
So good! I was fact checking the whole time I was watching! Lots of creative liberties, but still so so good!
And The Borgias as well!
In "Shakespeare in Love", the fact of women not being allowed on stage is not only acknowledged, but it's a main prop of the plot: Viola disguises herself as a boy in order to join the acting troupe, and many complications ensue from there, including how she actually ends up performing. The script, in which Tom Stoppard was heavily involved, is intelligent and and historically aware, including in its liberties. I think you should take back that debit because the entire story hinges on Viola working against the ban on women on stage.
But she is very obviously female here. One of those guys at the front would have noticed that she had real breasts. This is the climax of the film, so understandably some creative licence is allowed, but it still stretches credibility. Considering how this story treats Anne Hathaway as a throwaway line and makes Shakespeare out to be a womanising cad, her review was surprisingly favourable.
I think she is only watching the clips, not the whole movie, which also acknowledges that he has a wife.
@@katherinegilks3880 Yeah, but they DO actually address this, because even if everyone can see she's a woman, Queen Elizabeth (her being incognito at the theatre is probably the least realistic thing tbh) says in front of everyone "yes the illusion is remarkable..." and affirms Viola's male identity. I don't think ANYONE in that room actually BELIEVES it, but once the Queen has said it, NOBODY in that room is going to argue with her in that moment. It's Queen Elizabeth's way of neatly getting everyone out of a sticky situation so that Viola and the theatre company don't have to face any consequences from Tilney and his censorship squad enforcers.
Which may not be entirely realistic, but as a variation on the Deus Ex Machina device Shakespeare himself used to solve many of his plot problems easily and quickly, Queen Appears and Says It's All Okay is pretty effective! And in a movie that pays homage to Shakespeare and theatre tropes so thoroughly, I'll totally accept this one, too.
The point is that she is a woman and the audience would have noticed immediately and the play would not have ever really continued until end. She knew where the movie was filmed so she knows about the basic plot.
Also personally, does anyone else think it’s funny how Viola apparently was able to put her huge long blonde hair beneath a boy wig? Paltrow clearly just removed the blond wig and put on another with a modern bald cap first. It just takes me out of her costume changes even though it’s just such a little thing!
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Well, not necessarily: the stage is a kind of magical location: I attended a play about the Brontes, in which there were two actors. Emily and Anne were represented briefly by two containers of water carried from one side of the stage to the other and poured empty, while the actor playing Papa Bronte lamented their deaths. The audience was completely caught up and gasped when the water was poured out. It made no sense, but the illusion was real so the audience bought it. If the story and presentation is strong enough, the audience may very well have been distracted from reality.
Apart from everything else, I do like Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Elizabeth!
But the (far too many) historical inaccuracies are soooo irritating.
Cate is great 👍
She was amazing
Cate Blanchett is excellence personified. She is just perfection.
Honestly the historical accuracies aren't that glaring imo. They just mess with the timing of things. Otherwise I think the artistic liberties are fine, especially with the amazing talents of the director and Cate Blanchett. The first Elizabeth movie is a classic.
Elizabeth loved dancing - yet another similarity she shared with her mother Anne Boleyn. The fact that Good Queen Bess allegedly carried a miniature of her mother’s likeness until her own death has always broken my heart.
I don't wanna be a downer but there's no evidence the redish-blond woman in the miniature was meant to be Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth could never develop an emotional connection to her mother as she grew up in an own household and saw Anne only a few times until she was executed when Elizabeth was not even 3 years old. It's more likely it showed a woman she had an emotional connection with, for example Catherine Parr (face and hair color would fit), Cat Ashley - or Elizabeth herself in a younger stage of her life.
I love how genetics kind of work in that way. How Elizabeth may have had some traits of her mother’s without ever REALLY knowing her. She died when she was so young, yet sometimes acted as her mother. I love when you hear about that with just any people that they act like a parent or show traits of a parent they never got to know. I just think it’s sweet.
@@0308frank The face and hair colour fit Anne perfectly. There is no evidence Anne had dark hair, it's just a myth that keeps getting repeated. It would make more sense if she had fair hair, as is also depicted in the Holbein sketch.
Anne deserves a pardon and to be buried with Elizabeth
@@neilalam127Elizabeth would never have done that. It would be a very poor political decision. Also Ann was nasty to Mary and had no problem separating Mary and Catherine. She wanted Mary to be her lady maid Also Mary and Elizabeth are entombed together kinda awkward for Mary to be buried with her evil stepmother.
Yeah, after watching the scene of Anne's execution, I can safely say Natalie Dormer did a FAR better job than Natalie Portman did.
But the best is Claire foy by a long shot
@@A-G-A-G Claire Foy's acting was lovely, but I can't get over those big blue eyes! Anne's most famous feature were her black eyes. Just a little thing but it bugs me.
Natalie Portman followed her script… She was told to cry - she didn’t just get up there and act scared simply because she wanted to 😅
No one is going to mention Genevieve Bujold?
Much better
There are sources to say that Anne’s ladies and the crowd did weep due to the fact that she died with dignity , it wears also a huge shock to the country that a queen would actually be executed . There are sources that Ann kept looking around to see if there would be a last minute pardon and historians suggest that even master Kingston had not prepared a proper coffin to place her body in after death because no one actually believe that she would be executed until it was too late . It had never been done before and most did believe it was a power play by Henry and that she would be pardoned and sent to a convent . Also I’ve read a few comments on here and I really wish that history classes stopped using the other Boleyn girl as a tool to teach history . It’s perhaps the most inaccurate depiction of Tudor history and characters out there and the fact that schools allow this to be shown as factual is so disappointing . I honestly think , though it has its own inaccuracies , that the tudors tv show is a better example to use in history lessons . I was actually impressed by the small details it got right that other films and series either got wrong or completely ignored , like Ann discovering Henry and Jane together and blaming this for her miscarriage. I know Hollywood will always want to dramatise but I think most of the time the truth is even more fantastical and interesting so I’m not sure why films seem to either play it down or just ignore facts
No they arent. I trust this woman, who is a historian, more than a random person on the internet.
@@Alejojojo6 ahhhh you must be one of those internet people who just like to piss on everyone else I’ve heard about . Can I ask how you don’t know I’m not a historian ? Have you done your own research ? No ? Didn’t think so . Thank you for your pointless comment though , it’s always fun
@@Alejojojo6 also check your spelling before posting in future
Her execution was private
Honestly, the only accuracy of the Other Boleyn girl I thought was the costumes. The costumes were right on, especially with the hoods and head pieces.
Pretty sure there are accounts that Anne's gentle women did cry as they were so moved by the way she handled herself at her execution. Even though they were appointed attendants who were not supposed to have behaved kindly to her. I think that's why it has been remarked upon in some historical accounts?
there's some thought that she was granted ladies at her execution that were more friendly towards her, but it's still possible that the hostile women who spied on her for Kingston and Cromwell were just moved by the shock of a woman who was recently considered their queen be brutally murdered in front of them, and by her dignity at facing her death with courage.
2:10 I can actually answer this one! Mini ice age! The previous winter froze the Thames, and in 1536 winter was late in receding and this is early morning. It probably was pretty cold. Also Tudor nobles lined their clothes in fur as much as possible anyway.
that's what I thought too!
not to mention we literally know what anne was wearing at her execution and it included a short fur cloak like the one shown in the other boleyn girl!!
very strange that a historian didn't know that the little ice age went on from around the 13th century up until the 1850s or so...
This is entirely what I thought
I lived in Germany for a while. One year in may and June I was still wearing a jacket and a turtle neck sweater.
If you watch all of Shakespeare in Love, the fact that Viola is a woman playing Juliet is not only explained, but leads to a great quote by QEI. Also, his marriage is mentioned earlier in the movie.
I agree. The fact that she's a woman on the stage is a major plotpoint.
Yes I wonder if she’s really watched this film as the whole driving force of the plot is a woman trying to act a female role which was banned, and further, her class would have made it out of the question too. I am surprised she did not comment on judi dench as queen elizabeth in her older years as the lines she is given are quite plausible - a woman in man’s world etc
It's clear that she's only reviewing the individual scenes she's being shown,
“That woman, is a woman!”
I always giggle like an idiot at that line in the film
I feel like whoever the producer was should have clarified this
Has she really never seen Shakespeare in Love? The women-not-allowed-on-stage rule is not overlooked, it’s a major plot point.
Other than this I appreciate all her other comments and commentary.
The tittle says they just showed her scenes. So maybe they didn’t tell her the plot of the movie and just showed her some scenes.
Exactly! How is she entirely unfamiliar with this movie? Ridiculous and renders her commentary irrelevant.
@@PomegranateStaindGrn She's rating it based on historical accuracy, not based on the movie plot. And a women on stage is historically inaccurate. How are you entirely unfamiliar with this history. Ridiculous and renders your commentary irrelevant.
@@sullasfavouriteproscriptee so, I guess you haven’t seen the film either.
@@PomegranateStaindGrn The entire point of this series is her reviewing clips from various shows/movies she hasn't watched based on their historical accuracy. She's not rating the entire thing.
I was surprised to hear her say that the women who accompanied Anne Boleyn to her execution would not have wept because they didn't like her very much. There is a famous contemporary account of those same women refusing to allow any of the men to touch Anne's body after her death, insisting instead that they themselves carry the corpse (and presumably the head) to the arrow box which became her coffin. This has led many historians to believe that these woman were actually very emotionally attached to Anne, and therefore probably different women to those who attended her in the tower, women that she referred to as her enemies.
I've read that too. Most of the contemporary accounts were written by men who hated her or were written so long after her execution that they're not first hand accounts and instead relied heavily on gossip and innuendo.
They still wouldn't have cried in public during those times, maybe afterwards
I did read somewhere that Marie de Guise wrote to her daughter’s governess, to ensure that she ‘did not lose her Scots’ tongue’- which might imply that she might actually have spoken Scots, but with a French accent (which would not surprise me, given that a fair portion of the Scottish Court were part French, to a greater or lesser degree at that time).
I believe the _Elizabeth I_ mini-series with Helen Mirren was more accurate with the Tilbury Speech, & the costume.
'Tongue' means language, rather than accent, I would suggest. However, Mary's maids and governess during her childhood in France were Scotswomen, so it's not completely unlikely that she would have had a hint of Scots when speaking English.
@@soniamacdonald9193 Ehh, not really. Mary hated Scotland. She desperately loved France, and had been raised there entirely. She was accused of being too french by her Scottish enemies
@@theshadowling1 She was but she didn't "hate" Scotland lol she loved her people. OBVIOUSLY her enemies would use that, but it's not fair at all to say she hated Scotland. Also, she DID spoke Scots
She did speak Scots, BUT she didn't speak English which is the funny part. So technically it wouldn't be accurate for her to speak English at all, but we can't hold that against them.
@@soniamacdonald9193 She didn't speak English. She wrote with Elizabeth in French. She spoke Scots and Elizabeth spoke English so French was common ground.
I saw a trailer for _Mary Queen of Scots_ and my first thought was, "You know, Mary should really have a French accent because she was raised in that country from a young age." And then I saw the black lord and the Chinese Bess of Hardwick and I thought, "Oh, the producers aren't concerned with historical accuracy."
the sad thing is some child will know no better and actually end up believing these people were black. Its modern brainwashing
@@cbear9263 It's because all media based courses in university teach this ideology - Which then goes on to affect the real world media as well as the Government. It is primarily of left wing political spectrum which is involved in identities being malluable and not set in stone (which history is set in stone). It is why after different genders being accepted socially it now moves onto actual history . It's a very unhealthy thing to do for cultural strength and something you wont see done say in africa with a white man playing a african king. It's a type of racial sado masochism (the racists pretending to be anti racists etc). People who feel guilty for being white - is a trend. Despite Black slavery against whites existing- The Barbary slave trade involved african slavers kidnapping native british people and selling them in Africa - They do not teach this history and so people have a biased view on the past as if one race needs to be punished more than others.
I was under the impression that the idea is if the actors are good enough we aren’t supposed to pay attention to their skin color, or at the very least say “what a good actor, they were a good choice despite the racial disparity.” That being said, they will never cast an asian or caucasian person as Martin Luther King.
@@possumaintdead I agree with where you come from - i didnt really have much of an issue with a african lady playing a actor in a shakespeare play at the globe theatre. But it definetely took me out of the immersion - I think a distinction needs to be made if a show is historical - or a dramatisation of a period. Because it was a dramatisation I didn't have a big issue with it - but in the case of a show called anne B it definetely is a modern thing not done before . I think its important for children to teach the true representation to avoid confusion . unless explicity a dramatisation i.e like shakespeare
@@romainvicta3076 what confusion? i'm sorry but i'm not particularly concerned with the fact that a 7 year old thinks Anne Boleyn was black. most people don't know jack shit about tudor history anyway, and in the off-chance that child grows up to study it then they'll know that she was white then. it's not like the world is going to shift on its axis every time someone learns that Anne Boleyn was white. what's the big deal?
"The other Boleyn girl" is a nice movie, but it is so unbelievable inaccurate. When we watched it on the classroom, we were watching to discuss about the reformation of the church but my teacher asked me to leave because I was constantly saying "that's not what happened... That's not right... That's inaccurate... That's dumb..." 🤣
Hilarious!
TBH I'd have done the same as you. I haven't watched that movie in years but the inaccuracy of it is insane. Also sometimes you find with movies like this that the costuming saves it, but not in this case! Not with Anne and Mary wearing french hoods that look like headbands half the time.
That is hilarious
@@s6r231 OMG I forgot the headbands 😂
So sit down with your teacher see if she or he could of shown a accurate depiction of this subject. My mom was a woman studies teacher and world cultures teacher. You’re teacher should of know far better to show that one but to voice this in this manner, not so nice
The best portrayal of Anne Boleyn I’ve seen is Geneviève Bujold in Anne of the Thousand Days. She’s young and at first a bit naive, but also intelligent and self-assured. Like all movies, it does take liberties, but those liberties are done in service to the characters. The best scene of the film is a meeting between Anne and Henry after she’s been imprisoned in the Tower of London (which never happened), where Henry has begun to believe the accusations of adultery (accusations Henry himself ordered be made, at least in the film). He tries to get Anne to agree to an annulment and leave England, but she refuses, since she’d vowed to never have an illegitimate child, and an annulment would make Elizabeth a bastard. Then, because she has nothing left to lose, Anne says “Look for the rest of your life at every man that ever knew me, and wonder if I didn’t find him a better man than you.” She then goes on to declare that Elizabeth would rule after Henry, and be the queen of a greater England than Henry could ever have built. She finishes this truly amazing monologue by saying “My Elizabeth shall be queen, and my blood will have been well spent.” The whole scene is, while historically inaccurate, the best bit of writing and acting I’ve ever seen.
Oh I HATED this portrayal of Anne, it was so over dramatic and unrealistic. I don’t understand why people love it so much..
@@jillyparrish The OP doesn't represent all or even most people though.
It might have been well-acted but ''the best''? How can it be the best portrayal if it's a complete fiction AND overdramatic at that? How can it be ''best written'' if it's so pompous and overblown? Sorry...
Oh and to anyone who loves this sort of video: I highly recommend Claire Ridgeway’s channel, The Anne Boleyn Files, as well her likewise titled website, and the series of books she’s written about Anne Boleyn and the Tudors. She doesn’t just focus on Anne, but also goes into extensive detail about the history surrounding her and the Tudor dynasty. She’s very diligent about being accurate. You can literally learn at least one new fact every day by following her research.
Claire Ridgeway has an excellent YT channel. The fact that she writes historical non-fiction books makes her Tudor videos both historically accurate and filled with information.
I love Claire’s videos.
Claire is a blessing indeed :)
She is wonderful!
I read that Elizabeth did an hour or so of vigorous dance (basically aerobics) every morning until middle age. Galliards, with lots of leaping in the air and crossing the ankles multiple times. And she made her ladies join her which many hated.
“Joseph Fiennes is quite fit though”
100% accurate 🤣❤️
I thought she called him Jason.
I think he made a very dashing Robert Dudley and pretty much portrayed a young Robert as I could picture him. But the movie plot ultimately did a major disservice to Dudley's reputation.
@@sabeaniebaby yes she did
That is historically accurate.
Can’t see him the same after Handmaid
Cate Blanchett is excellent as Elizabeth even if it wasnt competely historically accurate.
On Elizabeth the Golden Age speech. I was also shocked regarding that, literally her most famous speech. But I think they had lifted part of the speech and slotted somewhere in the first Elizabeth film and they couldn't or didn't want to use it twice as the two films are supposed to be sequels. It's been a while since I watched the films so I could be misremembering. Obviously when they did the first film they had no plans for a second and so probably saw no harm in grabbing her most famous speech and slotting it in elsewhere.
You are absolutely correct. In the first movie Elizabeth does say "I may be a woman, Sir William, but if I choose I have the heart of a man!" I know both movies take liberties with the facts but I love them fiercely.
Okay, here's the thing: you really can't go after "Shakespeare In Love" the way you go after purportedly historical films like the others, because it is so obviously and openly a fantasy (though it really was very accurate in period details, as you note). Also, you cannot actually have watched the movie, or you would know that Gwyneth Paltrow's character actually being a woman who is a last-minute replacement for the boy who is supposed to play Juliet IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AS IT IS INTEGRAL TO THE PLOT! Indeed, it gave Simon Callow as Master of Revels his best outraged line: "That woman IS A WOMAN!" So the brilliant playwright Tom Stoppard, who wrote this, and everyone else involved with this film, knew perfectly well that women's roles were performed by young male actors; as I said, this knowledge is the premise on which the entire plot of the film is based. You should watch it; it won all kinds of awards, including the Oscar for best picture.
And it was such a good riff on the theatre convention that Shakespeare used to great effect in various comedies. In *As You Like It* Rosalind's epilogue breaks the fourth wall by speaking to the audience as the actor who had played the heroine, who had played a young man, now as a "woman" giving the epilogue who then says that If he WERE a woman s/he would kiss all the beards that pleased her. Whew! "Shakespeare in Love" was pretty darned Shakespearean!
It’s extremely jarring to see someone tout Shakespeare in Love’s Oscar win as a positive (or appropriate) thing, or even as a reflection of the film’s quality itself. It’s fine to like the film, I get the appeal for sure, but from a historical perspective it’s extremely disingenuous to assert that it deserved most (if any) of the Oscars it won.
That films’ Oscar record, including most notably its defeat of Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture, is arguably one of the most disgraceful moments in modern Academy history.
It is also, inarguably, all Harvey Weinstein’s fault. The results of the 1999 Oscars were entirely due to his characteristically over-aggressive campaigning, as well as Miramax’s deliberate manipulation of media narratives and a high profile smear-campaign against the competition. Many of the techniques Weinstein refined during the ‘99 season became staples of his practice and allowed him to consistently dominate the Academy Awards in a way no one Producer had since the height of the Studio system - which, obviously, also afforded him the power and influence he used to continue his reign of terror as a sexual predator, (including harassing Gwyneth Paltrow during the making of Shakespeare in Love).
Unsurprisingly, many of these tactics were also explicitly against Academy rules. They would even put Weinstein on notice the very next year, after the press revealed that he’d very clearly (and deliberately) broken rules about throwing parties with both Oscar voters and nominees in attendance.
These two videos do a great job of breaking down the techniques Weinstein used to game the Oscars, using his campaign’s for 1999’s Shakespeare in Love, and also 2002’s Chicago, The Hours, and Frida, as case studies. I cannot recommend them highly enough, this is THE best classic film channel on TH-cam.
m.th-cam.com/video/6tihITlPAn4/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/z4GvecFjLkU/w-d-xo.html
It won over Saving Private Ryan. That still hurts.
hmmm... But isn't the point of this video assessing historical accuracy of given motion picture in the light of Tudorean Era realities? Nothing to do with plot or it's integrity.
Just pure: woman would not be on the stage and acting. Red X.
Cheers!
I.
PS
I haven't watched it either.
🙄
The best depiction of Anne Boleyn's execution is, imo, Claire Foye in Wolf Hall. Foye perfectly captured Anne's dignity and bravery in death, and the production team accurately recreated the bleakness of how the execution would have been.
The best depiction of Elizabeth, for me, is Glenda Jackson. But the best recreation of the speech at Tilbury was by Helen Mirren. It was just perfect.
Agreed!
I don't agree about Claire Foye. The scene is fantastic and her acting is fine but she seems extremely frightened and insecure in her last scene, she's shaking and even starts crying when they cover her eyes. Though not as hysteric as Natalie Portman, she's still miles apart from the bravery and dignity Anne was praised for. I think Natalie Dormer gave a grand depiction of Anne's execution: agitated, yet couragous and graceful. I also like Geneviewe Bujold who gave Anne's execution an detached, almost outer-wordly tune.
I absolutely agree. Claire Foye’s depiction of Anne’s execution was by far the best. Even the inclusion of the thunder in the distance which echos Thomas Wyatt’s poem which includes the line ‘around the throne the thunder rolls’. Or ‘circa Regna tonat’. I hated Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn. Some of her facial expressions were awful when trying to appear intense and ‘sexy’.
I agree! Claire Foy is perfect. Also love Damian Lewis at Henry 8th.
They really screwed up the costumes in Wolf Hall, though. They are actually better than many other productions but because the set was magnificent, the poor effort on the costumes stood out. The headdresses looked like kids made them for a school play.
In Shakespeare In Love, Viola was playing a woman playing a man playing a woman, which was referenced explicitly and also emphasised by the fact that at the end of the film she becomes Viola in Twelfth Night, who does the same thing. I’d have loved to have seen the films analysed once seen the whole way through!
Couldn’t agree more!
And J. Fiennes was Shakespeare
If you've ever seen a man in drag, well, an audience would be able to instantly tell if it was really a woman playing a man playing a woman. It's like a reverse t-trick, never convincing.
Shakespeare in Love has a sweet spot in my heart. I enjoyed it very much. And it was portrayed several times, explicitly, that women were not allowed to act in the theatre and Gwyneth Paltrow was using the disguise as Master Kent to conceal her identity.
yes I remember but there was no way he would have kissed Juliet or touched her on her mouth with his lips when they were on stage because she was supposed to be played by a man.
In the Two Queens, the meeting of Mari and Elizabeth turned out to be a dream Elizabeth had and in Shakespeare in Love, Viola was pretending to be a man dressed as a woman.
The producers of this video should have mention this to the expert
What ''two queens''? She revised Mary, Queen of Scots, and the meeting wasn't portrayed as a dream in that film...
Tearing historical films and shows apart makes me so happy. I hate it when Hollywood covers up the actual, more interesting events!!!
AGREED!
@@cheesecake2545 We do understand it, but the wider public - not unreasonably - take them to be completely accurate.
Hollywood knows that the average person has a fantastical imagination of what history and important historical events were like. Obviously, the history lover knows that certain ideas the general public hold about both the more ancient and recent past are not exactly accurate
i mean dramatisation is done to attract and keep the general audience engaged
I was at TIFF for the festival premiere of The Golden Age, and there was a Q&A afterwards with the director. When asked why the Armada speech was changed rather than using the actual speech, the director explained he'd already used parts of it -- including the "heart and stomach" line -- in the first film, Elizabeth.
TIFF?
@@theoriginaltoba Toronto International Film Festival
@@gadgetgirl02 ahhh okay. Thank you :)
Even Blackadder 2 includes Elizabeth's famous speech!
And Ploppy, son of Ploppy!
But I have the heart and stomach, of a CONCRETE ELEPHANT!
@@aw04tn58 True to the original speech!
Lol that's awesome for Blackadder, I love that show
I'm a bit surprised that a professional Tudor historian would insist Mary Stuart wouldn't have had a Scottish accent. Mary spoke Scots and French as a child but learned English a bit later. Randolph, Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to the Scottish court, sent back a dispatch saying he offered to speak French with Mary but she wanted to improve her English in preparation for, in her mind, her inevitable succession of Elizabeth. She spoke broken English but definitely with a brogue: Randolph's exact words were she spoke "haltingly, but with a pretty Scots accent." The problem with Mary's English here is not the accent, but the fluency: she didn't speak it that well.
It actually annoys me when they give Mary a French accent, thinking they're being accurate. It's the worst in the HBO Elizabeth, because every other physical detail about Mary Stuart in that is ABSOLUTELY on point, and they go and give her a French accent when she speaks English!
Mary was raised in France from the time she was about 6 years. I think that is why many people believe she had a French accent. And she didn't say she spoke with a French accent. She said they didn't think she had a Scots accent.
Wasn't Mary raised in France? That's why Stewart is spelled Stuart.
@@jomc6734 That’s the thing though, this is meant to be an “expert” - it’s strange she’s opine on something she doesn’t know, and if we are to accept that she thought she knew, it’s weird she’s unaware of one of the few primary sources about Mary Queen of Scots..
@@jomc6734 Dr. Nicola Tallis said - ".. she probably had a french accent rather than a Scots one". Clearly, a statement indicating Mary had a french accent.. well, probably.
I think complaining about accents in historical films is often misplaced. In all these movies, Elizabeth is speaking with a Received Pronunciation accent, about 250 years before it would have sounded like that.
I mean I know Anne was said to have stayed composed in the moments before her execution but saying “Pull yourself together!” to someone before they get their head chopped off for a crime they did not commit is stone cold 🥶. I think the movie made this choice because throughout the film she’s kind of unlikable and they really needed you to see her humanity and understand the tragedy of what was happening. Not a fan of that movie though.
I don't think she's saying "Pull yourself together, Anne Boleyn " I think it's more like, "Pull yourself together, Natalie Portman, you're supposed to be portraying a real person who was famously VERY calm in this moment."
funny though 🤣
@@danaglabeman6919 Then that’s a criticism for the director and writer, not Portman. She’s an absolute professional, and no doubt was delivering the performance she was directed to. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
this historian was egregiously harsh. these are not documentaries. To sit through Mary QoS without a climatic mtg between the two... they're movies. Are you not entertained? lol
and, yes, Portman didn't make that choice, the director did
I was upset after watching this movie.
None of the sisterly love from the book is acknowledged.
Uncle Duke's influence completely ignored...
Just one more demonisation of Anne Boleyn
both Shakespeare's marriage and viola dressing up as a boy were major plot points in Shakespeare in Love...so not sure how it loses points for quite literally having a plot I guess...
Because it shows a woman acting on stage. Which didn’t happen at that time.
@@borismuller86 presumably you haven’t seen the film.
I have, and it was nonsense. It won an Oscar purely because Harvey Weinstein was a producer.
I think what is meant here (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that of course women weren’t allowed on the stage, which is why Gwyneth’s character dresses up as a boy dressing up as a girl, which is the nuance of the film which was missed by the academic in this video. I love when she also states that it’s a bit weird that they ignored that Shakespeare was married because Shakespeare himself definitely ignored the fact that he was married! It’s perfectly in-keeping with the reality of his life! And I think you’re right about the Oscar thing! 😅
It’s hard to suspend your disbelief so much that you could imagine people falling for a woman like Gwyneth Paltrow being a man in drag. I think that’s the main problem here.
The Historian completely missed the boat on Shakspeare in Love was the whole thing she was a woman on the stage, it was a plot point. Also, they did mention that Shakspeare was married in the film. What having Historians watch movies and comment on the historical accuracy misses is some movies are meant to tell a dramatization of history (Elizabeth, Elizabeth Gold Age, Mary Queen of Scots), while others are Historical Fiction (The Other Boleyn Girl, and Shakspeare in Love). It's kind of like getting WW2 Historian to watch Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Taratino and comment on Hitler didn't die in a movie theater in Paris, when Taratino said it himself he did it because it made sense for the story he was trying to tell, and was a complete work of fiction.
This ticked me off. It made her, the historian, look stupid.
@@GeorgiaDCA or at least ignorant of the films probably were just shown scenes out of context.
Well these people were very real, and it is frustrating to have people blatantly get details wrong. To someone familisr with history these details appear stupid and melodramatic. Historians can be really invested ij the people they sre studying and it is frustrating to see people put no effort into getting details about real things that happen right
@@matteusconnollius1203 the thing is historians will admit that they don't know much about Shakespeare, the point is the historian came off not knowing the movie and knowing that the writer directly addressed her points in the movie.
As a historian and someone who works in the performing arts, this is something that is frustrating but also completely understandable. The reason historians often feel the need to point out the inaccuracies (despite our sympathies for artistic license and the needs of storytelling) is because these films are often shown in educational environments as a way to capture some sense of accuracy, truth, aesthetics, or information about the periods and peoples being taught in the classroom. Shakespeare in Love is an especially egregious example! It's a wonderful film and portrays a brilliant story around historical characters and events. But it's also just historically inaccurate in SO MANY WAYS. Ultimately, it does more harm than good when shown in contexts where education is the aim (rather than entertainment). And historians do their work in those environments. So, when we're asked to bring our professional perspectives to something like this, it makes sense why we defer to accurate historical story[telling] rather than consider the artistic license necessary for entertainment.
When Elizabeth and Mary were on the screen together I literally screamed at the tv…”THEY NEVER MET!!” …and turned the movie off
To be fair, this is more of a "dream sequence" and the movie didn't claim they factually met in real life. They even said this in the promos for the film. You're supposed to see this as movie magic, as a "meeting of the minds" so to speak, or what either imagines it would be like meeting the other.
And what about when the black man came on screen🤷🏼♀️
Thank you for doing this! Of course like many Tudor history nerds, I'd seen these movies and had picked up on some things. Having a historian go through with her criticism was so much fun and very informative. Thanks from the USA!
I love seeing other people get as upset and angry at Hollywood for changing history which is already dramatic and interesting enough! I know the movies are not trying to be documentaries but these people existed and their legacy is remembered by what people now think is gonna attract an audience. Elizabeth & Mary not meeting is pivotal in their relationship and why Mary was executed, it’s highly thought if they did meet Elizabeth wouldn’t have had her killed her.
right you are, it's all dramatization based on a few characters and facts... and doubly right about Elizabeth probably not wanting to meet her
it's sad to me that dramas are accepted as fact , like Shakespeares Richard III becoming accepted as killing his nephews, when most historians agree that there is no evidence of that
and that there were plenty of other people who benefitted from their deaths,
one man does not become king alone,
he has a whole group of ambitious motivated supporters
i have even heard it stated as fact in a video documentary
not just a fictional film
which is most annoying
„You got just a boy and only care for Anne. So un-Henry-like!“ 😂😂😂😂😂
This was very informative! Can you please do an episode on the accuracies and inaccuracies of The Tudors? Thank you
"And why have they crimped her pony's mane?" *That* is iconic.
Could be a few things. Perhaps that was the image they were looking for the horse to match Elizabeth's own flowing locks. The horse's mane could fall that way naturally, as with the Friesian horse, or for dramatic effect. With show presentation here in Australia some people will plait the mane & tail to give a fuller appearance if the mane & tail is on the thin side.
I’m not an expert but the scene in Elizabeth is technically true but at the wrong time, yes she knew about his marriage to Amy. But after Amy died Robert Dudley married one of Elizabeth’s ladies Lettice Knollys without her knowledge which angered her. But that happened much later down the line.
Yes thank you! I was just going to say, this scene is pretty clearly about his kind-of secret marriage to Lettyce Knowles! I don’t know why this historian didn’t acknowledge that! Is she unaware of his second marriage?
@@allyme223 I guess in context of the film itself she was right to call it out, as the scene is still referring to his first marriage not to Lettice. The film is pretty guilty of condensing so many events into one. But would’ve been nice if she at least referenced the second marriage that the scene was actually based on.
I also hated that they made Queen Elizabeth look like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland in that scene from Mary Queen of Scots! I just can't unsee it. All that's missing is some blue eye shadow. Alas, movies are for entertainment, and they often send people (like me) running to find out the actual history, so at least there's that. The Tudors did have a few really fascinating little easter eggs thrown in that actually did happen per contemporary report. They were nice to catch and felt like a little reward for having studied the actual history.
You can tell she hasn't seen the whole movie of Shakespeare in Love bc the movie addresses the fact that women weren't allowed on the stage, and that Shakespeare was married.
Totally unsurprised that TOBG was inaccurate. It showed Anne actually being guilty of the fabricated charges, and the script has her act very out of character to what we know of her.
The fact that she didn’t finish the Golden Age speech made me roll my eyes. That part of that iconic speech is said in the movie, as well as a few the iconic lines that were documented by people of that time 😂 for example the one about Her too being able to control the wind
Thank you. Thought I was going crazy for a moment there
I think Anne's execution in the series wolf hall was probably the most accurate. Certainly the most realistic & moving.
It feels painfully realistic but I'm not a fan of Anne shaking in fear. When they cover her eyes she even starts crying. That's far away from the majestetic bravery Anne is said to have demonstrated in her last moments. Even her enemies gave her that.
The thing about Shakespeare in Love that I think it deserves a higher score is if you watch the full movie, Viola is pretending to be a boy so she can act. Shakespeare figures her out, but keeps her because he's caught feelings. They also mention he's married, but that his wife and him are separated, and Anne Hathaway (his wife) is in Stratford upon Avon. So, both marks you noted against it are addressed earlier in the film. It is a work of fiction, so I don't think it deserves a 10, but definitely 8.5 on a history base.
Thank everyone who put this together! Thank you for keeping true history alive!
Would love for her to review Wolf Hall scenes!
Maybe you could do a sequel about the TV series The Virgin Queen, starring Ann-Marie Duff as Queen Elizabeth I. They at least got the Tilbury speech correct. The movie Stage Beauty about a famous actor named Kynaston who used to play women's roles in theater would have been an interesting addition too.
I love the movie "Stage Beauty" and would have loved to see her discuss it. Great, underrated movie.
Oh thank you thank you thank you for this! I’m absolutely obsessed with Tudor history, yet I can not at all bring myself to watch The Other Boleyn Girl. I tried and it was simply too painful (what a waste of time, money and proficient actors!) because the inaccuracies are offensive. Same goes for Elizabeth’s famous speech: how could they screw that up? I also did really appreciate the accuracy of Elizabeth’s love of dancing and all the details that were spot on regarding that and other aspects of her character. Some people may find it ridiculous to get so upset about such things, but these were real people and real events that had a tremendous effect on the world, so when “Hollywood”, or whomever, is sloppy or deliberately deviates from the truth for the sake of melodrama, I feel it’s an injustice to both the people who lived the history and those who are consuming the story without realizing which bits are fraudulent. If you had been Anne or Elizabeth, how would you feel if you found out that your proudest or most vulnerable moments (and in a life that was so public and wherein your reputation was such a tenuous situation so much of the time) were later portrayed with complete inaccuracy? Anne was vilified during and right after her life, and was the victim of so much slander. Given all the time that has passed, and our ability to take a step back and analyze the truth of her and her family (although there’s still so much information lacking that I/we wish we had access to), one would think we could avoid such entire fabrications as The Other Boleyn Girl! Anyhoo, I could go on and on, I really could, but the gist of it is: thank you for the fact checking. Now if only we could prevent these misrepresentations from happening in the first place!
This are not documentaries, so …
I completely agree - these were REAL PEOPLE who often went through the most harrowing tragedies and whose honour was very dear to them. Taking such liberties when supposedly making a "historically inspired" piece feels like rank disrespect to the real individuals involved. Imagining what might've happened when no observers were around is one thing, or creating a totally alternate history, but misrepresenting the characters, actions and emotions of actual historic persons really feels ethically wrong to me?
Similarly, I'm a big fan of accurate costume, setting & action in historic films because real people lived those lives... AND because of how inaccurate representation can hugely skew peoples understanding of the past. Think for example of most people's weird-ass mental picture of the Viking age, purely built by popular media!
I ADORE The Other Boleyn Girl book, and yes the movie was bad. I imagine the book is terribly inaccurate but god it's good, imo.
The Other Boleyn Girl was not only atrocious but the repetitive sound track drove me bananas!
Margot Robbie looks like the Queen of Hearts in that scene.
the fact that Viola is a woman is a major plot device in the story of Shakespeare in Love... she is a woman pretending to be a male youth who is acting as a woman on stage. It's not that the script just randomly gets this wrong and doesn't understand the history, it's that the character is trying to get around the rules of women not being allowed to be on stage because she wishes to indulge her passion for acting... and pursue her attraction to Will.
Exactly. The whole premise of the movie is that it is illegal (besides the romance lol). They literally close the Rose because of it, then attempt to incarcerate all players at the Globe because of it. I feel she did not watch the whole movie. Definitely not a red X.
But she looks like a woman. She says this, "it is clearly a woman, not a man dressed up as a woman".
@@mdiddio she's rating it based purely on historical accuracy not based on how it fits the fantasy movie storyline. And women on stage is historically inaccurate regardless of whatever made up story is being told therefore a big red X
@@sullasfavouriteproscriptee 😂😂😂 Again, the movie itself states she was not supposed to be on stage, making the movie HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
Why can't you folks handle that this historian is incorrect, didn't actually research, etc?
@@mdiddio why can’t you understand that’s not the premise of why she’s here. Also she doesn’t get time to research the movie, she is shown a clip with no context, get off your high horse
Thanks for mentioning the Scottish accent on Mary Queen of Scots. It's utterly surreal.
I think they'd already used parts of the Tilbury speech in the first Elizabeth film, which is why they changed it for the second. It is annoying though, as it's so iconic but i guess they didn't know that they'd get the chance for the sequel.
And yes, she's clearly never actually watched Shakespeare in Love.
Would love to see her return and do the Tudors and A Discovery of Witches season 2!
A little more insight like “she’d never take off her wig because that shows weakness”
And a little less obvious questions like, “why did they take this clear artistic license?”
I'd kill for an historically accurate Tudor film. Doesn't even need to be about the usual King Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth I (though it could be); just about a person in Tudor England, with historical reference material **actually attended to closely.**
I want history to beat Hollywood just once! (And I mean *all* the history nerds would see it repeatedly, and history is dramatic enough; aka not like it would be boring or like they'd lose money).
Hope you enjoyed guys! Which of these movies was your favourite? 🤔
Yes
the reaction
I remember myself being disappointed when they omitted the ‘heart and stomach of a king’ bit. It was the only bit of the speech that I remembered!
I like Shakespeare in Love for all the little jokes too. Like the wherreyman saying “‘ere, you’ll never guess who I had in my boat today” (like a typical Black Cab driver), or the joke about Kit Marlowe being killed over a dispute about the bill
Judy Dench also does a great job as Elizabeth…
Not a fan of this kind of movies, but I really loved the historian, she looks gorgeous, has a beautiful voice and focuses on giving accurate information rather than personal opinions. Please get her back for another video, there's plenty more Hollywood bullshit to pick apart on this subject.
All Of Them.
This is such a great video. I’d love to see more with this particular historian!
More of her please, this was great :)
One of my issues with Elizabeth is that the made William Cecil so old. I love Richard Attenborough but Cecil was about 10 years older than Elizabeth.
I also think they seemed to smash aspects from the later years of her reign into the movie. For instance, I think Dudley's secret marriage could refer to his marriage to Lettice Knollys, not Amy Robsart. Also the Duke of Norfolk wasn't executed early in the reign either.
So most likely the horse in the "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" clip is probably a Bashkir Curly horse or a Friesian horse which both breeds have wavy and curly manes. They're also pretty expensive.
"Why does she have a Scottish accent?"
The bigger unaddressed elephant in the room: *why does Elizabeth have a black ambassador?*
lmao I was thinking the same!
Ohhhh you need to read an actual history book and not rely on Hollywood. There were black people at court.
Why is Mary played by an Irish woman?
@@rjjamison3596Likely story 🙄
Too afraid of being cancelled.
When I saw the description "Top Tudor historian rates..." I was expecting David Starkey, but Nicola Tallis showed she also has the screen presence to do this sort of thing as well. I thouroughly enjoyed her commentary.
She makes several disconcertingly inaccurate statements in this video though... I don’t understand why she insisted things were inaccurate off of her own assumptions when we have actual primary sources on them. She could have said “oh that doesn’t *seem* right,” or better yet, just looked it up. Or it could’ve been edited out of the final cut considering this is a video entirely about fact checking history.
Mary Queen of Scots did have a Scots accent. In fact she spoke Scots far better than English. We have reports from people who actually spoke to her saying that she had “a pretty Scot’s tongue” despite growing up in France. Also, yes she lived in france, but are we just forgetting she was attended to and effectively raised by a staff of Scotswomen?
Anne Boleyn’s ladies in attendance at her execution did indeed weep. We have accounts of it. They were initially tasked with spying on her during her imprisonment, but they came to believe her innocence, and by all accounts were distraught at her actual execution. We don’t know for sure that any actually disliked her, we just know they were appointed to her in her imprisonment because they weren’t her favourites.
Also, not really a historical concern, but why did nobody quickly explain to her why Viola was being played by a woman? It’s a central plot point. She was pretending to be a man playing a woman.
“This is really cringe” 😂😂😂 I didn’t expect to hear that 😂😂😂
Another point about “Elizabeth” - Elizabeth had been a guest at the Dudley wedding.
The Other Boleyn Girl didn’t follow the book very well and I’m afraid there will never be a good, solid filming of a Philippa Gregory book that won’t be bastardized by some cheap screenwriter. Philippa follows the history as much as possible and tells you when she’s had to invent filler on other things, although sometimes she definitely goes with the legend where truth might not be as exciting. So it’s not like they didn’t have history and her book to go by, and they still had to fill in with absolutely poppycock. Thank you for pointing out the movie makers’ failure to translate a truly great story.
On “Shakespeare in Love”, which I hope you will watch completely, actually has Viola dressed as a man and originally cast as Romeo in the play before Shakespeare figures out she’s a woman and there’s a good reason by the end as to why all you saw happened. It’s a piece of fancy that doesn’t offend me as a history buff, and not having to point out faults in the story let’s me just enjoy the show.
Philippa Gregory writes rubbish novels and the worst is The Other Boleyn Girl. The movie attempts at times to inject some actual historical fact that the novel gets wrong. Both are pretty awful, but between the two I'd say the movie is 'slightly' better than the book, which angered me the more I tried to finish it.
The Other Boleyn Girl will never win an award for 'accuracy' but it's an entertaining read.
philippa gregory writes trashy fiction novels that are based on real historical figures but have no accuracy whatsoever so i wouldn’t sing her praises
The only thing accurate about Philippa Gregory novels was that those people existed. In the book she has Mary Boleyn in the crowd watching the execution when she was already in Dover at that point in real life. Mary never intervened and her daughter wasn’t attending her aunt which is all the things that were in that book and all the things that she claimed happened
Philippa is a fiction writer- she's always been careless with facts.
Not so well known but 'The Virgin Queen' with Anne Marie Duff does show her wearing the white dress and pretty accurate on the Elizabeths speech aswell. Lower budget but worth the watch!
I completely agree with her assessments on these films. I think we’d all like to see more of this historian!
Dr. Tallis is excellent! Great points that actual history could be MORE entertaining!
Its been an argument between film watchers since movies began. How much of a true historical story should be true to the source and how much room is allowed to create fictional scenes that propel the dramatic storyline. Heck, even Shakespeare played fast and loose with history in his own plays.
Really loved this! Thanks for talking about the movies would LOVE to see you talk about The Tudors with Jonathan Rhys Meyers (the writers themselves have said it's not completely historically accurate and they acknowledge that but wanted to tell a good story too).
In defense of Mary Queen of The Scotts, and Shakespeare in Love, they're both fanfiction. Pretty good fanfiction.
For instance, Shakespeare in Love completely glosses over Anne Hathaway, William Shakespeare's wife. She goes full shojo manga level crossing here, and the audience actually thinks she's a guy when she's acting out that scene.
And it's said to be the inspiration for Viola's character in Twelfth Night; I actually think it kinda makes sense because I can see GP playing that character and nailing it.
People really liked pitting her against Blanchet for her performance in one of the movies discussed here. I only pick Blanchet over Paltrow as a personal fave because I think she played a better character, Queen Elizabeth, and knocked it out of the park. Paltrow did a great job playing "Master Kent", but sadly that takes a back seat to "the romance" after JF's character finds out about her identity. If that movie had gone on with her needing to keep up the charade with him only finding out about who she is in the end, and she told him she loved him there, I think it would have been more "her movie". But I guess cough cough HW wanted to badly have GP do a nude scene since she is a woman who's so out of his league he was never going to get her to do it consensually. Which is horrible to think about. Glad she walked it off like a champ. They should have given her more, she deserved better.
8.16: "When Hollywood meets history Hollywood always wins." Great comment and very accurate.
In the Mary Queen of the Scots scene, who are the black courtiers, where are they from and why would they be there? She goes on about the black clothes but not the black men, which would be far more interesting.
EXACTLY. She literally avoid talking about it lol
I agree with her assessment of Shaspeare In Love. That was pure fantasy, but they went to such extremes in trying to capture that time and place in history, that the audience gets a true taste of Elizabethan England, through a piece of fiction.
It would have been nice to see her rate Anonymous and the HBO Tudors series
Thank you, Dr. Tallis, for bringing up the fact that Mary, Queen of Scots would have had a French accent and not a Scottish one from her many years in France from a very young child. I also would like to mention that is what I like about Genevieve Bujold portrayal of Anne Boleyn in "Anne of the Thousand Days". Being French Canadian from Quebec, Genevieve had the French accent which Anne Boleyn certainly would have from her time in France from a very young child. There are many things that I can say about the miscasting of the many, many Henry VIII's, with exception to the splendid Keith Michell, and Katherine of Aragon's, with the exception of Annette Crosbie, but that's for another video.
Totally agree with her. It sucks that as popular as the Tudors are the popular portrayals overall suck. I wish they'd do better.
Any time I see a clip from Shakespeare in Love I am yet again just dumbfounded that's the same actor who plays Commander Waterford in The Handmaid's Tale. Just can't wrap my head around it!
Mays were a lot colder in those days. Maybe not to the extent that you'd need winter clothes, but I do think it made the scene more...dramatic idk? Like cool tones to represent death. I'm grasping here, but I support the creative licensing there.
As a writer, what I adored about "Shakespeare in Love" is just the way it portrays the process, how much writers crib from real life, the moments of doubt and lack of inspiration, and the flurry of those moments when you get inspired and really get into The Zone. I can't speak to any of the struggle of the actors or the chaos that goes on behind the scenes, but I've had a couple of actor friends call it accurate. Now, as a fan of Tudor and Elizabethan era clothing, I have LOTS of quibbles -- all the men walking around with their doublets undone or completely off, everyone in boots instead of shoes, etc -- but overall it's just a lovely movie to me.
Best question of all was, “and why have they crimped her pony’s mane?”
"Why have they crimped her pony's mane?" was the moment for me.
Had to set the record straight for my friend in PE thanks to The Other Boleyn Girl. However Elizabeth R, starring Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth Ist is my favorite & I feel is the best portrayal, so far to Elizabeth’s character.
The Virgin Queen with Anne Marie Duff is also excellent.
@@windycityliz7711 Ya she did well too
I've heard many of historians say they did replace her ladies with ones that didn't like her & did weep for her.
Hang on, in Shakespeare in love its a big part of the storyline that she isn't allowed on stage so she disguises as a man, its like a major plot in ths movie
I was OK with this fictionalized version of Mary and Elizabeth’s meeting. We’ve seen plays in the past brilliant ones at that describing fictionalized meetings between historical figures so why not because we’re all wondering what they might’ve said to each other. And I can’t help it it was just so beautifully acted.
But, how else is Natalie Portman supposed to show off her _acting_ if she doesn't fumble about, blubbering and dropping to her knees?
She did pretty well in ‘Leon’…
She is honestly a crappy actor as an adult.
Blame the writer, not her...
Five minutes into this review and you won me over, this is golden.
Please show her Elizabeth R, she will love the right speech at Tillbury that is in that mini series
How can they change Elizabeth’s speech! I think they even quoted it more accurately in Blackadder II
9:25 When examining how historically authentic this scene is, are we just going to ignore that there's sub-Saharan Africans present at court stood in front of Mary, or is it just Mary's fake Scottish accent we're going to critique?
I don’t think we’re supposed to notice. Have the Black Mariahs turned up for you yet?
Black Tudors existed. Google it.
I thoroughly enjoyed the tv series Elizabeth R as Glenda Jackson did an excellent and convincing performance. Love to hear a historical analysis on that
The "Why is Mary speaking with a Scottish accent" took me out 😂. I suppose its because directors cant be bothered to crack an actual history book. Mary was raised in France so I'm thinking a French accent would have been a better choice. 😂
I don’t think Dr Tallis actually watched Shakespeare in Love apart from a couple of scenes. If you’re going to comment on the film you should at least see all of it. 1. The whole point of the film was that women were not allowed on stage and 2. It was acknowledged that Shakespeare was married and in fact it was the trigger for a very dramatic scene.
I feel like being kinder to "Shakespeare In Love" is fair as it isn't trying to depict actual history. The other movies were trying to depict real events and either misrepresenting history, or making things up whole cloth.
Elizabeth was definitely aware of Dudley's marriage. Her own younger brother (king at that time) was in attendance. I've read an account that she was too, but with only one resource saying so, Im not sure if that much was true. But she definitely knew.
"Why are they dressed in black, and Mary has a Scottish accent? Never mind all the black courtiers with Afros, though, that would get me into trouble to mention."
Love these movie reviews!
The whole women not being allowed on stage was a HUGE part of Shakespeare in Love's plot. She did play a woman playing a man playing a woman. Ugh...watch the whole movie if you are going to critique it.
Or at least read a plot summary!
I really like these ruthless experts, a proper historian with some claws :)
No The Tudors though, was expecting that, but maybe for later?
Though one has to address the elephant in the room; "Mary Queen of Scots" she takes issue with everyone being dressed in black, but not with Elizabeth's envoys/ambassadors being black/dark skinned? How is that historically accurate? I guess she either doesn't dare OR she's been given directions not to mention it...