The charter of masterpiece theater is simple: provide the viewer with a richer experience than usual. Intelligent cinema isn't part of this precis, nor is compelling drama (whatever that means), and in cases like this, even effective history.
That's still okay with me in theory, because a key thing I look for is getting lost in the shape of the thing. The problem with Masterpiece is that lushness to them means good enough in all categories except sets and costumes. Nothing else is supposed to exceed the norm, apparently in a deliberate strategy to not overwhelm the visuals. This isn't Zeffireli's notion that you create a lush place and then occupy it with the camera, moving and discovering.
No, this is simply a buffet table of color and texture and we are suppose to help ourselves. The "story" isn't integrated in, its just an excuse: royalty, richness, assumed importance. So I have to warn most of my readers off of this; its offensive in a way, mere artifice, not a real film.
As history, it fails down a bit too. Too bad, because this is the period when English was born and became the worlds largest (in terms of words) and most flexible language. It was in large part a deliberate plan by Elizabeth (and apparently Burleigh). And it was the era where the Catholic Church, surely an evil institution then, had its back broken by the notion of enlightenment the very idea of knowledge.
And it was when the decision was made (mixed with wealthseeking) to colonize the New World with the new notion of discovering the "magic" therein, which happened to be a cosmos not centered on the Jesus of church dogma. So there's lots in this period to be mined. John Dee appears in only one scene, Harriot not at all. You have to make the story simple it seems, so we have essentially a love story, two actually, the second being someone credibly suspected as her son.
Seeing things like this help you understand just why you come to films. If all you need is color, this might satisfy. Otherwise, you'll find it alarmingly protestant.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
That's still okay with me in theory, because a key thing I look for is getting lost in the shape of the thing. The problem with Masterpiece is that lushness to them means good enough in all categories except sets and costumes. Nothing else is supposed to exceed the norm, apparently in a deliberate strategy to not overwhelm the visuals. This isn't Zeffireli's notion that you create a lush place and then occupy it with the camera, moving and discovering.
No, this is simply a buffet table of color and texture and we are suppose to help ourselves. The "story" isn't integrated in, its just an excuse: royalty, richness, assumed importance. So I have to warn most of my readers off of this; its offensive in a way, mere artifice, not a real film.
As history, it fails down a bit too. Too bad, because this is the period when English was born and became the worlds largest (in terms of words) and most flexible language. It was in large part a deliberate plan by Elizabeth (and apparently Burleigh). And it was the era where the Catholic Church, surely an evil institution then, had its back broken by the notion of enlightenment the very idea of knowledge.
And it was when the decision was made (mixed with wealthseeking) to colonize the New World with the new notion of discovering the "magic" therein, which happened to be a cosmos not centered on the Jesus of church dogma. So there's lots in this period to be mined. John Dee appears in only one scene, Harriot not at all. You have to make the story simple it seems, so we have essentially a love story, two actually, the second being someone credibly suspected as her son.
Seeing things like this help you understand just why you come to films. If all you need is color, this might satisfy. Otherwise, you'll find it alarmingly protestant.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.