Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

National Catholic Register ^ | Steven Gredanus

[RobbyS]

You misrepresent the case of Copernicus whose theory was mainly a revival of an old Greek cosmology. It was “dangerous” primarily not because of any religious heterodoxy but because it went against the scholarship of the day—A bit like the ID position in the matter of evolution, it could be regarded with suspicion by all in authority. Copernicus himself proposed his version of this theory because of the difficulties with Ptolemy’s theory arising from new observations. However, his theory was flawed because it supposed that the planets moved around the sun in circles. It was not until Kepler’s work that the heliocentric system was made compatible with the data. Galileo got in trouble with the Church authorities when he pushed the envelop of acceptance. He had been told to present his theory as hypothesis; he insistence of arguing that it was absolutely certain. But as his proof was geometrical in character, and certainly was generally expressed in terms of Aristotelean physics, his reasoning found no acceptance. It was untimely, as Einstein’s theory of relativity would have been if he had proposed it before the Michaleson-Morley experiment disproved the ether theory. Galileo displayed the typical arrogance of genius, and it get him into deep trouble.
As for Bruno, he was deep into mysticism and insisted on holding to some wild theories, including multiple universes. Dangerous stuff in the midst of
religious wars that were tearing nations apart.

[KC Burke]

I thought there was more complexity to the first one. This one was a little comic book like, IMHO.

It seemed anti-religous in general, not just against RCs. But, what hollywood stuff ins’t?

The reviews were way off in the main as many said it was wooden and only showed the history and not the context and feelings. I felt the opposite was true.

To me, I felt the heavy hand of the screen writer and director too continuously and the amount of emotional context to each issue was overdone.

The simplification of court intrige and characters was a shortcoming as well. It was as though she only had one minister rather than the plethora of pushy advisers as shown in the first film.

My wife and I felt is was a worthwhile trip to the theater as we are both history buffs. She has read a lot on this era, beginning with all the Allison Wier stuff and she enjoyed it tremendously since it dealt with an era where the historical context was well known to her.

I thought the portrayal of her martial involvement was too over the top but I guess I went with a more critical eye.

I imagine we will buy the DVD which is the true measure of approval in our household.

[KC Burke]

see my comments at 102

[Tax-chick]

Other flirtations with topicality in this pre-election year include assassins and conspirators praying secretly in a foreign language while plotting their murderous attacks, and the Machiavellian Sir Francis Walsingham (returning Geoffrey Rush) torturing a captured conspirator during an interrogation. (Tom Hollander, who costarred with Rush in the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, is running around somewhere in this picture, an odd juxtaposition in another film that ends with a sea battle with cannons.)

Heh, finally got around to reading the review. Much as Cate Blanchett annoys me, seeing the above actors in said roles might be worth a library checkout when I have to spend an evening sewing patches on everyone's Scout uniforms. (One can't drink and sew at the same time, without damage.)

[Tax-chick]

On the other hand, we could get the 3rd “Pirates” installment, which has Chow Yun-Fat in it. He’s kewl.

[juliej]

As opposed to cranky “Bloody Mary”?????/

[juliej]

Cat is gorgeous and Philip II was very cruel. May have had his son murdered.

[Clemenza]

The Caribs and Arawaks largely died from diseases. In Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela, the indigenous people disappeared via intermarriage and assimilation.

The Spanish and the Portuguese were much more tolerant in terms of race and ethnicity than the English EVER were. Remember, that, by law, the illegitimate offspring of Spanish men and Indian and black women had to be recognized as the child of said father, and that it was expected that the father would be present at the baptism. This practice ended with colonialism, but contrast it to the behavior of the Anglos with THEIR illegitimate offspring in the new world.

"Enslavement" of the Indians was abolished via the efforts of Father Bartolome de las Casas. Besides, due to their poor resistence to disease, the Indians did not make good slaves. Enter the Africans.

The "black legend" around the Spaniards and Portuguese is Anglo Saxon propaganda based, in the best case, on exaggeration and, in the worse case, on out and out lies.

[juliej]

The Spanish and Portuguese were slow to end slavery especially in Brazil.

[Clemenza]

See #108. The Mexica (mistakenly called "Aztecas" by an elderly priest) were forceably assimilated under Spanish rule, and their descendants became the original mestizos. The main Indian groups that survived assimilation were either up in the mountains or well beyond the areas of settlement.

So, if you buy the argument that forced assimilation is cultural genocide then, yes, there was genocide against the Mexica/Aztecs. To me, it just shows a key difference between the Spanish/Portuguese/French colonial attitude toward the conquered (partial, imperfect assimilation) versus that of the English (segregation, albeit with respect for the customs of the Indians who "weren't in the way").

Argentina is the great "outlier" in that the post-Colonial era was filled with a bitter, bloody war for control of the interior. General Rosas won that battle handily, allowing for the country to be settled by immigrants from all over Europe.

[Tax-chick]

General Rosas won that battle handily, allowing for the country to be settled by immigrants from all over Europe.

Can you recommend a book on this?

[Clemenza]

Many in Spanish, too few in English. David Rock's History of Argentina covers this subject well, as does Daniel Lewis's "History of Argentina."

Of course, there is "Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism" written by one of Rosas's successors (and one of the founders of public schooling in the western hemisphere) Fausto Sarmiento.

[bert]

they’re still licking their wounds.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you! I could probably get through a history in Spanish, with a little help from the on-line dictionary, but I’m on a Henry James binge in every spare minute right now :-).

I’ll look for the English books you mention in the library this week. All the years of Spanish language and culture courses, and I have to admit I know almost nothing about Argentina. Gauchos.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“It is estimated that in the space of 130 years 2,000,000 Indians were slain or carried into captivity by these Brazilian slave-hunters.”

That’s from The Catholic Encyclopedia BTW.

[x_plus_one]

There is a lot of water under the bridge in English history with respect to the reformation. One of the best English historical narratives is by Churchill in his History of the English Speaking People.

English History is all about wars of succession and how everybody was affected (destroyed) by the eternal blood wars for king of the hill in England.

James Michener's Carribean does a good job of showing the enmity between heretical Brits and the Spanish civilization when Spain represented the will of the European establishment. Spanish customs and reality were like oil and water with respect to the English in Elizabethan times. Centuries of moorish cultural influence color Spanish temperament to this day. It was the greatest good possible to bring heretic England back into the fold of the church and Spain was the mightiest military power to help the Holy See to do so.

The lack of historical knowledge by modern film makers is obvious. What's worse is the lack of respect that Asians have for other religions and history than their own. The asian treatment of Elizabethan history suits their agenda to secularize history - after all - isn't their hindu or moslem faith just as relevant to their target audience and isn't Christianity an easy target to ridicule?

[trisham]

Thanks! It’s difficult to find a good movie these days, much less one that is historical. I believe I will give this one a try after all.

[stripes1776]

Not much, which all goes to show that religious toleration as we understand it is a fairly recent concept

Something we agree on.

[stripes1776]

He had been told to present his theory as hypothesis; he insistence of arguing that it was absolutely certain.

He should have listened. He would have been a better scientist if he had. There is never certainty in science. Nothing is ever proven in science. No measurement is ever precise but carries an estimate of error with it. Furthermore, inductive reasoning is never a proof unless there is complete enumeration, and that is impossible in scientific measurements. The experimental data may support a theory, but it never proves it.

But as his proof was geometrical in character

It wasn't a proof. It was an inductive argument.

the Michaleson-Morley experiment disproved the ether theory.

Michelson and Morley did not disprove theories using the concept of the ether. Their experiment showed that the speed of light was constant. Their measurements contradicted Newtonian physics (Galilean relativity) which says that the speed of light is relative. After the MM experiment, lots of physicists came up with complicated theories that maintained the existence of the ether. But Einstein won because of the principle of Occam's razor: the simplest theory that explains the most wins.

Newton said space and time are constant and the speed of light is relative; Einstein said space and time are relative and the speed of light is constant. Nice and simple, once you let go of the idea of space and time being constant. But when you do that, there is no need to postulate the existence of ether. But there is a problem with Einstein's theory: it contradicts quantum mechanics. Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to resolve that conflict, but failed.

That contradiction lies at the heart of modern physics. There are some theories now that propose to have the resolution. Which one will win a consensus among physicists? We will have have to wait and see.

[RobbyS]

By geometric, I mean it was expressed in geometric terms, as was Ptolemy’s, or any scientist for still another hundred years after Galileo until modern annaliyical tools were developed. But don’t despise induction: this is really the approach that St. Thomas did when he was trying to “prove” the existence of God.