Видео

Hahahahaha oh my god no wonder I keep thinking she looks familiar 🤣

I agree, but I don't find it very fair to compare. Jackson had the expanse of a seven-plus hours miniseries, and Davis had about 100 minutes each with two different, and confined areas of Elizabeth's life in films made sixteen years apart. Additionally, even in television, Jackson had the advantage of much more relaxed censorship.

@@davedvlaries7764 All that being said I think Bette Davis was more self puffed up actress and truly more shallow on screen. I see much more depth in Glenda Jacksoni in general .

it is quite flawed...however..not nearly as bad as the movie Elizabeth, with Cate BLANCHETT... while that also was a nice movie....it really irks me that they had Lettice Knollys die after wearing the dress covered in poison..when in fact she married the 'Earl of Leicester and had six kids by him..and her first husband and her had six kids also and her first son was the Earl of 'Essex that Elizabeth fell in love with////

Agreed!!

@@frolie3207 As one who has studied and taught the history of Tudor England for a number of years, I certainly agree with both of you, IF we are being asked to believe that Elizabeth actually MEANT that final "Take my kingdom!" speech. Please note, however, that she isn't actually motivated enough by her supposed "regret" to even rise from her chair to stop the execution. Elizabeth was notorious throughout her reign for agonizing at length over difficult decisions; finally making them; and then, once matters had gone beyond the point of no return, putting on a great show of "I-didn't-really-want-to-do-this" violent emotion. This character trait was never more glaringly in evidence than when she made the most difficult decision of her entire life: ordering the execution of her cousin and rival for the throne, Mary Queen of Scots. She was handed the death warrant in a stack of other state papers, and then kept up a furious stream of conversation with her secretary, Sir William Davison, while she signed, and affixed the royal seal, to each document in turn at a rapid pace (without looking at any of them, which was utterly contrary to her usual careful, methodical approach to all state business), so that she could claim later that she had signed the fatal paper "unwittingly". A few days later, when all the church bells in London were pealing joyously to celebrate Mary's death (who was hated by most English people, because of the threat she posed to Elizabeth's life), the Queen affected not to have the slightest idea what all the ruckus was about. "Had not Elizabeth's usually acute ears suddenly been stricken by an accession of deafness", Mary Stuart's biographer Stefan Zweig wrote ironically, "she could hardly have failed to be aware that a holiday not in the calendar was being celebrated by her subjects." When she innocently asked what all the fuss was about, and was told, she exploded in fury. "What! Mary Stuart had been put to death without her knowledge and without her express permission! Her poor sister had been the victim of some diabolical plot!" This seeming two-facedness can't really be called "hypocrisy", as much as reflecting Elizabeth's genuine ambivalence about certain complex matters. After Essex's execution, she commented to the French ambassador: "As for the late Earl's death, none lamented his passing more than I myself. However, I had oft told him that I might forgive him all else, save only one thing: that he not seek to touch my crown. In that, I am not, and never shall be, free to consult my own desires." It is possible that the screenwriter and director were trying, in this last scene, to dramatize this aspect of this fascinating, and very complex, woman's character.

Agreed!!

Pamela Reilly that's the thing, there is so many rumours about Elizabeth that's it's often impossible to tell which is the truth

So she was arrogant?

Proud wise humble but never arrogant! In distaste!!!!!<3

i can see what you are sayin, but at the same time, she was figuring out a style, and also you can see that through her mannerisms she was channeling the anger and the pain of the character. I still thing it a very good portray (sor

It's called: "chewing the scenery".

Are you kidding? The horrors the Crown has inflicted are beyond reckoning, and she was no exception.

I agree. Elizabeth liked power but she was not power hungry. Although she was stern and autocratic, she executed people reluctantly. She never invaded any foreign territory and even rejected the offer of the Dutch to be their ruler.

You don't think those royals who spent their lives cutting off heads and burning people at the stake were nuts and psychos? I do.

If you’ve ever bothered to read the biographies of monarchs, you’ll find many were rather “off” by today’s standards