Catholic Church speaks out agains Elizabeth - The Golden Age

Mrs. MacGyver

'' Cate Blanchett's latest movie, 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age', has been heavily criticised by the Catholic Church's leading bishops for the way the film portrays religious history.

Meeting at the Italian Bishops Conference in Rome, church leaders have called the film "divisive, distorted and an attack on Catholicism". Professor Franco Cardini, a leading Catholic Church historian, claims the sequel is an "anti-papal travesty," adding the film was devised to secularise Europe and was wrong in both fact and inclination. He writes: "A film which so profoundly and perversely falsifies history cannot be judged as a good film." He went on to criticise director Shekhar Kapur for failing to provide vision to an important piece of history, and instead demonising the church by portraying the Catholic King of Spain, Philip II, as a "ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon". But Kapur has rejected the charge saying: "It's actually very, very deeply not anti-Catholic. It is anti extreme forms of religion. It's anti an interpretation of the word of God, which can be singular." ''

What are your views on this? Will you actually see the film or have you seen it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/wvatican102.xml

Michael G

I thought I would like to see the film because the first one was pretty good, but the reviews of this one are not promising. It sounds a bit like costume drama for morons, like The Tudors.

robindch

Haven't seen the film and probably won't either, but the Telegraph certainly finessed well, managing to slag off the catholic church and several sets of Europeans, all within the space of a single story.

The National Catholic Register needs registration to see their review, but the Catholic News Service's original review of the film is freely available and it's here. It's worth reading because even though it does complain about the film portraying catholics as "twisted intriguers", it doesn't actually say that this view is inaccurate. Given that we're talking about royalty here, I'd have thought that twisted intrigue was a normal part of court life, regardless of the religion of the people concerned.

More to the point, the CNS's review doesn't actually say that the film has any historical errors at all, and just calls the interpretation "outmoded and oversimplified" which is a long way indeed from Cardini's "profoundly and perversely falsifies history" comment. I wonder if Cardini actually saw the film, or whether he's just blowing off some steam?

Looks to me like the Telegraph was short of news late Friday afternoon and quote-mined a few catholic websites, peppered the result, and filled six column-inches.

And the film? Well, the director said that one of the underlying messages was anti-extremism and if several religious men got overheated about this, then some self-reflection might be in order.

BrianCalgary

I saw th emovie and quite enjoyed it.

It did show fanaticism but I saw it as being more of a struggle for the throne between the English rulers and the Spanish kings desire to rule England.

Elizabeths right hand man was pretty evil himself in his torture of the enemies of Elizabeth and threby England. The prsioners happened to be Catholic.

It showed evil on both sides of the struggle for the throne.

To robins point, it was about: Given that we're talking about royalty here, I'd have thought that twisted intrigue was a normal part of court life, regardless of the religion of the people concerned..

I found it entertaining.

PDN

Mrs. MacGyver wrote: »

He went on to criticise director Shekhar Kapur for failing to provide vision to an important piece of history, and instead demonising the church by portraying the Catholic King of Spain, Philip II, as a "ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon".

And Philip II wasn't?