Skip to main content

Elizabethan Platypus

I spent some time studying at Oxford in my undergraduate days.  Much of that season was passed in the freezing upper corners of the Radcliffe Camera delving into the byzantine world of Elizabethan political iconography.  The paper I produced on it won a small prize and I still have the certificate hanging up in my office.

After returning to this side of the pond, I went out a rented "Elizabeth" directed by Shekhar Kapur and staring Cate Blanchett in the leading role as the (not so) Virgin Queen.  The chief impression I walked away with at the time was that it was a dark, brooding, and incredibly cynical piece.  It was also interesting to see how the movie wove its way through the varying and contradictory world of Elizabethan scholarship.  Nothing is deferred or left ambiguous; at each critical juncture, the movie takes a definite stand.

Fast forward to the present.  My wife and I are working our way through popular depictions of English royalty in film.  Nine years later, I saw "Elizabeth" again.  While it's been too long to hash over matters of historical accuracy with the same surety in my opinions, my experience with interpreting film has grown.  What impressed me on this viewing was the over-all story that Kapur and company are trying to tell: the birth of the modern God-State.

Rather than attempt to trace themes and symbols through the entire movie, I want to focus on the two scenes that bookend the entire piece: the burning of Latimer and Ridley and the apotheosis of Elizabeth.  The movie begins with three protestants dying for their religious faith in the Marian persecutions.  We are reminded throughout the film that the struggle in England between Protestant and Catholic leaves England weak in the face of its enemies in Scotland, Spain, and France.  The burning sequence begins with the victim's heads being shaved.  They are then hauled before a plainly sympathetic public and burned.  Move forward two hours and the final sequence of the film shows us an Elizabeth who has united England by ruthlessly suppressing an attempted Catholic rebellion.  The cost has been the removal of her lover, the execution of several leading officials and councilors, and the dismissal of her family's trusted but inept servant.  Following an inference from the Memphistophilian Walsingham, Elizabeth is preparing to make herself a bloodless martyr for England by reconstructing herself as a secular Virgin Mary.  This scene also begins with the dramatic cutting of the queen's distinctive red hair.  She then presents herself to a plainly sympathetic court and pronounces herself "married to England."  The message seems to be that Elizabeth's sacrifice of worldly happiness, her political martyrdom, makes her into a national saint that both Catholic and Protestant can believe in.  She achieves in her life what Latimer and Ridley could not.

Whether the rest of the movie is history or Hollywood, this presentation of Elizabeth rings true.  In the violent breakdown of the Medieval order that birthed the modern world, Catholic and Protestant battled for a new religious synthesis that would stabilize and re-unite Christendom.  The secular powers represented by Europe's ruling families fomented this warfare in the furtherance of their own dynastic ends.  Once these ends were either achieved or resoundingly thwarted, the war over religion no longer suited their purposes and became a threat.  The newly emerged nation-states of Europe then intervened in the wars of religion as "honest brokers," offering to end the violence they had helped foment by subordinating religion to the needs of the State.  The feelings of passionate devotion that had hitherto been given to religion were now claimed by the secular government.  In effect, the State became god.  This process is beautifully and terrifyingly portrayed in Shekhar Kapur's "Elizabeth."  Beyond that, if I read Kapur right, then he is also saying that at the heart of the modern Nation-State is a deal with the devil. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Platypus Reads Part XXVII

Thoughts after reading the "Iliad" to prepare a Greece unit for my students: -Hector is a jerk until he's dead. He even advocates the exposure of Achaean corpses and then has the cheek to turn around and ask Achilles to spare his. He rudely ignores Polydamas' prophecies and fights outside the gate to save his pride knowing full well what it will cost his family and city. After he's dead, he becomes a martyr for the cause. -Agamemnon has several moments of true leadership to balance out his pettiness. In this way, he's a haunting foil to Achilles: the two men are more alike than they want to acknowledge. -We see that Achilles is the better man at the funeral games of Patroclos. His lordliness, tact, and generosity there give us a window into Achilles before his fight with Agamemnon and the death of Patroclos consumed him. -Nestor is a boring, rambling, old man who's better days are far behind him, and yet every Achaean treats him with the upmo...

California's Gods: Strange Platypus(es)

We've noticed lately a strange Californian dialectical twist: there, freeways take the definite article.  In other parts of the country one speaks of I 91 or 45 North.  In California, there's The 5, The 405, The 10.  Each of these freeways has its own quirks, a personality of sorts.  They aren't just stretches of pavement but presences, creatures that necessitate the definite article by their very individuality and uniqueness.  They are the angry gods to be worked, placated, feared, for without them life in California as we know it would cease.  Perhaps that's fitting for a land whose cities are named for saints and angels.  Mary may preside over the new pueblo of our lady of the angels, but the freeways slither like gigantic serpents through the waste places, malevolent spirits not yet trampled under foot.

Seeing Beowulf Through Tolkien: The Platypus Reads Part CXCIX

After spending a few weeks wrestling with Tolkien's interpretation of Beowulf , I found myself sitting down and reading Seamus Heaney's translation of the text during a spare moment.  I came to the place where Beowulf presents Hrothgar with the hilt of the ancient sword that slew Grendel's mother.  Hrothgar looks down at the hilt with its ancient runes and carvings depicting the war between the giants and God and meditates on the fortunes of men.  In a flash of insight, I thought: this is the whole poem! Let me explain.  Tolkien believed that the genuine contribution of the Northern peoples to European culture was the theory of courage.  The Northern heroes, at their best, were men who fought for order against chaos -a battle they knew they were doomed to lose.  If they were true heroes, their souls would join the gods and aid them in the final battle against darkness and its monsters and again go down fighting, spitting in the face of the meaninglessness...