Talk:Elizabeth: The Golden Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth: The Golden Age article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Spanish Black Legend

This film is just a comeback of the 50's british films, with Elizabeth portrayed as a wonderfull woman, forgiving all her executions and pirate raids (terrorism) promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.126.15.155 (talk) 09:37:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

And? I'd say it's a nice counterbalance to the usual works of fiction wanting to show British or English history in an overly negative ways. British history has no more dark periods than any other nation, new or old, despite what Hollywood shows of it's current punchbag. Elizabeth, which incidently comes from an Indian director not averse to critisizing (and fictionalising) the British Empire, is a welcome entry to rank alongside the plenty of agendered films about various histories of various countries. But feel free to tell us how the Inquisition could be portrayed in a positive way? been itching to get out and have no doubt been repeated elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.198.82 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth was, without doubt, a remarkable woman, who created her own myth for various political reasons. The film attempted to illustrate the two sides - human and mythical - to her personality. Executions were part of the political play of the time, and cannot be used on their own as a cause for condemnation. Interestingly, during a Q&A after a screening of the film last night, Kapoor discussed the different interpretations of history by East and West. He commented that eastern interpretations are more 'mythic', and I guess stories like the Ramayana would serve to illustrate this? Anyway, I thought this was an interesting point, especially in this postmodern, pluralistic age - is any history not mythologised to some degree? Oh, and finally, yes the film is overblown and (heaven forbid for a historical one) fun, but Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Elizabeth as a strong, determined and yet very human queen is inspiring and empowering, and I for one love it. Coatgal 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you also complain about all the films depicting the IRA as brave freedom fighters and men of the people in fighting the callous, genocidal British? How about all the hundreds of English-bashing films that Hollywood has pushed out? No, didn't think so... -- 62.25.106.209 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What a surprise....84.126.15.155 regularly edits on Spanish subjects. Well, 84.126.15.155, thanks to people like Elizabeth we in the UK were spared the horrors of your priests, torturers and murderers during the seven hundred year reign of terror called the Inquisition. Want to talk about terror and executions now? -- 62.25.106.209 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Stick to matters concerning this encyclopaedic entry.
Well, I have to say that many other articles had surprised me for your good point of view not mythic and patiotic at all. But your comment has confirmed what I thought. I´m Spanish, yes, and I am aware of some errors on our past. But British's is not better at all. When we killed here false converts to the catholic religion, you were killing catholic. Our priests were probably the first ones who defended some kind of human rights, you can search some information about Bartolome de las Casas, for example, who critised all the brutality of the American Conquest. Torture was an extended way of doing things in those times and you can look out about torture in Britain and executions too. I don´t get the point of such a manipulated post. Those time were not easy at all, and Inquisition meant a way of making unit and stability. I am not saying that I would refound Inquisition today, absolutely no. But I´m sure it was necessary in a country as Spain, which is completely different from the "pure and unique" England. I hope I don´t annoy anyone, but I got a bit angry with this vision of our country. All religions are completely unnecesary (for me), so I don´t find the point of criticism to one of them and not to the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.198.37 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

England writes it's own history. The "seven hundred" years of supposed inquisition oppression killed 3,000 people, far less than the anti-Catholic decrees of elizabeth,or her near genocidal and sectartian destruction of Ireland which continued for centuries - the penal laws are real nazi like laws ( and by the way, the penalty for being a catholic priest was torure - hanging, drawing, and quartering without a trial: the inquisition had trials.. The only reason protestantism took in England was because of anti-Catholic decrees and fiat - only a fool would say that England would be majority Anglican now were it not for it's top down protestantism So much for liberty. And please, would English people learn their history and learn the penal laws. Far worse than anything ay catholic power did anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.3.221 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure using terms like 'better' or 'worse' really amounts to much. Most powers of the region were responsible for hideous acts of cruelty against each other and their own people. The facts should speak for themselves and in this case the film's factual errors are worthy of note. IMDB lists around three errors - maybe an understatement. This film would be offensive to most Spanish (and most historians too!), a matter also worthy of note - see other discussion topic - if you have sources that can be quoted, post them there and discuss what to do.

[edit] The portrayl of Spanish in Film

Something should be written about the strange portrayl of the Spanish. They were made to seem like swarmy mediteraneans akin to Islamic militants. I felt that the the portrayl was very negative, condecending, and overly exagerated. The messenger to Elizabeth did not even look Spanish but seemed more like a caricature of Spanish people being "Moors". There are people in Spain that look just like the British. What gives with the utter "non-European" portrayl of the Spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.217.36 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The film takes much artistic license and contains many, many historical inaccuracies. Many critics have noted this. If a published source has said something about the portrayal of the Spanish, it can be included in the article. I've found these:
Mary F. Pols of the Contra Costa Times said, "That's really the movie's overarching problem. It dances through history, making us feel as though such spectacles as the defeat of the Spanish Armada took place in the course of an afternoon, and that what really mattered was what everyone was wearing at the time."[1] Ed Gonzalez gave the film 1 1/2 stars out of 4 and said, "The way Elizabeth: The Golden Age tells it, the Spanish Armada's defeat by the British Empire was the orgasm The Virgin Queen never had."[2] Film critic Tony Medley wrote "It is told in such a histrionic and superficial manner by director Shekhar Kapur and writers William Nicholson and Michel Hirst, that the cast is left to thrash around to save it. The story of the destruction of the Spanish Armada is particularly noxious."[3]--Pixelface 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think some people may be missing the point here: the deciding factor in such portrayals in not the actual merits or otherwise of the Spaniards.
In this film the English are the Good Guys, and the English are fighting the Spaniards. Therefore the Spaniards have to be the Bad Guys, kick puppies and so forth, and in particular, be visually distinguishable from Englishmen. Hollywood considers it too confusing for moviegoers if both sides have both good and bad characteristics, or even worse, look alike.
If the film were about Wellington's peninsula campaign in the Napoleonic wars, the Spaniards would be Good Guys and act noble (although still having funny accents, of course).
Likewise, if Mel Gibson is winning the War of Independence for the United States, then the English have to be psychotic monsters. It's nothing personal. Paul Magnussen 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It did feel that the film was trying to call Spaniards 'Dirty Moors'. I mean for pete's sake does anyone remember the messenger that was sent to Elizabeth? The guy looked mixed black. And no that isn't saying that there is something wrong with being mixed black, but it clearly looked like the sterotypical portrayl of Spaniards being "Moors". I mean they didn't even try to portray them as Southern European (with the exception of Phillip). Just my opinion.

The fact remains it cast the Spaniards as two-dimensional malevolent, tree destroying - hehe, manipulative, ugly, evil, scheming etc etc in the most black and white terms (I may not be Spanish but I don't like my intelligence insulted). Such generalisations, obviously, have caused offence. Efforts to find published opinions as to this matter should be continued, at least to make the reader aware of issues regarding offensive racist content. (((It's such an average film it's going to go the way of all mediocre pictures - obscurity)))

[edit] Headline

[edit] Claims of Anti-Catholicism

I’m going to edit this section because it’s long and its language is repetitive and not NPOV, giving the impression as it does that the criticism is entirely valid. Film critics aren’t historians. One of the critics quoted in the section also says other critics have all but ignored the church-bashing, which implies the perception isn’t widely shared among his colleagues. Lachrie 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is ridiculously long, it just repeats the same basic claim again and again in a very POV fashion. Not very encyclopaedic at all. Ranny11 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree wholeheartedly. It's a sensitive subject and requires significant elucidation. The section as it now stands is certainly NPOV. - Ledenierhomme 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical inaccuracies

I’m a bit troubled by this section. Some of the criticisms are very speculative and may be spurious. I think they should be sourced.

We don’t actually know if Mary Queen of Scots had a Scots accent or not. She wrote letters in Scots (which was still a language of state in that period) and could pronounce a speech ‘in Englishe with a verie good grace’.

I’ve also read at least one nineteenth-century account of a Portuguese crew huddling around a priest on the quarterdeck and praying in the middle of a storm, leaving the ship to be saved by the foreign passengers.

Elizabeth may not have addressed her troops astride a white steed while wearing a suit of shining armour, but after reviewing the recent secondary literature, it seems most historians are still inclined to accept the traditional story that she appeared on a horse, holding a marshal's baton and wearing a cuirass, with a page carrying a silver helmet before her. Several witnesses or contemporaries do allude to Elizabeth’s martial appearance on that occasion.

From Susan Frye, ‘The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury’, Sixteenth Century Journal 23/1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 95-114:

James Aske in Elizabetha Triumphans (1588) describes Elizabeth as 'an Amazonian Queene' reviewing her troops ‘Most bravely mounted on a stately steede / With trunchion in her hand (not used thereto) / And with her none, except her Liutenant.’ [Frye, p. 105]

According to Burghley’s ‘Letter to Mendoza’ (1601), at Tilbury the Earl of Ormonde carried the sword of state before her. [Frye, 96]

Dr. Leonel Sharp (1623), an eyewitness, writes: ‘The Queen the next morning rode through all the Squadrons of her Army, as Armed Pallas, attended by Noble Footmen, Leicester, Essex, and Norris, then Lord Marshall, and diverse other great Lords. Where she made an excellent Oration to her armie …’ [Frye, 101] Lachrie 08:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As for daggers and swords at court, a 1580 painting supposed to be of Elizabeth dancing with Leicester shows a seated courtier wearing a dagger in their proximity. Another painting of c. 1600 depicting Elizabeth with her ministers shows the queen preceded by gentlemen attendants armed with swords. Lachrie 09:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i heard sir walter did lead the ships after the spanish armada, infact he was lighting the way well chasing them during there retreat and stopped half way through to chase a spanish ship he thought was valuble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.32.176.254 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the unsubstantiated charge that was made against Drake before the battle of Gravelines. Drake reported he had been checking out a group of Spanish sails sighted further out, and had extinguished his lamp so as not to cause confusion in the English fleet. Howard apparently accepted Drake's explanation, and the accusations were ignored. Raleigh may have been at sea, but he doesn't appear to have taken a prominent part in the battle. Instead Drake and Howard vied for the credit. Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The scene with the prayers and candles and iconography at sea isn't at all implausible. Doris K. Arjona, 'The English American on the Spanish Galleons', Hispania, 23/4. (Dec., 1940), p. 353, contains an account by Thomas Gage of a voyage on a Spanish ship in 1625 when Dominican friars lighted candles and prayed before an image of the Virgin Mary while on board a ship at sea: ' ... before midnight the wind turned to the north, which caused a sudden and general cry and uproar in ours and all the other ships ... hallowed wax candled were lighted by the friars, knees bowed to Mary, litanies and other prayers sung aloud to her till towards the dawning of the day ...' Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Very detailed information, Lachrie, thankyou!)

82.45.160.107 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)== Dramatic licence vs. Historical inaccuracies ==

Having read the public comments of the director and the lead reported in the press, I’m persuaded that the problem with using the negative term Historical inaccuracies in describing a film is that it’s value-laden, stigmatising and probably unjustifiable. It’s approaching drama from an overtly historicist point of view, which on reflection is actually quite unreasonable, in that it rests on and perpetuates a naïve expectation about what drama is and can be. The film-makers entertain no such illusions, and this actually explains their great freedom with the material. The creative process of selection and presentation means a film or a play can never be a literal rendering of events. Instead it uses a variety of figurative devices to transmit meaning. It’s clear from the approach the director has taken, and from his own explanations and those of Blanchett, that The Golden Age is intended to work as a sort of Camelot. It’s a conscious exercise in myth-making, and not a historical presentation. Treating it as if it were actively contributes to the confusion, rather than elucidating the nature of the artistic problem. Drama is emphatically not history, and in this case it is patently not pretending to be. A film has its own dramatic conventions, which terms like Dramatic licence or Artistic licence better encapsulate, without being prejudicial to the medium, which Historical inaccuracies can only ever be. I will therefore restore the change unless a better theoretical justification can be offered for abandoning it. Lachrie 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Dramatic License' may well include 'Historical Inaccuracies' but the former is a wider topic and the latter is specific. History was portrayed and, regardless of intent, history was portrayed wrongly at times. 'Dramatic License' may include things non-historical in nature (modes of speech, costume, art, set decoration, filming locations) so I would argue 'Historical Inaccuracies' is significantly more accurate and specific a description.

To claim that ‘history’ is portrayed ‘wrongly’ or 'inaccurately' is clearly prejudging the directorial intention, and privileging historicism over drama, when from the film-maker’s own point of view, the historicism has to be subordinated to the needs of the drama. We can evaluate the medium better by looking at it in its own terms. The film isn't intended to be historically accurate; indeed, the director even denies that this is possible. Strictly speaking, creative decisions aren't ‘errors’, because they're intended to produce a specific dramatic effect. ‘Historical accuracy’ might be a reasonable criterion to judge the content of a factual documentary or a docudrama, but a literal retelling is clearly not the aim here. The director’s interpretation of the national mythology is more symbolic than literal, so using a term like ‘historical inaccuracies’ is markedly less correct and specific than ‘dramatic licence’: modes of speech, costume, art, set decoration, locations are all matters of history that are conventionally adapted in drama and film, without ordinarily exciting historicist prejudice. It's more reasonable to present the same information about creative changes without applying inappropriate criteria to it. Lachrie (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not for ranting.--Johnbull (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine - Ok (I was enjoying my rant - got a little carried away - and you're right; actually thought much in the film was good ...)

Discussing how to improve the article, by using one term or another, was exactly what they were doing. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The bit about Philip walking strange, after seeing the film I am under the impression that he only walked like that in one scene and because he was walking with his kid daughter, because he had to reach down to hold her hand and walk at the same time. I wonder if some editor was a little too sensitive about the way Philip walked in this one scene with the child that he thought he should post a lengthy rant about it on this article... JayKeaton (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] loosely based on

I don't think "loosely based on" should be used in the lead, because this film is very much base don the real life Elizabeth, the real life Spanish, the real England, real Spanish king... and well, it would seem to me that the movie is centered around all these events. I think that perhaps someone who didn't like this movie decided that "loosely based" would be a better term to use. JayKeaton (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The List

The massive list of everything that two anonymous editors see as wrong with this film is getting out of hand. Not only is most of it OR, a lot of it is based on small non notable sources taken out of context from websites/people that are in no way notable at all. I think that the entire list should be deleted and it should instead be condensed into one small paragraph. I can only see two things on the list that are even close to notable. The rest is OR/rubbish and should be deleted. JayKeaton (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The film is notable, as are the historical events it interprets, to the extent that the dramatic interpretation has elicited public controversy. The purpose of the section is to discuss significant deviations from fact as established in verifiable published sources, and arbitrary deletion of observations that meet these criteria is simply inappropriate. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But I hardly see how things that were NOT in the film are notable. How is the Dutch not appearing in the film notable? How is it more notable then not mentioning that the ships had rats on board, or who the Spanish's supports/sympathizers, or the names of every single general/commander in each army? We cannot list things that did not appear in the film, that would be madness. And I would hate to nitpick the nitpicking that is the list, but mentioning Mary's accent twice because "She may not have" had a certain accent, or she may have had a certain accent? She may or may not have farted blood, nothing that she may or may not have had can be notable on the list. And the horrible sources, I randomly look at two. One of them is impossible to look at as it requires registration and the other marked as November 2006! How can it possibly be a credible source when the film was not even released until two months ago! The whole list has gotten out of hand, it is full of original research, full of sources that range from "student papers" to this source which is not even in English and only full of ads for other non relevant articles. JayKeaton (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The film-maker can be accused of committing a lie by omission. I would agree with you to the extent that exclusion of the Dutch contribution in order to aggrandise England is a slightly more debatable issue than the others, as the Dutch role in the battle was largely indirect (and it would also be better if the contributor could cite an English-language source). That's not the case for Drake, however, whose marginalisation from the action at the expense of Raleigh (who probably wasn't even a participant) is nothing short of incredible. The disappearance of Leicester and other key participants in national politics is another major departure from history, and serves to exaggerate both the role of Raleigh and the personal leadership of the monarch. The degree of Mary's cultural affinity with Scotland has always been a contentious issue among historians and nationalists who wish to claim her as a national symbol, and the problem of her accent in the film has been raised by a number of historians whose remarks have been reported in the press, as they always are when a major film depicting Mary comes out. As for your impugning of legitimate sources, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is the most reliable and academically authoritative reference work on British historical biography in existence. It is used to establish historical fact as a basis for comparison. Every university library in the English-speaking world will have a hard copy or electronic access rights. Most of the other sources are peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, published full-length books by accredited professional historians, and newspaper articles either about the lives of the persons and events or discussing the way these were portrayed in the film. None of these are primary sources requiring any original reseach. They're secondary or tertiary sources, and their use is unimpeachable. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The citation with a retrieval date of 2006 is obviously just a typo that can be fixed. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"unimpeachable", >_> You really think so? JayKeaton (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The statements are verifiable as they come from reliable published sources: mainstream media and academic scholarship. The point about using the Bridge of Sighs for location-filming seems fairly trivial (as it's just background and its appearence isn't critical to the story) and citing a Dutch-language source isn't ideal. Omitting the Dutch from the story may be slightly misleading, but to be fair to the film-makers, the absence of the Dutch from the action does reflect the contemporary English perception of the battle of Gravelines. On 29 July 1588 Admiral Howard complained: 'There is not one Flushinger nor Hollander at the seas.' A letter from Borlas to Walsingham on 3 August 1588 also says a west wind interrupted the Dutch blockade by forcing the Dutch ships back into the Scheldt, and the same wind prevented Parma from venturing out, though given the presence of the English fleet it's unlikely he would have done so anyway, so the Dutch role in the decisive battle does seem to have been pretty marginal. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Blanchett quotation is sourced and verifiable, and I have checked Susan Frye's article about Tilbury in the British Library and it certainly does not support your claim. Please do not attempt to falsify sources or misrepresent genuine ones. Deliberately falsifying the content of the article is tantamount to vandalism. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What does [4] that source have to do with anything? It's just a website that promotes dutch writers, and the url doesn't show anything except a list of books that you can buy JayKeaton (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a link to the website of Uitg. Balans, the publisher of the Dutch-language source on military history cited in the reference: J.R. Bruijn en C.B. Wels, Met man en macht, de militaire geschiedenis van Nederland 1550-2000 (Amsterdam 2003). 82.45.160.107 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your soapbox and I believe that you are committing a synthesis of published material with the goal of serving to advance you're own position, which constitutes original research under the official policy of the English Wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The listed points are straightforward, verifiable statements of historical fact from reputable sources which taken together advance no particular agenda, whereas you are demonstrably misrepresenting sources in order to commit otherwise unjustifiable deletions, apparently in order to advance some position of your own. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The final point concerning the Dutch contribution is however dubious and as I have located an English-language source contradicting that claim it can probably be deleted without prejudice to the accuracy of the article. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I do hate to say it, because accusing people of something is never nice, but I really do believe that almost everything in that list was created with the intention of pushing bias by cherry picking sources, which is in violation of Wikipedias official policies. You may not, or may, have created some of that list originally, but by reverting deletions of the list you were not just reverting edits. You were adding everything back in, which is the same as you approving it or typing it up yourself. You added it back in which means you are responsible for it, so my claims of policy breaking still stands. JayKeaton (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale is dubious for the reasons already given above, and you have neither attempted to substantiate your claims with reference to specific examples, nor have you offered any explanation for previously giving false justifications for deleting sections of the article by demonstrably misrepresenting the content of sources that they cite. Pretending to have read what you clearly have not is a breach of good faith, and I regret to say that in my opinion your hostile editing amounts to vandalism. 82.45.160.107 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But I have read that source, what makes you think I haven't? JayKeaton (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Having just visited this page, I have to agree that the Dramatic License List has got one person's POV stamped all over it. It is not so much whether the facts it states are true or not (though many are so trivial as to be irrelevant [colour of the actresses eyes ?!]), but the terminology and language used is POV. For example, taking the first paragraph alone :
The film accepts completly the Black Legend against Spain, and shows him as a creepy character. The real Philip was a great king, clever, good administrator, and a person with a great sense of justice, not a ruthless and fanatic tyrant. The film was so exagerated that offended the Spaniards. There are many lies. For example, while history says that the real Philip, when received the news about the defeat of his fleet, accepted it quietly, and even didn´t moved a muscle, in the film, the character starts to cry, some that Spanish audiences considered ridiculous. This kind of changes caused that the film bombed in Spain
To illuminate - use of word 'completely' is an over emphasis ; there is no explanation of the term 'Black Legend' ; use of 'creepy' is POV ; 'great king, clever, good' again over emphasis & POV, which needs proof ; 'offended the Spaniards' needs sources ; 'many lies' is blantant POV &/or needs sources ; the example then given needs sources ; 'some Spanish audiences considered ridiculous' needs sources ; 'caused it to bombed in Spain' needs sources ; use of 'bombed' is subjective  ; not to mention the ill grammar & spelling.
That's only one paragraph ! The rest of the list is just as bad ! (I seriously have better uses of my time than to go through the whole lot). Please, this needs a serious rewrite without an uptight editor reverting things ! It is afterall, as everyone involved on the film has stated, a work of fiction The Yeti (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited it to the bare essentials. Hope it's better, but feel free to revert, add or change it. Dr Benway (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] infatuated?

from the synopsis bit: "..young Austrian archduke who has become infatuated with the Queen."

I just saw the film and I don't think the archduke was infatuated, he just memorized some sentences in English as if. Of course this opinion is not sourced. If the sentence as it stands isn't sourced as well I would like to change to ".. young Austrian archduke." Pukkie (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)