Cate Blanchett As Elizabeth Gives Us Much to Think About and Appreciate

This is not really a review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, but more or less a few observations and an excuse to share a few photos of the costumes Cate Blanchett wore in this film. Purportedly it is a historical biography, but according to the critics, it's more historical fiction. Though it failed to obtain the viewer acclaim of its predecessor (Elizabeth, also starring Cate Blanchett) it does have some elements of note.

When Cate Blanchett's star began to rise in the East, it seemed the heir to Queen Meryl's throne had appeared. Streep has unquestionably been one of the standouts of her generation of actresses. He range seems to know no bounds. Similarly, Cate Blanchett has tackled a similar variety of challenges and seems to excel at them all. (Bonus points for having been Bob Dylan.)

The significance of the film may be that it zeroes in on two of history's major turning points, the destruction of Spain's dominance of the high seas and the birth of what would become a 300 year global empire, and the establishment of Protestantism and the ouster of Catholicism. 

I can't say the film moved me to my innards, but will note that the cinematography was stunning at times and Cate Blanchett's costumes were fit for a queen.

The film did raise questions for me. Did queens also have to dress so extravagantly? Do they ever get to wear "comfortable clothes"?  How many hours a day did Ms. Blanchett have to spend getting ready for each day's shooting?

These were the days when it was still believed the kings and queens were divine, which was at odds with what the Reformers were saying. Elizabeth herself questions the notion.

The conflict between Catholics and Protestants had begun to rage in many parts of Europe. The Huguenot Wars were taking place in France, and the Inquisition had been continuing in Spain. Against this backdrop, many of Elizabeth's advisors wanted her to take action against the Catholics in England. Elizabeth, in her wisdom, sees no advantage in creating more conflict by "forcing" the people to be "politically correct", Anglican and not Catholic. (Sadly this did become the law of the land.)  Elizabeth is adamant and takes a stand for freedom of thought and belief. She is opposed to any kind of inquisition-like response to weed out Catholics. "Fear creates fear. I am not ignorant of the dangers, sir. But I will not punish my people for their beliefs. Only for their deeds. I am assured that the people of England love their Queen. My constant endeavor is to earn that love."  (Great lines. If only all leaders would do likewise.)

* * * 

Related Link

The Spanish Inquisition Had a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech 

The Spanish Inquisition Had a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

One of the memorable episodes from the old Monty Python Flying Circus featured several Spanish Inquisition sketches. Each begins innocuously until someone says, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" whereupon three bumbling priests in 15th century garb burst into the room, Michael Palin snarling, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise."

Whereas the skits were hilarious, the actual Inquisition was anything but. 

I turned to Wikipedia for a refresher course on this period of history. I learned here that the Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 and lasted 300 years. What I was unaware of -- was it downplayed by historians? -- was that Ferdinand II and Isabella I were the ones who commissioned the Inquisition. If those names sound familiar, they should. Ferdinand and Isabella were the the monarchs who commissioned Columbus on his mission to India by traveling West.

The Wikipedia account contains a lot of detail about the various stages of the Inquisition, including objectives and statistics. There is a breakdown of how many were prosecuted (150,000), how many were executed (3000 to 5000) and the ratio of their offenses (Protestants, Orthodox, Sodomites, blaspheming Catholics, etc.) 

As I read this information, I got the impression that some people could argue that the numbers weren't all that bad. Three to five thousand executions in three centuries is only 10 to 17 executions per year. Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed millions. The U.S. killed more than three-to-five thousand unarmed citizens at Hiroshima and Nagasaki without a trial or even a warning.

True enough, but consider this. Consider the atmosphere of a society where your livelihood, and even your life, may be at risk at any moment if you get accused by your neighbor. In other words, your family's well-being is at risk at any moment because you may say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Maybe your lose your temper, or simply have a lapse of judgment and express something against the Pope. Suddenly, the PC Police (neighbors) are making notes, and the next time the Grand Inquisitor is in the neighborhood, your name comes up.

It may be something you said 20 years ago and you don't even remember it. You may not even have those feelings or views any more, but under the Inquisition (the rack stretching your bones apart in order to aid your memory) you do recall having made that gesture to a priest or snarky comment about the Pope, or whatever else was not politically correct at the time.

* * * 

Our current culture is quite far from the ideal when it comes to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Some topics are so controversial that I am uncomfortable listing them here. There are questions we are afraid to ask. There are topics that people have been criticized for even writing about. 

When I Googled the question >>what are some topics we can no longer talk about publicly<< The first answer delivered was 11 Things You Can't Discuss in Public Anymore.*  One can quibble over particulars but the list does show that we haven't arrived at the free thought society mathematician/social critic Bertrand Russell was fighting for, or that the Founding Fathers desired for the United States.

When Russell expressed his concerns about these matters 100 years ago, the list of objectionable topics may have been different but it was no shorter. 60 years ago Lenny Bruce was hounded to death for challenging the limits of free speech. 

* * * 

Though free speech is protected in our nation's Bill of Rights, we all know that there are limits. We do not have a right to shout "Fire! in a crowded theater. Unfortunately, there's an increasing tendency to tar-and-feather people on an ever widening array of topics. 

I know we're supposed to be optimistic going forward, but in order for us to solve many of our problems we need to have the freedom to discuss issues openly without fear of retribution. The temper of our times seems to be in opposition to such a proposal as this. 

* * *

Related Links

Monty Python's Fandom Page on The Spanish Inquisition

A Monty Python Spanish Inquisition Sketch on YouTube

Why Our Current Cancel Culture Is a Clear and Present Danger 

Bertrand Russell's Free Thought and Official Propaganda Has Much to Say About Our Current State of Cancel Culture

 

*This is used as an example only. I do not know this person and share it for illustrative purposes.

Himalaya

We all know the Himalayas. Or rather, we pretty much all know that they are the highest mountains in the world, somewhat forbidding and full of mystery.

I just finished reading (again, listening to) the unabridged account of Michael Palin’s book Himalaya, read by the author. Palin is the familiar face from the BBC’s Monty Python comedy troop, one of my favorite characters in whatever skit you find him in. His “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition” sketch is always a gut splitter, but in almost anything where he is teamed with John Cleese you can be sure it’s going to be funny.

Himalaya, however, is a serious book, essentially an ongoing chronicle of Palin’s travels while filming his travel show for the BBC. This adventure covered 3,000 miles and took six months to complete, a little much for a four day weekend. Beginning at the Kuyber Pass at the Afghanistan border, Palin takes in everything, sharing it with his viewers and readers. High altitude polo in Pakistan, penetrating dialogue with the exiled Dalai Lama, and a whole range of mountain top experiences are shared with enthusiasm. The wide variety of cultures, religions, peoples and political expressions are highly informative.

Palin’s wit is with him throughout, and a keen eye for details that make the journey memorable for those of us who weren’t able to join him. On some occasions there were parties and social encounters where the most remote peoples were familiar with Palin from his Monty Python days, and a few times he even sang for them The Lumberjack Song. The book is an entertaining and informative experience by a highly entertaining writer.

If you're interested in this part of the world, I also recommend the Brad Pitt film Seven Years in Tibet, the true story of Heinrich Harrer, an Australian mountain climber who became friends with the Dalai Lama. I've watched it several times, never without being moved. Pitt is superb, the cinematography spectacular, the story uplifting, and yes, the film is a masterpiece.

But the backdrop for all, whether Michael Palin's adventure or the Hollywood re-creation of a slice of history, is a mountainous region of the world known wondrously as the Himalayas. In whatever form you wish to take it in, please do.