Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'
AKI ^ | 2007 Nov 1

Posted on 11/02/2007 6:09:01 AM PDT by Wiz

Rome, 1 Nov. (AKI) - A Vatican-backed historian has attacked the film "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" for being a “distorted anti-papal travesty” that risks dividing the West in the face of Islam.

Professor Cardini, who holds the chair of medieval history at Florence University and formerly taught at the Lateran University in Rome, a Vatican body, said the film aimed to “secularise and de-Christianise” Europe.

The film, starring Cate Blanchett in the lead role, charts the latter years in the life of England's Tudor queen, Elizabeth, and the role of religion that led the Protestant monarch to war against Spain's Catholic King Phillip II.

Directed by Indian director, Shekhar Kapur, the film opened the Rome Film Festival in October and is tipped to score several Oscar Award nominations.

According to The London Times, Cardini wrote in Avvenire, the official organ of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, that the film formed part of a “concerted attack on Catholicism” by atheists and “apocalyptic Christians”.

Cardini said a film which so profoundly and perversely falsifies history cannot be judged a good film.

He said it has failed in its potential to offer “a contribution to the understanding of a moment of vital importance.” Instead, the Virgin Queen was portrayed as “an able politician and courageous sovereign” while King Philip II of Spain was shown as a “ferocious, fanatical Catholic".

(Excerpt) Read more at adnkronos.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholic; england; india; protestant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

1 posted on 11/02/2007 6:09:02 AM PDT by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation

ping


2 posted on 11/02/2007 6:09:31 AM PDT by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
the role of religion that led the Protestant monarch to war against Spain's Catholic King Phillip II

IIRC it was Phillip who went to war against Elizabeth- everything I've heard about it says Spain was the aggressor here.

3 posted on 11/02/2007 6:11:29 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

“Professor Cardini, who holds the chair of medieval history at Florence University and formerly taught at the Lateran University in Rome, a Vatican body, said the film aimed to “secularise and de-Christianise” Europe.”

ONE film can do all that? Wow!!!


4 posted on 11/02/2007 6:11:42 AM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
Both the Elizabeth films are amazing recreations of Tudor propaganda without the slightest critical insight.

It's funny that the film industry aggressively revises the standard version of history in all matters - except when the standard version of history reviles the Catholic Church.

We won't see Edmund Campion in the movies any time soon.

5 posted on 11/02/2007 6:13:32 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

I am particularly taken aback by the assertion (in the movie) that the Spanish Armada “carries the Inquisition”. That’s rather dumb and unsustained historically. Hollywood made-up history strikes again.

Funny, when people make up things about certain events in WWII, they are jailed. Apparently, some historical events are more equal than others.


6 posted on 11/02/2007 6:17:35 AM PDT by FrogBurger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake


Here's a link to a short bio of St Edmund Campion:

http://sjweb.info/jesuits/saintShow.cfm?SaintID=50
7 posted on 11/02/2007 6:26:58 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FrogBurger

Ah, the Black Legend.


8 posted on 11/02/2007 6:28:10 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
Oh goodie - the church is going to help publicize the movie and assure more attendance...

Blanchett's portrayal of the queen in the first "Elizabet 1" was brilliant and all attempts at subsequent movies fall flat.

I seldom go to the theater, preferring to wait for the video - but I will go out for this one...and then buy the DVD for home -

a “concerted attack on Catholicism” "Concerted attack" - or daring to bring out the dark, "inconvenient history" of the times...

Were it not for Queen Elizabeth 1, our history would be very different - we could all be speaking Spanish

(Love her pearls)

..

9 posted on 11/02/2007 6:38:59 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrogBurger
I've not seen the movie, so I can't address that (I tend to be sympathetic for religious victims of film makers), but the fear of the of the Spanish Inquisition was very real in England during Elizabeth's time.

It is doubtful that Elizabeth would have sanctioned privateers to carry out an "unofficial war" against Spain if neither spain nor the vatican had not intrigued against England constantly.

Pope Sixtus' comments here were rather enlightening.

The French treatment of their protestants (see St. Bartholomew's day massacre) was horrifying to the English mind. But as far as interferring with French politics, Elizabeth did less interfering than King Philip did. In fact, for a time, France (a natural enemy of England) became allied with England against Spain (a natural ally).

The trial of Mary Stewart certainly had it's moments, but was a lot fairer than many caught up in the Spanish Inquisition (and some in the Holy Inquisition). It is a truism that Elizabeth was reluctant to act against her cousin and did so very reluctantly when Mary was so foolish as to reveal just what an idiot she really was (of course, she had already shown that when she was ruled Scotland).

Now, as I've said, I've not seen the movie, so I am only addressing the critic's remarks and am indicating that his history statements seem to be somewhat slanted too.
10 posted on 11/02/2007 6:47:07 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
....but I will go out for this one.... Better hurry. It's tanking.
11 posted on 11/02/2007 6:52:20 AM PDT by bobsatwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

Transformers was the best movie of the year, hands-down.


12 posted on 11/02/2007 6:56:32 AM PDT by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

The lady they got to play Mary Stewart wasn’t bad looking.


13 posted on 11/02/2007 6:59:05 AM PDT by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wiz

Quote from the article: “A Vatican-backed historian has attacked the film “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” for being a “distorted anti-papal travesty” that risks dividing the West in the face of Islam.”

You don’t have to be backed by the Vatican, nor even a historian to know the film is fiction and not factually based. The previous film was as well.


14 posted on 11/02/2007 7:01:23 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiz
Unfortunately by denouncing it Vatican may promote an obscure movie that (per Box Office Mojo) only made less than $17m worldwide (including $15m from the US) .
15 posted on 11/02/2007 7:03:46 AM PDT by paudio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

I saw the film and liked it quite a lot. Great costumes, and some (fairly accurate) history thrown in. That the facts of the story don’t look good for the Catholic Church is not bigoted. The Spanish presumed to interfere in English politics, and got the Catholic Church involved in their dynastic and material ambitions. Period. They got whacked for it and it resulted in the decline of their empire.


16 posted on 11/02/2007 7:05:30 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

It’s basically just another rehashing of the “Leyenda Negra”- the English-inspired “Black Legend” that villifies Spain and the Catholic Church.


17 posted on 11/02/2007 7:05:55 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
I know it happens all the time, but no one (let me repeat) no one should get their history from a movie.
18 posted on 11/02/2007 7:06:07 AM PDT by carton253 (And if that time does come, then draw your swords and throw away the scabbards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

So its a dramatization. The basic outline of the story is correct. Object to some of the characterizations if you will, but the simple facts are that the Spain attempted to invade England and lost.


19 posted on 11/02/2007 7:07:10 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

You wrote:

“The trial of Mary Stewart certainly had it’s moments, but was a lot fairer than many caught up in the Spanish Inquisition (and some in the Holy Inquisition).”

Uh, no. Everyone knew Mary would be convicted and put to death. Your chances of being put to death after an inquisition trial, on the other hand, were small and it was never assumed you would be convicted. Mary, for instance, had no chance to strike testimony or “evidence” against her, while those tried by the inquisition were interviewed as to who their enemies were and testimony of those enemies was discounted by the court as to the guilt of the defendent.


20 posted on 11/02/2007 7:07:51 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson