History as movie fiction

You've probably heard the comment: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

We in the news business are often accused of just such a thing, though I can honestly say I've never been party to a story where facts were dismissed or overlooked in order to make the story better. But I can't say the same about some movies.

That struck me recently as my wife Jane and I watched "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" with Cate Blanchett in the title role. You'd think you were watching history, when upon closer inspection you are watching a good story that didn't let the facts of history get in its way.

Maybe it's me, and the fact that when I read a book or newspaper or watch a television show or movie I tend to see it through the eyes of the editor that I was. I expect good writing and editing, truth and accuracy. I accept that entertainment often involves the suspension of belief, but I can't give a pass to entertainment that presents itself off as lifted from the headlines or lifted from the pages of history when in fact it is created from imagination.

I was intrigued by "Elizabeth" when I saw it at the local Blockbuster because in December I had visited London, where, with the help of my son who had spent a semester there, I totally immersed myself in British history.

"Elizabeth" -- for which Blanchett received a well-deserved best-actress Oscar nomination -- tells her majesty's story as England, having divorced itself from the Catholic Church, faced invasion from the very Catholic Spanish King Phillip II and his famous armada in 1588. We learn of her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh, and her relationship with Mary Stuart -- Mary, Queen of Scots.

The movie will have you believe that, in relatively quick succession: 1) she was smitten by Raleigh at a time when she was weighing her options to pick a husband, then was enraged when Raleigh took up with her maid of honor, 2) Raleigh had a direct hand in the events that ultimately led to the defeat of the Spanish Armada off the English coast, 3) Mary was beheaded as a direct result of an assassination plot tied to the invasion, and 4) that England lived happily ever after as a result of Elizabeth's enlightened rule.

But history tells us that it didn't quite go down this way.

Raleigh regularly fell in and out of favor with the queen and with the royal court. After Elizabeth's death, he questioned her defense of England against, and was beheaded by her successor in 1618. His relationship with the queen's maid of honor took place years after the events related in the movie. Raleigh likely had nothing to do with the sinking of the Spanish Armada in the English Channel. The execution of Mary Stuart, again had nothing to do with events related to the Spanish invasion.

Did I enjoy the movie for what it was? Sure. I just have to apply more disbelief, accept entertainment for entertainment's sake, and stay away from the history books afterwards.

Wall Street Journal writer Cynthia Crossen in a recent "Deja Vu" column spoke of fiction and ruses in what we assume is a factual story. She cited early 20th century newspaper columnist Heywood Broun, who wrote that the minstrel never preceded his story to royalty of the fiction he was about to relate. And, if someone should pipe up that "it never happened," said Broun, "...it was the custom to take that man and drop him in the moat; for ancient man was not disposed to let any factualist spoil a good story."

I should keep my mouth shut, lest I end up in the moat.