How were the depictions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, in films made before 1950, shaped by the rise
of Fascism and the onset of World War II?
By Abdiwallad
Cinema is a critical point in storytelling, and it is an art form that has been developed since the late 1800s in
Britain. The first wave of silent movies was introduced in the in the early 1900s and popularised by the famous
Charlie Chaplin. Moreover, as technology progressed so did storytelling, the introduction of sound gave a new
dimension to the art of storytelling. British films during the 1920s to the 1950s demonstrated the progressive
nature of Cinema. Leading on to the question, the depictions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I gave a platform for
British cinema to showcase their creative talents. However, world events during this period did have a significant
impact on how the films were portrayed. The onset of World War II had a significant impact on the depictions of
Elizabeth I on her portrayal during the 1930s, and 1940s. I would argue Elizabeth I portrayal in cinema was more
influenced by the rise of Fascism and World War II comparing to Henry VIII portrayal in Cinema.
Moreover, key figures playing a role in the production of the films, from Government officials to producers setting
out their agenda and get their message across. In this essay, I will be discussing the impact WW2, and fascism
had on the depictions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Moreover, world events that shaped the film's portrayal.
Furthermore, actors and producers input in the films and lastly historians’ viewpoints on the portrayals.
Cinema was heavily dominated by the Americans during the early 1900s, and arguably today it still dominates the
international market compared to Britain. Many films produced during the 1920s to the 1940s did have some
American input towards it. For example, one of the key films for this question is The Sea Hawk, which was
distributed by Warner Bros. Cinema offered an escape from reality for British filmgoers after the First World War.
Britain was still recovering during the inter-war years, and the 1930s demonstrated the struggle the British people
had felt. The 1930s were represented as the ‘Devil’s Decade’ mass unemployment, economic discord and
general financial instability in the country. Cinema offered a distraction however, British cinema at this time was
significantly inferior compared the American industry. There was no national identity in the British industry, and it
did not reflect on what was going on in reality and ongoing current affairs. Perhaps this was due to the economic
constraints of the British economy.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the American industry was far superior. The American industry dominated the
academy awards during the 1920s and early 1930s films such as Cimarron and Cavalcade. Though, the onset of
World War II and the rise of Fascism did pave the way for original work by the British cinema.
The War played a significant role in the production films, during the Second World War both BBFC (British Board
of Film Classification) and Ministry of information intervened and kept an eye on British Films. The Depictions of
Elizabeth I is a clear example of the intervention. , as it portrayed Britain bastion of democracy in Fire Over
England.The two institutes had propaganda themes to base films around to show unity during war times. The
three themes, ‘What British were fighting for,’ How Britain was fighting and, lastly the need for a sacrifice. What
we can infer from the intervention is how it shaped films the BBFC wanted to create a sense of British identity
within the cinema. The Second World War was perfect timing for propaganda to be produced and the cinema was
crucial for public information during inter-war times as well as, during the war. In the late 1930s, it was clear that
the war was looming, the film was a gateway to a fantasy world; for ordinary people to keep occupied. It is
probable the British cinema wanted to compete with the US and were tired of being “colonised” by the American
industry. The Americans were a dominant force they had the wealth due to isolation as well as, not recovering
from the First World War. It allowed the American film industry to grow and get a head start compared to other
filmmaking nations. Britain was still arguably a world power and controlled a vast empire. Moreover, portraying
previous monarchs such as Henry VIII can imply a stronger connection with the Monarch. Depicting previous
monarchs in most cases, in a good light further cement the empire and the empire is linked to the monarch.
Warner Bros. played a significant role in the development of anti-Nazi cinema propaganda during the rise of
fascism. The Two World Wars shaped the film industry and gave a more precise direction of what to produce.
Propaganda allowed to get information across and depict the key three themes the ministry of information
interwove into the productions of films. The era of the 1920s and 1930s were shaped by political, economic and
social events. It gave British cinema a new form of storytelling which it lacked during the early years. The
portrayal of Monarchs gave a sense of British identity for the filmmakers to use as a foundation. Although for
example, Henry VIII is controversial by some historians, in particular, A.F Pollard saw him as a great statesman.
One film that heavily focuses on the depiction of Henry VIII is the ‘Private life of Henry VIII. This film starts off a
benchmark for films about Monarchs. It was a major international success and a milestone for British cinema.
Charles Laughton (portrays Henry VIII) was the first British actor to win an Academy award. Moreover, the film
was the first non-American film to win an award. The Private Life of Henry VIII was the standard for British films
to come, the global impact it had, especially in the U.S, it was significant. However, this film depicted Henry VIII in
a very controversial manner. This film created a popular image of the fat Henry VIII, thanks to Charles Laughton’s
take on the monarch. The portrayal of as an imposing figure dates to Holbein’s depiction of Henry VIII. The
painting is a very authoritative and imposing figure of Henry VIII. The depiction of Henry VIII started from
Holbein’s artistic input; he shaped Henry in what he is perceived as today. You may argue that Holbein’s painting
is an early form of propaganda. Henry VIII faced setbacks during the painting which again depicted Henry VIII as
an assertive and imposing figure. However, you could claim that he was causing discord within the country. The
breakaway from the Catholic church proved to be a very controversial move — moreover, Protestants becoming
martyrs under Henry’s reign.
Furthermore, the most famous aspect about Henry was his relationship with his six wives; this is portrayed in
several different ways. Each film portrays Henry and his six wives in a different view. Different interpretations
allow the audience to grasp a better and much more different understanding of the character of Henry VIII.
Alexander Korda was a fan of Winston Churchill , and within his works, you could see the coded support he offers
Churchill in the follow up to rearmament. The film was a form of propaganda, not as nationalistic as other wartime
films it was propaganda for a unified Britain.
To add to this Henry VIII was a provocative figure, upsetting both Catholics and Protestants. The portrayal of
Henry VIII in the film would be challenging as he was not seen in the positive light among the Literature writers.
Writers who wanted to create a story and tell a narrative that suits the message they portrayed. The Private Life
of Henry VIII was a significant film for the depiction of the monarch, and it gives us an insight into the troubled
man and his six wives. The audience gets the impression of the possible propaganda set by Korda and his
admiration for Churchill.
On the other hand, the portrayal of Henry VIII did give the monarch a negative light, and it disrespected an
English King and Churchill was unhappy. It humiliated British history and was banned by the British foreign office
in 1934, so it was not shown abroad to her colonies. Putting this into context, India was fighting for independence
against the British. You could imply this is the propaganda that would’ve heated the fight for independence
against the British.
Charles Laughton’s portrayal of Henry VIII set the foundation for future depictions of Henry VIII, and you could
not separate the actor from the image of the role. Laughton’s depiction of Henry VIII won him an academy award,
the first non-American. Nevertheless, his portrayal was different from the historical views historians had.
Laughton had acted in roles such as perverted villains or murders men, but never the role of a king. You could
imply that his previous roles formulated Laughton's depiction of Henry VIII. Laughton wanted to portray Henry VIII
toddler-like, brass and a man with an impatient bark. Laughton’s depiction of Henry VIII was also in a negative
light. Henry was depicted as a glutton, a man who eats an entire chicken and throws the bones behind him. It
almost gives Henry VIII a barbaric touch perhaps due to his brutality in during his reign.
Furthermore, a historian’s outlook is vital on historical figures, understanding the stance historians of the period in
conversation gives us the best and detailed insight of the discussion. A.F Pollard was the notable influence on
Henry VIII portrayal, and his work dominated the studies for nearly five decades. Pollard admired Henry VIII had
a king and had a very positive view as monarch. However, this does not explain why The Private Life of Henry
VIII does not resonate with Pollard's view. There is a contrast with Laughton’s portrayal of Henry VIII, compared
to Pollard's view on Henry VIII. Pollard states he was a great statesman and was vital for the creation of the
parliamentary system. Moreover, Pollard stated Henry VIII was the founder of the British Empire, as he could be
traced back from Queen Victoria. A.F. Pollard released this book in 1902; the British Empire was at its highest
hence why there is great admiration for a monarch, who was an ancestor to Queen Victoria. Nationalism was at
its peak during Victoria’s reign. Pollard's views may be skewed due to the height of the British empire but
emphasise the important role Henry VIII played for the creation of a parliament.
However, other historians disagree with Pollard's view on Henry VIII as they approach that Henry was feckless
and cruel. Historian Geoffrey Elton, emphasis Thomas Cromwell was the mastermind break of Rome, as well as,
the mastermind for the establishment of parliamentary rule. Two very contrasting views moreover, Geoffrey
Elton’s work did come later. Moreover, J.J Scarisbrick agrees with Elton in most cases. However, from three of
these prominent historians, we still do get contrast from all three comparing to literature and film. The Depiction of
Henry VIII in film tends to be from fiction literature where he is depicted as a tyrant. This tyrant portrayal is
stemmed from a psychological aspect, Henry is a complicated man, struggling with internal conflict. This
depiction of Henry VIII is because of the liberties filmmakers and scriptwriters take to create a story. A narrative
created to add a dynamic to the storytelling. Korda did relate his work with what was happening during the time,
Germany was gathering it’s strength, and the European Nations were observing. Within the script of, The Private
Life of Henry VIII Laughton’s Henry calling for ‘peace’ which was reflective with world events.
The Private Life of Henry VIII was inspired by these narratives of Henry VIII as it provides a more complicated
character and thus creating a better story for the producers. The depiction of Henry VIII is a different approach to
the historians; the Inter-war period did play a key role as it helped develop a British identity for Cinema movies,
however, this was only from the 1930s onwards.
The second part of the Essay is going to focus on Elizabeth I depicted and how Fascism and the onset of World
War II shaped Elizabeth’s I is portrayal. The two Films that will be the primary focus is, ‘Fire Over England (1937)
and ‘The Sea Hawk’ (1940). The two films are set much later compared to The Private Life of Henry VIII. Unlike,
the films in the early 1930s, both depictions of Elizabeth I were formed by anti-Nazi propaganda and propaganda
for the Second World War. Elizabeth I was a national icon and was an important figurehead in the histories of
past monarchs of Britain. Elizabeth I was the last of the Tudor monarchs however, under her reign English drama
flourished with the likes of Shakespeare. Elizabeth I created a sense of stability her reign lasted for 44 years and
helped forge a national identity. Elizabeth I was a strong monarch, and it is evident in films such as Fire Over
England portray her in a very positive manner. A powerful ruler who defeated the Spanish Armada. These
depictions of Elizabeth I was parallel to what was happening during the late 1930s and early 1940s; Unlike Henry
VIII, Elizabeth I was favoured.
Patriotism was high, and filmmakers saw an advantage to create a story that resembles society and reality.
Mentioned earlier, unlike in the eve of World War Two, British cinema failed to capture society and reality in the
1920s. English cinema struggled to capture the audience and lost dominance to the US.
The circumstances allowed filmmakers to portray Elizabeth as a powerful ruler and she was the perfect candidate
for patriotism. World War Two had a significant amount of the women’s population working in factories. Women
were essential to the War effort and using Elizabeth I for propaganda created women empowerment. ‘I am
England’ a quote by Elizabeth I personifies the message the directors wanted to portray Elizabeth’s loyalty and
resilience to her country.
The Ministry of Information advised suitable subjects for producers to film. The government made sure the
message of war was prevalent in cinema. The aim was to inform the public of struggle and opposition the country
was facing. In the two films I have mentioned, Fire Over England gives a patriotic and anti-Nazi message. The
film is based on the victory of the Spanish Armada, Spain is seen as the Nazis, and Britain is a small nation that
rises against fascism. There are anti-Nazi themes throughout the film, and they depict Elizabeth I a strong,
charismatic leader, who Is competent enough to lead Britain to victory. The second film is The Sea hawk
produced by Warner Bros.Much like Fire Over England, and this was an anti-Nazi film which was very popular.
However, this was much Americanised. America was still in isolation and not taking part in the War. However,
some film studios produced anti-Nazi films to show solidarity in Europe, and unlike Fire over England, this has an
American agenda where Geoffrey Thorpe (Francis Drake) founded a settlement in America. He is portrayed in a
positive light and is celebrated in the U.S for his expeditions. Geoffrey Thorpe guides Elizabeth I against the
Spanish Armada. The isolation period strongly rooted patriotism and it is depicted in the film without drakes help
England would’ve lost to the Spanish. Filmgoers welcomed the escape of reality, the war was coming, and they
understood tough times were ahead.
Moreover, these Good vs Bad films gives a simple approach which was crucial during wartime. The Spanish were
also portrayed as Nazi’s in The Sea Hawk, which further depicted on how evil the Nazi’s were. Comparing the
two films Elizabeth in Fire over England, is a reliable and stable leader, while in The Sea Hawk, she is portrayed
as a misguided ruler but with good intentions.
Another interesting note to add is the role producers played in the depictions of both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
The rise of fascism, in particular, Nazi saw a reaction amongst many American producers. Warner Bros. was of
Jewish descent and strongly opposed the Nazi regime due to obvious reasons. Warner Bros. was one of the first
studios to not censor their work due to upsetting the Germans during the 1930s.
They produced highly successful anti-German films which painted Nazi’s as evil. We can concur that this period
played a significant role in shaping the likes of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. Alexander Korda was also of Jewish
descent, and he also produced Fire over England. The Nazi’s faced an onslaught of anti-Nazi film, as Hollywood
during the 1930s were predominantly owned by Jewish moguls. Producers and Studios played a key role
depicting Elizabeth I Good vs Evil, Americans saw Nazi the worst evil out of Europe. From this we can gather
fascism did shape films during the war period, anti-Nazi was prevalent in American cinemas as well as, British
cinema.
To conclude, the depictions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I was substantially shaped by the rise of fascism and the
onset of the war. However, I would argue that Elizabeth I was more influenced by the two factors greatly. Huge
successes like The Sea Hawk and Fire Over England gained widespread acclaim, for example, Fire Over
England was the first British film to premiere in Los Angeles. The rise of Fascism paved the way for Jewish
producers like the Warner Bros. and Alexander Korpa to produce anti-Nazi films during Nazi-Germany. The
producers played a significant role in the depicting of Elizabeth I as they used her as propaganda. Henry VIII took
another approach, and it was the first British film to win an academy award, arguably The Private life of Henry VIII
was the catalyst that starts off original good work by the British cinemas. Elizabeth was depicted as a strong
queen in Fire Over England and most importantly her portrayal of her good intentions. Henry VIII, on the other
hand, had a different depiction where he was portrayed as a gluttonies man whom you could sympathise due to
his inner conflicts
Bibliography
Secondary Literature
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Anthony Aldgate and Jeffrey Richards (2009) Best of British: Cinema and Society from 1930 to the Present
Anthony Aldgate and Jeffrey Richards(1994), Britain can take it: the British cinema in the Second World War
Bethany Latham (2011) Elizabeth I in Film and Television: A study of the Major Portrayals
Greg Walker (2003), The Private Life of Henry VIII
Ian Christie (1978) The memorandum
Ian McLaine(1979), Ministry of Morale, London
Michael E. Birdwell (2000) Celluloid Soldiers: The Warner Bros. Campaign Against Nazism
Richard Overy (2010). The Twilight Years: The Paradox of Britain Between the Wars
Simon Callow (2012) Charles Laughton
Susan Doran & Thomas Freeman (2009) Tudors and Stuarts on Film: Historical Perspectives
Websites
●
●
●
●
●
<https://web.archive.org/web/19991128020048/http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/local_heroes/biogs/biogleprinc
e.shtml>
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jul/05/saturdayreviewsfeatres.guardianreview7>
<http://www.debunkingmandelaeffects.com/painting-of-henry-viii-holding-a-turkey-leg/>
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5206727/Was-Hans-Holbeins-Henry-VIII-the-best-piece-of-propag
anda-ever.html>
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-in-hollywood-1930-1950/>