Elizabeth: The Golden Age

The follow-up (not the sequel) to 1998's "Elizabeth" finds Cate Blanchett returning to the title role for which she earned an Oscar nomination. This time around director Shekhar Kapur focuses on the eventful year of 1585. King Philip of Spain, a smidgen unhappy that a Protestant queen rules England, is attempting to supplant her with her Catholic cousin and if that ruse should fail, well, the infamous Spanish Armada is being prepped to strike out and settle the score with the Queen. Meanwhile, back at home, Elizabeth is being pressed by her closest advisor (Geoffrey Rush) to marry because if she's marries then she - the Virgin Queen - could have a child and if she has a child then they would have to endure no more talk of that Catholic cousin of hers taking over. Cue Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen)! He has returned from the new world, where he has named a region (i.e. Virginia) for her. Elizabeth finds her drawn to Raleigh but, alas, so is young Elizabeth Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish), a member of the Queen's court, and soap-operaish intrigue is bound to play out.

Did I tell you 1585 was eventful?

"Elizabeth" seems to have its eye on being an action-epic, complete with sumptuous visuals, lavish costumes, and thunderous performances. And it is, kinda'. All three things I mentioned can be checked off the list but there seems to be something missing. I was enjoying the movie richly at the start but the deeper we got into it, the more my enjoyment faded.

None of my dismay is Blanchett's fault. She is just as good as she was the first time around in this role. Not many actresses could pull off playing a Queen. Why? You've gotta' strike that difficult balance between royalty and, in private, still somewhat of a regular person. But not too much of a regular person because you know for a fact you're not. Owen is good, too, but I wish heartily the screenplay hadn't made him a walking proverb. Every other line of his is something like, "Why worry about tomorrow when all we have is today?" The King Philip we find here may as well have swung in on a chandelier from an old episode of Zorro. The only one who is about on par with Blancett is Samantha Morton as Mary, the wily Catholic cousin. She chews scenery but doesn't chew it too fiercely as to overdo it.

Granted, I don't know that much about English history, and I'm sure someone who does could pick this thing apart. I do know that apparently Walter Raleigh didn't steer a burning ship directly into the Spanish Armada but supervised this from the shore. Of course, that's not quite as dramatic, is it? So I had no problem with the Raleigh of the film being aboard the flaming ship. But, man, was this sequence boring to watch. I mentioned the film seemed intent on being an epic and you would assume England's defeat of the Spanish Armada would lend itself rather easily to epicness but Kapur botches it. Raleigh's steering of his ship into the enemy seemed about as authentic as the production of the same event in a high school play.

Do I recommend this movie? Well, Blanchett's work is worth the ticket price if you're the type of person who can get into a film solely because of the acting. But if you're looking for an accurate re-telling of history, you probably want to avoid it. And if you're looking for a swashbuckling adventure with some soap-opera mixed in, go to Netflix and add "Captain Blood" to your queue instead.

- Regards, Nick


A Response:

I probably know as much about English history as Nick and yet I can't help but wonder about one glaring problem with "Elizabeth." I know for a fact the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, not 1585. This should give you a sense of the absurd world we are entering when watching the film. Not that the compression of time isn't sometimes a dramatic necessity. Besides this film doesn't really want to be about history, it wants to be about people. In any event, since how time passes in this film is not entirely clear (we get one date at movie's open informing us it is 1585) it may not be historical compression at all but rather neglect to orient the audience that the time passing was years not days, weeks or even months.

Above I used the word absurd, Nick used the word sumptuous. These seem about right. This film wants to be epic and hits on absurd. Not that being absurd is necesarily a bad thing. Sometimes it makes a film that would otherwise be intolerable quite fun to watch, even if that wasn't the intention of the director. At times the film is quite bland, visually attractive to be sure with the cavernous palace sets and the menagerie of court clothing but unsure of what it truly wants to be all that visual feasting is muted.

There are times when the film is quite boring and tried my patience. Sad to say this was frequently when Clive Owen is on screen because I agree, Nick, all he was allowed to do was spout trite aphorisms. There are those moments when the film tries desperately to show a human side to the austere virginal queen letting us know that there was a woman behind the image who wanted what all women (and men to be sure) want: love and happiness. And so we get these scenes of extreme intimacy to the private life of the queen well played by Blanchet but ultimately hollow.

I'll cite one example, the queen surrounded by her female court is watching them dance, while Raleigh (Clive Owen) watches on. She decides he should dance as well, and unable to act on her own desires commands him to dance with her favorite attendant. And as she watches on with their awkward dance, the audience aware that the two dancers have recently become lovers, Blanchett looks at them and knows and a vein of jealousy can be seen. How the hell does she know? Queenly intuition? Blanchett's face is pitch perfect but where is the motivation?

There is an amazing cast here of English actors here: Geoffrey Rush, Owen, Blanchett, Rhys Ifans (Rhys Ifans, holy cow I didn't see that coming), Tom Hollander and Samantha Morton. Nick, you noted that Morton comes close to matching Blanchett but I'll go and commit heresy here and say she was better. Sometimes less is more for an actor and Blanchett has to run the gamut of emotions, while Morton as Mary Stuart gets to revel in her characters indignation that she is not queen. Tom Hollander bizarrely watches her at times almost in love?

I don't think I'm getting across the absurdness of the movie. Again at times deliciously absurd, such as the clear message this film sends. England (Protestantism) saved us, indeed Western Civilization from the dreadful curse of Spain (Roman Catholicism). And not only that but God was actually on Elizabeth's side. And we know this because of the countless shots of Elizabeth in churches being back lit by the golden rays of the sun as she wears her white face paint and white virginal gowns instilling an angelic image in her.

Absurd? How about that final defeat of the armada, we get cuts to Spain where Philip prays by a lone candle that is dangerously close to blowing out or the symbolic white horse on one of the ships. What in the world is that horse about?

At times I had the most pleasurable of grins as this movie was going, trying not to laugh out right and yet not hating the movie just amused in a good way. The performances are strong, the story a bit hollow. I can't really recommend it to anyone except possibly the most devout of Cate Blanchett fans and even then I suspect rental is the preferred option.

-Kindly, Rory

A Rebuttal:

The horse? Oh my God, I forgot all about the horse! I too have no idea what was going on there.

Absurd, yes. It was somewhat absurd. Perhaps the movie didn't get absurd enough, now that I think about it. If it really did yearn to be a rousing action-adventure pic then it could have said to hell with historical accuracy to an even higher degree and made the dialogue even more over-the-top and encouraged more over-acting. But it didn't. It seemed to reign in at certain parts and try to tell us that, in fact, it wasn't wanting to be absurd. But it was. And if it didn't want to be and it is then....

I don't know what else to say, quite frankly. I think my colleague and I have summed it up enough for you. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is why Netflix was invented. Be thankful you have Rory and I to spend our hard-earned money to tell you these things.

Keep it real, Nick