Elizabeth: The Golden Age

I'm doing my best to catch up with Oscar nominations I missed in the theaters, and one of them was Elizabeth: The Golden Age, which received nominations for lead actress for Cate Blanchett (the first woman to receive two nominations for playing the same character in different films) and also for costumes. I had missed it in its first go-round because, frankly, the reviews made it seem like a chore to sit through.

I didn't think it was all that bad, but it certainly has its problems. I wasn't all that high on the first film, simply called Elizabeth, which was also directed by Shekhar Kapur. I don't think much of Kapur as a director (granted I have only seen these two films and the pallid remake of The Four Feathers). He is someone who seems to delight in calling attention to himself, and in his Elizabeth pictures he constantly employs devices such as circular dolly shots, or peering at characters from around pillars or through lattice-work. I'm sure the reasons for these are to suggest confusion and turmoil in the former, and the sense of eavesdropping and intrigue in the latter, but each time the camera went in circles and another pillar came into focus I inwardly rolled my eyes.

I viewed this film on two levels--as a film, and as history. I'm something of an English history buff, and when I was in high school I wrote a paper on Mary, Queen of Scots, so the teacups in my memory were rattled a bit by this film, which chronicles the portion of Elizabeth's life when she is dealing with the vexing problems of her cousin Mary and her ex-brother-in-law, Philip of Spain. Certain things they get right--such as that Elizabeth and Mary never met (some films about them have face-to-face meetings like something out of old Dynasty episodes), and somethings they get very wrong, such as the Babington plot. Babington never got so close to her that he trained a pistol on her, that plot was foiled before she was ever in bodily harm.

But what perturbed me the most was how the script became a sort of Anglo-propaganda film. This is Elizabeth hagiography, and while she was certainly a great leader I don't think it was necessary to paint her enemies as black as this film does. Mary, played by Samantha Morton, is potrayed as spoiled and childish, while Philip practically twirls his mustache as a villain. I read that Spain, and I think rightfully so, was outraged by this film, and if I were Catholic I might feel a bit uncomfortable about much of the dialogue. I don't think the Spanish invasion of England was a good thing, but this film depicts it in terms that suggest a Martian invasion of Earth (for those who despair about the creeping Spanish influence in the U.S., consider that if it weren't for a bad storm off the coast of England, we might all be speaking Spanish).

The acting is the best thing about this film. Blanchett, who is now the most bankable actress to get an Oscar nomination, elevates her material grandly. Her movements and facial expressions say volumes more than some of the silly lines that are written for her. Clive Owen makes a dashing Sir Walter Raleigh, though he too is made to say some of the most ridiculous romance-novel lines. I also admired Geoffrey Rush as Elizabeth's chief counsel, Walshingham.

So, this film fails as both cinema and history, but succeeds as a showcase for good acting. One wonders whether Kapur will endeavor to make a third film about Elizabeth, perhaps interacting with William Shakespeare? No, it's already been done.