(out of )Elizabeth, while recounting the life of Queen Elizabeth I, also studies - although without much depth - the clash between politics and religion, with one consequence being the forming of the Church of England. For the ordinary moviegoer, this film would provide an insight into the culture of Elizabethan England and Elizabeth herself. However, by manipulating history with liberties such as compressing many events throughout Elizabeth's reign into a much shorter time than reality, this motion picture is likely to receive criticism of varying magnitude from dedicated history students, whether they appreciate the film or otherwise.
The director, Shekhar Kapur, is known for the violent, award-winning Indian film Bandit Queen released in 1994. It was a risk for Kapur to direct a biographical drama set in 16th Century England, but he pulls it off commendably. Perhaps he was following the example of Ang Lee, the Taiwanese director who made the Oscar-winning film Sense and Sensibility in 1995 (set in late 18th Century England) and the critically acclaimed 1997 film The Ice Storm (set in the turmoil of the 70s America).
Elizabeth is mostly dim-lighted, and often shot from a high perspective, disclosing the immense height of the palace and cathedral. Cinematography is of a very high standard, although mediocrity in that department of a period film inevitably leads to failure. The musical score is reasonable for substantiating the mood, but nothing exceptional, and certainly not memorable.
The film starts in 1554, with the execution of three protestants setting the scene. The childless Catholic Queen 'Bloody' Mary (Kathy Burke), the daughter of Henry VIII, is on the throne. Frightened that her younger half-sister, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett), is involved in a plot to usurp her crown, Mary has her heir thrown into the Tower of London. Elizabeth survives the ordeal and, upon Mary's death, assumes the throne. Immediately, she is confronted by a legion of problems: a dry treasury, a weak army, the need to marry to secure the blood line, and a growing threat from Mary of Guise (Fanny Ardant), who is massing troops to move against England. There are also dangers within Elizabeth's court, the most notable of which comes from the menacing Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), who wants her dead. And, because Elizabeth is a Protestant, Pope Pius V (John Gielgud) declares her a heretic and issues a proclamation releasing all English Catholics from following her. The film is about Elizabeth's struggle in dealing with these adversaries.
Cate Blanchett, in the title role, produces a performance of equal merit to her stellar offering in the generally lethargic film Oscar and Lucinda, rivalling Judi Dench's Queen Victoria in Mrs. Brown. Blanchett's resemblance to the 16th Century Queen, assisted by the make-up and hair departments, is astonishing. Though not the most naturally beautiful of women, she has the ability to capture the audience's attention and dominate scenes. She forcefully breathes human life into a person who has been dead for almost three hundred years. In an interview, Blanchett boasted that she has been the only actress who has had the 'privilege' to work with both of the handsome Fiennes brothers.
Joseph Fiennes (brother of Ralph) plays the Queen's lover, Lord Robert Dudley, whom the Queen cannot marry for political reasons. (Ralph is now an A-shelf actor after Oscar-winning films Schindler's List, Quiz Show, and The English Patient. He played alongside Blanchette in Oscar and Lucinda.) As the film nears its conclusion, we discover that Dudley is a more complex character than merely providing plot complications as a jealous lover. However, Joseph lacks the luring artistic attributes and the experience of his brother. Unlike Blachett, Fiennes never really allows his character to be much more than just 'a character'.
Christopher Eccleston (who actually looks more like Ralph Fiennes than Joseph does), who enacted the easy-going, nerdy character in Shallow Grave who was pushed over his breaking point, personates another villain in the role of the Duke of Norfolk. The British actor could always be relied on giving a steady performance as shown by Shallow Grave and Jude, and Elizabeth is no exception. Geoffrey Rush changed directions after his crowned achievement as the likeable, fast-talking, neurotic David Helfgott in Shine, to Javert in Les Mis�rables (1998) and Sir Francis Walsingham in this film. In Elizabeth he plays the cold but loyal adviser to the Queen.
The remaining 'name actors' are (Sir) Richard Attenborough and (Sir) John Gielgud. Attenborough (The Great Escape, also famed director with credits like Gandhi) plays a relatively minor role of Sir William Cecil, a faithful counsel, in Elizabeth - arguably less than his part in Jurassic Park - and never really ignites his character. In terms of miniature roles, Gielgud (Gandhi, The Elephant Man) suffers more. His presence in this film as the impure Pope Pius V is not much longer than his ten-second death in the fruitless mini-series "Merlin". Nevertheless, in that brief couple of minutes, Gielgud already establishes his character's personalities effectively, despite the fact that he is of little significance to the main story. The sinister-looking Pope is further verification that the Catholics are one of the villains in this film.
The least effective film technique utilised in the film is without a doubt the sequence involving Queen Elizabeth rehearsing her speech to the church members. Interspersed in this sequence is a claustrophobic entrance from the point of view of the Queen when she does enter the dark, misty assembly. There the atmosphere was created very effectively, but the problem is the rehearsal of the address. Here the director makes the mistake of excessively embellishing, employing the approach that is more suitable for exhibiting the outtakes (mishaps during the making of the film) that is shown during the credits of a comedy. The result is a pretentious sequence that is more likely to draw sniggers of disapproval than sympathy towards the Queen's predicament. The scene would have been sufficient with Elizabeth walking around her room talking to herself, while retaining the shots of her entrance into the cathedral during her pauses.
Even with the duration crossing the two-hour mark, Elizabeth still seems too short for a full effect. In particular Walsingham appears to be a under-developed character: Michael Hirst's writing not exploiting Geoffrey Rush's capabilities enough. Though politics triumphed over religion, the former had to introduce a new religion to suppress the latter. Politics is depicted as the more practical of the two, although both parties are often considered quite farcical in contemporary times. Nevertheless, Elizabeth provides solid entertainment for 121 minutes, and on the whole it is an enjoyable - if somewhat distorted - depiction of the golden reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
Welcome any questions, comments, and criticisms to [email protected]
� 1998