|
The
sequel to 1998's Elizabeth continues its exploration
of the iconic ruler of England, Queen Elizabeth I (Cate Blanchett).
It is 1585, and Roman Catholic Spain, led by Prince Phillip II (Jordi
Molla) has set its eyes upon Protestant England for invasion, with
the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) set to take
over the throne and establish Catholic rule in England. Meanwhile,
the still single virgin Queen is urged to marry by her close advisor
and confident Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), as she enters
a vicious love triangle with adventuring explorer Sir Walter Raleigh
(Clive Owen) and her first lady in waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton
(Abbie Cornish).
Not as captivating as the previous film, Elizabeth: The Golden
Age suffers from an over abundance of eye candy. Those responsible
for the films production design (Guy Dyas) and set decoration (Richard
Roberts) such be commended for their work. Yet the way which director
Shekhar Kapur and cinematographer Remi Adefarasin captures the rich
tapestries of the films production design - along with the movies
epic structure and the grandiose score by Craig Armstrong and Eric
Fullner - can make for a sickly sweet movie experience, and while
there is nothing wrong with feasting on a little cotton candy now
and then, some meat and potatoes goes a long way in fulfilling the
biggest of appetites. It is no surprise then to find that the films
best and most interesting moments come when Shekhar focuses on the
Queen's personal life. The movies drawcard might be its two Christian
denominations at war, yet it is the love triangle between the Queen,
her favourite lady in waiting and the adventurer from the high seas
which makes the movie.
Blanchett (just like in the first film) excels in the title role,
portraying a woman who - whilst possessing a stern authority over
her subjects and a robust fighting spirit - contains a stunning
fragility brought on by her feelings for Raleigh (played by the
striking Clive Owen, who seems to have evoked Errol Flynn and his
swashbuckling screen persona), and her increasing age. Because of
these two factors, she seems to be living the once carefree and
youthful life (that has been denied to her) through Throckmorton,
who is played well by Australian actress Abbie Cornish. She is envious
and extremely jealous with the freedoms which Throckmorton inhabits,
the most notable being the ability to love whomever she wants, who
in this case is Raleigh to whom she falls pregnant and marries.
The reaction by the Queen to the news that her closest friend has
fallen in love with and has married the man of her dreams is displayed
in an extremely well acted scene, where a fuming Blanchett repeatedly
strikes Cornish while she vents her anger and contempt. Geoffrey
Rush also gives a great performance in his reprise as Sir Francis
Walsingham, who is also dealing with the fragility of his old age,
while also struggling with his role as the Queens closest advisor.
Samantha Morton, too, is impressive as Mary Queen of Scots.
While the performances keep the film afloat, Kapur's over indulgent
direction and his inadequate interpretation of history comes dangerously
close to running it aground. While historical fact is sparsely used
in feature movies (Braveheart and The Hurricane
are key examples) due to the old chestnut of "dramatic license",
Kapur's take on this turbulent time in world history deserves all
of the criticism lobbed towards him. The depiction of Sir Walter
Raleigh as a swashbuckling adventurer which leads the fleet against
the Spanish Amada is a stretch, since it is widely believed he stayed
on shore in charge of land defences. Also, his relationship with
Throckmorton has been heightened for dramatic effect (they did not
secretly marry until three years after the Spanish Amada).
Yet
Kapur's biggest flaw is his depiction of the Spanish Catholics,
and his insistence in passing over the numerous occurrences which
brought on the Spanish Amada. Prince Phillip II (played by Jordi
Molla with all the ham he could muster) is portrayed as a Dracula
like figure complete with funny limp. This is no surprise since
-much like the first movie- the Catholic element is presented in
a dark tone in contrast to the glorious splendour of Elizabeth and
her Protestant rule. It is a move by Kapur which defies reality,
since neither Protestant nor Catholic can be labelled simply as
Good or Evil. No Religion, Government, nor any other organization
holds a degree in moral perfection. They are all infallible, just
as humanity is infallible. Yet, Kapur - in his three act structure
- does not follow this golden rule, and instead presents the Catholics
on screen as nothing more than a dark, sadistic cult hell bent on
invasion of England based entirely upon religious factors. Yet,
a number of key political points as to why Spain sent their Amada
are passed over. Queen Elizabeth's support for the Dutch Republic
which had revolted against Spain; the looting of Spanish possessions
by the likes of Raleigh; and the attacks on Spanish ports by Sir
Francis Drake are key points in every history text book, yet are
curiously missing.
Another weakness in Kapur's direction is the poorly structured and
shot battle sequence which reminds more of Pirates of the
Caribbean than a film based on historical events. The subsequent
Catholic imagery of inverted crucifixes and rosaries falling to
the bottom of the ocean only heightens the films anti-Catholicism.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a film with unlimited potential
which should have landed Cate Blanchett the Oscar she should have
won for the first film. And while there are many wonderful performances,
this film is essentially nothing more than a one sided version of
history, painted with the broadest of strokes. Blanchett has stated
that she hopes the film will encourage people to open up their history
books. And when they do, many will find this take on history to
be suspect.
|
