'Let's see what the critics have to say'

Elizabeth
1998
A Collection of Article/Review Exerpts



Elizabeth (1998)

European video cover Director: Shekhar Kapur
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston, Kathy Burke, Joseph Fiennes, James Frain

Dark, brooding look at the ascension to power of Queen Elizabeth I of England which plays like a mediaeval Godfather; a study of the nature of power, the political machinations which bring it, and their human cost. Cate Blanchett excels in the lead role, playing the relatively innocent young woman who finds herself the centre of a war between Catholicism and Protestantism raging in the wake of her father Henry VIII's death and the pending death of her half sister Mary (Kathy Burke). She finds support from council member Sir William Cecil (Sir Richard Attenborough), though the sinister Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plans to win the throne for himself. Meanwhile she is protected by the Machiavelli-quoting Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), who is as quick with a dagger as with words. Under pressure to end the political uncertainty by marrying into the Royal houses of either France or Spain, she faces a difficult personal dilemma in the form of lover Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes).

Beautifully designed and outfitted, this film achieves a convincing tone and feel throughout which plunges us headfirst into a world of bloody deeds and treacherous plots in the mould of La Reine Margot. Buoyed by strong performances, Michael Hirst's script holds attention throughout, and rises to a climax which while derivative of The Godfather and Dangerous Liaisons (a peculiar marriage, admittedly), effectively caps the story of how a frightened young woman became the iron monarch known and revered in history. Director Shekhar Kapur (Bandit Queen) has been a little too generous with his camera movement however, which is often distracting and unnecessarily flashy for the subject at hand. A little overhead crane work goes a long way (witness the opening of Orson Welles' Othello), but this film delights in wandering around the gloomy Tudor corridors and torture chambers as if on a guided tour, never stopping to let the drama unfold and the actors really allow their characters' depths to emerge. For a while it seems stylish, but it quickly becomes irritating, and it frequently draws your attention to much to itself and away from the substance of what is going on. It's all very evocative, but it is less successful dramatically because of its excess of visual excitation.

In many ways this is a meditation on gender and power which is very much a product of the time in which it has been made rather than that in which it is set. Unable as we are to truly appreciate the nuances of a past situation in themselves, we tend to overlay historical subjects with contemporary concerns. This is exactly what happens here, and though it is not uninteresting, it does tend towards the trendy and ephemeral despite dealing with such heavyweight material. The film deals with the opposition between femininity and being female. While the status of the Queen is nominally undisputed, the unspoken and spoken irony is that in order for her reign to be legitimised, she must ally herself with a male, preferably one complete with a large enough kingdom to 'protect' England by swallowing it up (read: negate her femaleness by relegating her to the status of 'feminine' Queen to the 'masculine' King). Meanwhile while the virtues of gentility and beauty are sung in poetry, few take the young woman seriously and many actively plot her downfall. It is only by assuming the mantle of exaggerated purity (The Virgin Queen) that she eventually achieves stability (that, and having all of her major enemies beheaded and mounted on spikes), and consciously replaces the mythology of Catholicism (The Virgin Mary) with one of a new England united under the untouchable, all powerful Queen. Of course this does not happen until the end of the film, but it is centrally concerned with the process through which this self-imposed self-negation occurs.

The wonderfully Latin-looking Mr. Frain On the whole the film is interesting and relatively involving. Blanchett is the definite trump card, and successfully holds the film together even when Kapur makes it like riding a merry go round while trying to focus on a face in the crowd. All of the leads work hard, and there is some surprising support, including Sir John Gielgud as The Pope and a wonderfully Latin-looking James Frain as the Spanish Ambassador. Most surprising of all, and amusing if not particularly good at it, is former football star Eric Cantona as the French Ambassador. Fanny Ardant makes an effective Mary of Guise. More convincing as a hyper-realistic revisioning of history than as political trope, it is best when portraying the shifting loyalties and half-heard conversations of conspirators. Rush makes a wonderfully ambiguous foil to Blanchett's oft-confounded Queen, lurking magnificently in the shadows throughout only to emerge at the climax to provide the impetus for Elizabeth's final decision. But it is frequently too obvious on the question of gender, ending as it does with what is, effectively the beginning of the story. We are, of course, presumed to know the legend which follows. The film hopes to question the basis of that legend by exploring what underlies it. This is all well and good, but it is not entirely obvious just how the masquerade of alabaster womanhood would have sustained her through the type of villainy and treachery the film has detailed. It is as if the point is contradicted by its making, a peculiar paradox perhaps indicative of the aims of the film itself.

Still, it is worthwhile for those with patience enough to endure its dizzying camerawork and able to survive a few graphic torture scenes, if only to observe Blanchett's splendid characterisation.

Review by Harvey O'Brien M.A. copyright 1998.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


from un-reel.co.uk

'ELIZABETH' AS AN EXAMPLE OF ART CINEMA

Bordwell and Thompson define the art film as "a film which, while made under commercial circumstances take an approach to form and style influenced by "high art" which offers an alternative to mainstream entertainment"

(1). Like avant-garde film making, this style offer the audience with a movie that takes glory in cinemas stance as a modern art form, for art house films are not just intended to be entertaining, they are designed to be imaginative. Shekhar Kapur's 1998 film 'Elizabeth' presents us with a contemporary art film. Although it does offer entertainment through a fascinating narrative, the film as a whole is presented in a creative way, owing to the auteurish vision of Kapur. Indeed, as the film is arguably British, abroad 'Elizabeth' by definition becomes as 'art film', since Bordwell and Thompson also define the term 'art house' as a phrase "used by the U.S film industry to describe imported films of interest to upper -middle class, educated audiences"

(2). In America, 'Elizabeth' was packaged solely as an 'art film', or at least an 'art' interpretation of the British Heritage thriller film. This labelling is of course debatable and by comparing the fundamental ideas regarding art films to 'Elizabeth', one can access the validity of its claim to being 'cinematic art'. The characteristics of an 'art cinema' film are best outlined in David Bordwell's article 'The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice' and this text will form the basis of my assessment of 'Elizabeth'. Bordwell suggests that "art cinema defines itself explicitly against the classical narrative"

(3), yet 'Elizabeth' is clearly conventional in narrative style. Film analyst Wendy Ide, even suggests that 'Elizabeth' follows the tradition three act narrative set-up precisely, with climaxes at the end of each act. As proof she suggests that Queen Mary's death is the climatic resolution to the first act, "which takes place exactly 30 minutes into the film" following the traditions of narrative ideals (4). Bordwell, goes on to also suggest that the "cause effect linkage of events" is "tenuous in the art film"

(5), yet this narrative technique is used continually to advance 'Elizabeth's' narrative. For example, 40 minutes into the film, the royal court debate the danger of an impending "French attack"

(6). Queen Elizabeth resolves to send an army, prompting a new narrative strand. The result of this (cause) is shown almost immediately (42 minutes into the film) for in a graphic scene the audience comes to realise that English army has been defeated; the resolution to this specific narrative strand has been provided. Consequently, a cause effect trail of events has been established, opposing Bardwell's view and jeopardising 'Elizabeth's' claim as an art film. Borwell goes on to suggest that "Art cinema defines itself as a realistic cinema"

(7) and consequently its films exhibit realism. This idea is supported by the content of 'Elizabeth' as the director Kapur strived to achieve "historical accuracy and realism"

(8). To achieve this level of realism, a large proportion of 'Elizabeth' was filmed in authentic locations. 'Elizabeth' adheres to Bordwell's belief that 'art films' present "Documentary realisms"

(9), as the film is retelling historical fact in the fictional form of the movie. A large proportion of the characteristics that makes up 'art films', are the results of character reflections on screen. Indeed, Borwell suggests that in 'art films', "characters and the effect on one and other remain central"

(10). This is reflected in 'Elizabeth' a character driven piece with little action. The film follows the struggle of the central protagonist, a pre-requisite of the art house style, as Elizabeth struggles to enact her beliefs to a royal court that opposes her. The queen becomes "a supersensitive individual" as she is forced to decide between her obligations as a queen and her personal desires; "social forces impinges upon the psychologically sensitive individual"

(11). As one is able to introduce Bordwell's art house requirements into an 'Elizabeth's' critique, its claim as an art form becomes all the more valid. Having said that, Bordwell also suggest that 'art' "characters lack defined desires and goals"

(12). This naturally is not true in 'Elizabeth' as both Norfolk and Elizabeth are driven by ambition. Perhaps, this is because the ambition of the queen is central to the narrative; consequently Kapur felt obliged to include Elizabeth's ambition. Indeed, this diversion from 'arthouse' conventions may be an attempt to broaden the audience for 'Elizabeth'. There is always a level of ambiguity Bordwell argues, for the narration of art at cinema is built from the "posing [of] enigmas"

Ben Frain and Geoffrey Rush (13). Enigma settings are a key device used by directors to engage an audience and it is certainly evident in the (at time) deliberately ambiguous 'Elizabeth'. For example, the character of Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) is introduced slaying a young French man (Ben Frain) an action that is not expected, nor answered in the remainder of the film. Similarly Bordwell suggests that to add to the ambiguity "characters may wander out and never return, events lead to nothing"

(14). This is also evident in 'Elizabeth', where Monsieur Le Foix (Eric Cantona) is prominent in the second act, yet redundant in the third act. His departure is not seen, nor overtly referred to within the film, despite being principle character role. 'Elizabeth' also offers "the open ended narrative" and the story will "lack[s] a clear resolution"

(15). The queen's blank stare in the closing shot and post film text, all alludes that further plot is central, yet unseen. These unexplained elements all contributes to the films ambiguity and vagueness, an essential quality in the 'art film'. The final and perhaps most integral aspect of the 'art film' is the "author as a formal component"

(16). Bordwell believes that there are "stylistic signatures in [an art film's] narration" and "the work of the expressive individual" director

(17). Film critic Steve Neal concurs saying that "all art films tend to be marked by stress on visual style"

(18). Director Kapur fulfils this requirement with ease in 'Elizabeth' presenting the audience with a distinct visual style. Aspects of the director's style include: Alterations between extreme light and dark, which is most obvious when Elizabeth is fist tired and convicted to a sentence in the Tower of London. Before capture she is shown outside, brilliantly lit almost over exposed. However after her imprisonment she is shown in darkness, illuminated by subtly placed candlelights. Obviously the light and dark shots have thee connotations of innocence and evilness, yet its implementation in Elizabeth is apt and appropriate for the mood of the film and its subtext. A more interesting seen to study though is the aforementioned battle scene. "The battle is presented in a stylised manner"

(19), a stream slowly fills with blood as the camera pans to reveal increasingly more bodies littering the battlefield. The audience is only shown the after mark, as the action is not necessary to narrative. A lesser director, would of course have shown the brutality of the fight yet, Kapur's restraint and sensitivity makes the effect of the scene all the more powerful. There are also "countless other shots through curtains, veils grilles and other framing devices" and "the camera is always positioned so we are looking down as if from a stage"

(20). Critic Pamela Church Gibson suggests that the film is both "innovative and radical"

(21), its style and content of course is undeniably influenced by art cinema traditions, yet these traditions are implemented in away that will offer the film to a wider audience than the 'high brow middle classes'. . .

(C)2000 J Hill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Elizabeth

AKA: Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen

1998 121 mins Drama Color
Production Team

Director: Shekhar Kapur.
Producer: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and Alison Owen.
Associate Producer: Liza Chasin and Debra Hayward.
Line-Producer: Mary Richards.
Script: Michael Hirst.
Cinematography: Remi Adefarasin.
Film Editing: Jill Bilcock.
Art Direction: Lucy Richardson.
Production Design: John Myhre.
Costume Design: Alexandra Byrne.
Makeup Department: Jenny Shircore.
Sound Department: Mark Auguste, Gerry Bates, Tim Hands, Chris Scallan and David Stephenson.
Original Music: David Hirschfelder.
Cast

Cate Blanchett Elizabeth I
Geoffrey Rush Sir Francis Walsingham
Christopher Eccleston Duke of Norfolk
Joseph Fiennes Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester
Richard Attenborough Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley
Kathy Burke Queen Mary I
Amanda Ryan Lettice Howard
Kelly MacDonald Isabel Knollys
Fanny Ardant Mary of Guise
Eric Cantona Monsieur de Foix
James Frain Alvaro de la Quadra
Angus Deayton Waad, Chancellor of the Eschequer
Vincent Cassel Duc d'Anjou
John Gielgud Pope Paul IV


Plot Synopsis

Aeons away from worthy period fare, Kapur's take on the life of Elizabeth I practically sizzles with political back-biting, sexual duplicity and ridiculous headwear. Blanchett's multi-faceted performance gives the movie its anchor, but it's Kapur's filmmaking fireworks that make it so watchable.

Set in England, 1554, the film begins with Elizabeth's half-sister Mary (Kathy Burke), a fanatical Catholic, on the throne and Elizabeth (Cate Blancett) threatened with execution because she is a Protestant. Mary quickly packs Elizabeth off to the Tower of London, where Mary's advisers - including the scheming Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plot to have Elizabeth executed for treason. The story is framed by the complex struggle between Catholics and Protestants in England that followed Henry VIII's reign. After the death of Queen Mary, Elizabeth takes over the throne from her sister and becomes Queen of a country racked by financial, military and religious instability. She turns gradually from innocent to ruthless pragmatist aided along the way by the cunning Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush).

Elizabeth toys with politically motivated offers of marriage upon the advice of Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough), he urges Elizabeth to marry - either the French Duc d'Anjou (Vincent Cassel) or her dead sister's husband, King Philip of Spain - to secure the future of England. Eventually she learns that there's no such thing as politically safe sex and enjoys a steamy romance with her first love, Lord Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes), the Earl of Leicester. The film ends with a series of assassinations wiping out all opposition to her leadership, with her position on the throne secure Elizabeth's self-reinvention as the Virgin Queen is complete, a figure of near-worship to reign for 40 years.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Elizabeth

(STAR)(STAR)(STAR)(STAR)   (R)


Elizabeth I: Cate Blanchett
Sir Francis Walsingham: Geoffrey Rush
Duke of Norfolk: Christopher Eccleston
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester: Joseph Fiennes
Sir William Cecil: Richard Attenborough
Alvara de la Quadra: James Frain
Mary of Guise: Fanny Ardant
The Pope: John Gielgud


Directed by Shekhar Kapur. Written by Michael Hirst. Running time: 124 minutes. Rated R (for violence and sexuality).

BY ROGER EBERT

The England of the first Elizabeth is a dark and sensuous place; the court lives intimately with treachery, and cloaks itself in shadows and rude luxury. As seen through the fresh eyes of an Indian director, Shekhar Kapur, ``Elizabeth'' is not a light ``Masterpiece Theater'' production, but one steeped in rich, saturated colors and emotions. The texture of the film is enough to recommend it, even apart from the story.

Cate Blanchett stars as Elizabeth I, who in 1558, at the age of 25, took the throne of a Catholic country, declared it Protestant, fought off assassination by the French, the Spanish, her rivals and the pope, and ruled for 45 years. She succeeded, the film demonstrates, by learning on the job, growing from a naive girl to a willful strategist who picked her advisers well and ignored them when they urgently advised her to marry: ``I will have one mistress here! And no master!''

She was known as the Virgin Queen. Virginity for her, as for so many, was something she grew into. As the film opens, she frolics with her lover, Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes), and her ardor only subsides as she realizes no man loves the Queen of England only for herself. She is contemptuous of such other suitors as the Duke of Anjou (Vincent Cassel), who sees marriage as a social move, and is surprised while frolicking in a frock. And her eyes narrow as she listens to proposals couriered in by various rulers who want to marry her as a sort of mergers and acquisitions deal.

The screenplay provides a series of hard-edged conversations in which Elizabeth's enemies conspire against her, and her friends urgently counsel her while she teaches herself to tell true allies from false ones. She is much helped in the beginning by white-bearded old Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough), although there comes a time when he must be put to pasture, and Attenborough's character accepts this news with humility that is truly touching.

Then the lurking, sinister Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) moves to her side and brilliantly helps guide her to triumph. He's instrumental to the plot, even though his role is at first murky. After Elizabeth's archrival Mary of Guise (Fanny Ardant) sends her a poisoned dress that luckily claims the life of another, it is Sir Francis who adroitly convinces Mary he will betray Elizabeth. Francis and Mary spend a night together, and in the morning, Mary is dead. It didn't happen like that in history, but it should have.

Elizabeth, clothed as the Virgin Queen The movie, indeed, compresses and rewrites history at its own convenience, which is the rule anyway with English historical romances. What it gets right is the performance by Cate Blanchett, who was so good as the poker-playing glass manufacturer in ``Oscar and Lucinda'' (1997) and here uncannily comes to resemble the great monarch. She is saucy and heedless at first, headstrong when she shouldn't be, but smart, and able to learn. By the end she has outsmarted everyone and become one of the rare early female heads of state to rule successfully without an alliance with a man.

Shekhar Kapur, who directed ``The Bandit Queen'' (1995) about a fierce modern Indian Robin Hood, here clothes Elizabeth, her court and her architecture in the colors and texture of medieval India. The film is largely set in vast, echoing halls, their pillars reaching up into the shadows. He is attentive to the rustle of dresses and the clank of armor, gives us a barge on the Thames like a houseboat on a lake in Kashmir. Action is glimpsed through iron filigree screens, dresses are rich with embroidery, hairstyles are ornately elaborated, and yet there is the feeling that just out of sight of these riches are the rats in the kitchen and the slop-pots in the halls. This is not the Ye Olde approach, but a society still inventing gentility; sex is so linked with politics that old Sir William demands to inspect Elizabeth's sheets every morning, to keep tabs on possibly alarming developments in her private life.

At the end of the film, Elizabeth announces, ``I have become a virgin.'' And so she remained, ruling over and in some sense creating the England that gave us Shakespeare. Think what a play he might have written about her, if commoners had been allowed to create characters out of reigning monarchs. No doubt he retired in sheer frustration.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Elizabeth proves exquisite epic



By TYLER McLEOD -- Calgary Sun

History now portrays Elizabeth I as a strong and accomplished Queen. Her rule is referred to as The Golden Age.

Things didn't start out this way.

Elizabeth details the Virgin Queen's ascent to the throne at age 25. To say she was an unpopular leader at the time is quite an understatement.

Elizabeth Tudor, the Protestant daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, inherited the throne in 1558 after the death of her half-sister, "Bloody Mary" Tudor.

The Catholic nobility, and indeed the Catholic church on the whole, was horrified when the heretic princess became Queen. The plotting, of course, began immediately.

Like Francis Ford Coppola directing Masterpiece Theatre, Elizabeth unfolds in an expert and epic manner.

Scheming to remove Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) are the Duke of Norfolk, the Spanish king and the French Mary of Guise, who'd like nothing better to marry off her nephew Henri Duc D'Anjou to Elizabeth or see her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, take the throne.

Not to mention the Pope. (Who, by cinematic standards, comes off like the Godfather, giving her a Vatican kiss of death -- excommunication for Liz and absolution to anyone who might do her in.)

Enemies all around, Elizabeth seeks guidance in Sir William Cecil, her loyal adviser played as deftly as ever by Sir Richard Attenborough, and eventually in her security counsel Sir Francis Walsingham, an equally up to the task Geoffrey Rush.

As the Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth's apparent romantic interest, Joseph Fiennes proves his brother Ralph isn't monopolizing all the family's acting genes.

Despite a tangle of titles and family trees, the film is very straightforward.

Director Shekhar Kapur (Mr. India, Bandit Queen) makes his English language debut with Elizabeth, keeping the story extremely accessible. You don't need to know what the Ridolfi Plot was to recognize a truly confident movie.

Elizabeth is among the finest of its genre, offering unfailing detail and exquisite touches in every frame.

Blanchett explores all emotional paths with her performance. From vulnerable to determined, exuberance or distress -- she even gives Queen Elizabeth a pinch of modern day Girl Power for good measure.

And Blanchett's porcelain beauty will become a lasting visual reference whenever you hear the name Elizabeth I.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Like a virgin

Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth, wooden teeth and all

REVIEW

ELIZABETH



Starring Cate Blanchett, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston. Written by Michael Hirst. Directed by Shekhar Kapur. (AA) Opens Nov. 6.

BY GEMMA FILES

Sects and secrecy. Plots and counterplots. The temptations of love versus the demands of duty. Swords and poison and corsets, oh my!

If history really is innately boring, as all my peers in high school certainly seemed to think, then Elizabeth -- the brilliant new film from Indian director Shekhar Kapur, which abandons the prim and proper "official version" of British Queen Elizabeth I's life in favor of a whirlwind tour through its tumultuous and passionate original facts -- must surely be an exercise in cleverly disguised fiction.

"But you could say the same about so much of what we take for granted as 'historically accurate,' " Shekhar pointed out during our interview at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. "As a filmmaker, you feel constant pressure to bring the past back to life somehow, to render it immediate and contemporary in a visceral, emotional way -- which is ridiculous, when you think about it, since you're dealing with human events performed by human beings, and human motivations simply don't change so much as to be no longer understandable! People are always doing the same things for the same reasons -- money, power, love, revenge -- in only slightly different ways. Stress the similarities, and the differences become easy to explain."

He pauses. "I know that if they make a film about me 400 years from now, I would hate for it to be some classic period piece full of people in big, stiff clothes moving around on big, stiff sets. I don't want people being bored by my life! And if we actually were able to talk to any of the historical figures portrayed in Elizabeth, they'd probably say the same."

Co-star Christopher Eccleston, who plays Elizabeth's enemy, the Duke of Norfolk, agrees.

"The very first thing I said to Shekhar was that if all he could offer me was a two-dimensional villain, then I wasn't interested in doing it," he says. "Because I truly believe that the more powerful and formidable Norfolk seems, the more real Elizabeth's triumph becomes when she manages to out-think and out-manoeuvre him. It's a real achievement, then, not just a foregone conclusion."

Very un-Hollywood thinking, I suggest.

Eccleston nods. "It's like Geoffrey Rush's character, Walsingham -- he's Elizabeth's Master of Spies, and he becomes her right-hand advisor, the person who can do all the bad things she has to order done. His job is to get his hands dirty, so hers can stay clean. And this is very difficult for people raised on Arnold Schwarzenegger movies to understand -- that you can be amoral, but for essentially moral reasons."

With its desperation and ambiguity, Elizabeth shares far more in common with Kapur's own last film -- the violent and wrenching Bandit Queen -- than with any previous big-budget costume epic. Full of sensual, tactile detail and blistering dramatic heat, it also showcases a revelatory performance by Australian Cate Blanchett (Oscar And Lucinda) as the Virgin Queen-to-be, along with a raft of equally high-powered co-stars. They include Rush, Eccleston and 1997 Cannes Film Festival Best Actress Kathy Burke (Nil By Mouth) as Elizabeth's demented half-sister Mary Tudor, whose death catapults the young queen onto the throne of a country wracked by religious turmoil and economic instability.

Beset on all sides by foreign suitors and home-grown conspirators, Elizabeth must become ruthless enough to survive the twists and turns of a plot so complex even Kapur admits he was occasionally unsure who was doing what to whom (or why).

"It was a great advantage for me to approach the project as an outsider," Kapur says. "Since Elizabeth's story isn't part of my culture, I wasn't saddled with that automatic reverence for royalty which still keeps the English from being able to see her as a real person. Even now, they're obsessed with the idea of her being a literal virgin -- it's like the way they treat the existing Royal Family. As long as they're looking at her, they never have to look at themselves.

"But the facts of the case are always so different from the way that 'approved' history makes them appear. I mean, let's face it: no one wore underwear, they all stank and Elizabeth had wooden teeth. So anything we say about her can't be too insulting -- especially since it's true!"

Or mainly true.

Kapur smiles and shrugs. "Exactly."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


from Tiscali UK:

Rating: 8 out of 10

ELIZABETH

Certificate: 15

Running time: 123 mins

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston, Sir John Gielgud

In terms of educating the celluloid masses, British cinema has - led by Messrs Merchant and Ivory - been largely responsible for classic literature; historical disciplines left for the most part to Hollywood, notably one Mr S. Spielberg.

But now, the past is coming home - only not like you'd ever have imagined.

For in the hands of Indian director Shekhar Kapur and an eclectic, ensemble cast, the fraught and precarious forging of Elizabethan England is brought vividly to life by telling a story of repressed love, political chicanery and murderous conspiracy.

Imprisoned for her Protestant beliefs on trumped up treason charges, Princess Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) - daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn - survives to inherit the throne of England when rabidly Catholic half-sister Queen Mary (Kathy Burke) fails to sign the death warrant before herself passing into history.

But the dangers are far from over. Barely disguised French and Spanish threats loom large from north and south, not to mention the courtly machinations of the power-hungry Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), and fury of Pope Pius V (John Gielgud), the most powerful man in the world.

And it's through characters, rather than events, that this no-holds-barred portrait of the young QEI unfolds.

Blanchett's curve from fright and despair to resistance and aggression is played with considerable skill, particularly in the face of influential suitors- from childhood sweetheart Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) to the manic Duc D'Anjou (Vincent Cassel), represented by a burgeoning young actor called Eric Cantona - and the superbly calculated villainy of Eccleston's Norfolk.

Perhaps most influential in her early reign though, were chief advisor Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) and close confidant Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) - both excellent - the latter's talent for espionage credited with beginning the British Secret Service.

And Kapur's major triumph is in diffusing accusations of stunt-casting by weaving these disparate performers into a cohesive unit, and surrounding them with a foreboding, stone-clad society of rigid tradition and fearsome ruthlessness.

He has fun with his foreign ambassadors though - a comic-relief technique which no doubt would be considered xenophobic from a British director - but reins them in just short of complete farce.

Indeed, it is the French prince, not his Envoy, who's painted as the prancing fool (the former Old Trafford hero actually a formidable presence), and likewise, the faintly absurd tone of James Frain's Spanish emissary darkens into Machiavellian scheming as the film lengthens.

In the interests of dramatic art, some defensible liberties have been taken with the passage of time - bringing, among others, Gallic actress Fanny Ardant's sexy and sinister Mary of Guise into the frame - without compromising over allveracity.

Neither cinematic history lecture, nor modern movie dressed in period design, but instead a superbly judged blend of the two - entertainment in its own right, certainly, with a wealth of suggestion and interpretation lurking beneath the surface.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Stockholm Film Review

Elizabeth

It's a man's world...

The young queen bearing the burden of the throne It is 1554 in England and the devoutly Catholic monarch, Queen Mary (Kathy Burke) is determined to prosecute with vigour any expressions of the Protestant faith. However, her half sister, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett), is a practising Protestant and the Queen's advisors, particularly the Earl of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) urge her to arrest and try her sibling for treason. Mary has Elizabeth arrested and summons her to the palace. Since she is ill, she begs Elizabeth to stay true to the Catholic faith after her [Mary's] death. Elizabeth demurs. Upon Mary's death, she assumes power.

As a princess, Elizabeth had led a carefree existence with her ladies-in-waiting and her lover, Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes). As Queen, she is faced with numerous threats and dangers. Since she is a Protestant, the Catholic noblemen (including Norfolk) and abetted by the Pope (John Gielgud) regard her as a heretic (as well as an illegitimate usurper). Both Spain and France are plotting against her, and their ambassadors at her court (James Frain and Eric Cantona, respectively) are constantly attempting to gain advantage over each other. And, of course, Elizabeth is a woman, surrounded by strong-willed men; noblemen, bishops, soldiers who share the same dim view of a woman's abilities.

James Frain as Spain's ambassador

The French have an army in Scotland and Elizabeth , under pressure from Norfolk and other advisors such as William Cecil (Richard Attenborough), orders a disastrous attack against them. It is easily repelled by the French under the command of Mary de Guise (Fanny Ardent) who poses a threat to Elizabeth.

Her transformation from a princess, acting from the heart, to a queen (ruling with her head) is ably assisted by the utterly loyal Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), who ruthlessly weeds out any opposition to his queen, and constantly reminds her of her duties when she must make unpalatable decisions (which usually involves the removal of heads).

Shekhar Kapur's follow-up to Bandit Queen (1994) is a dramatic affair, as befits an account of the turbulent and violent beginning to Elizabeth the First's reign, and like his earlier film, is centred on the struggle of a determined woman to assert her independence. Like his previous film, the performance of the eponymous heroine is central to the story, and Cate Blanchett gives a splendid portrayal of the young queen, torn between her duty to her country and her own desires. Likewise, Geoffrey Rush is splendid as the shadowy Walsingham. (Rush and Fiennes also appear in Shakespeare in Love, but in Elizabeth, their roles are reversed; Rush plays the serious role while Fiennes has the frivolous role).

This period in Britain's history has produced a large number of movies over the years, most notably A Man for all Seasons (1966), The Virgin Queen (1955), Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) as well as the excellent BBC television series, Elizabeth R (starring Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth). However, Elizabeth seems to be inspired most by the French film, La Reine Margot (1994) which starred Isabelle Adjani , Daniel Auteuil and Vincent Perez. Like Elizabeth, the film featured the power struggle between the Catholics and Protestants noble families (albeit with a much higher body count), and the doomed affair between a Queen and a nobleman (Adjani and Perez). In fact, both films share the same historical character (the frivolous French prince Anjou). However, while La Reine Margot was an unashamedly big budget epic, Elizabeth plays more like a filmed Shakespearean play (and not one of the happy plays, at that). There is a lot of skulking and plotting in shadows which is not terribly dramatic (in a cinematic sense), and the tone remains grim throughout. The cast do their best, and the performances are generally very good throughout, particularly Rush and Eccleston as the strong-willed Norfolk. Eric Cantona, the former footballer, is well out of his depth, and though he doesn't bump into the furniture, he will be remembered for his football, on the strength of this performance.

However, Blanchett dominates this film and her performance is superb throughout. The best scenes are not the romantic encounters with Fiennes but the political plotting with Rush, and the film is at its most powerful when they share the screen.

Kapur's direction is restrained (especially when compared to the wholesale slaughter depicted in La Reine Margot), though he seems to have a predilection for overhead shots, and he seems to light every interior scene as if it were a tribute to Caravaggio. He also shamelessly lifts a scene from the Godfather (when Elizabeth orders the arrest/demise of a number of her enemies) but he's not the first director to do that.

The movie is not much use as a history lesson (if my encyclopaedia is to be believed), but the screenplay's changes to historical facts do not improve the plotting or pace of the movie. In fact, Elizabeth portrayal as a religious moderate in the film makes her enemies motive for removing her harder to understand, and in general, the political machinations become a little tedious at times. In addition, Walsingham's advancement from courtier to loyal lieutenant is never satisfactorily explained. Another plot element, which is never satisfactorily explored, is the relationship between the homosexual Walsingham and the 'virgin' Queen. It is an intriguing thought that the closeness of their bond is due to the fact that he will never desire Elizabeth in a way that would subjugate her, rather than purely on Walsingham's unswerving loyalty to the Crown. The film is more convincing and engrossing when focussed on Elizabeth's transformation, both as woman and queen. This is a tribute to Blanchett's ability as an actress, and her performance certainly deserves the Oscar nomination she has received.

 

Directed by Shekhar Kapur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


IMDB link for Elizabeth



RETURN to Filmography page