Benefit
Bluelighter
In 1998 we saw two films about Elizabethan England in the running for multiple Academy Awards. The more successful of the two, Shakespeare in Love, dealt with the later years of the Virgin Queen's reign. The second film, Elizabeth (starring some of the same actors), was about Queen Elizabeth's initial rise to power and is a decisively superior film.
It chronicles Elizabeth's ascension to the throne in the mid 16th Century, a young Protestant inheriting a Catholic England from her half-sister Mary. She must cope with a constant barrage of male suitors from other European powers, all while trying to stay true to her first love, Robert Dudley. Meanwhile, the question of her Protestant faith and political leanings becomes a constant source of conflict as Rome eyes her warily while pushing plots to overthrow her from within and without. By the end of the film, she has blossomed into an archetypal and unflappable Monarch who shows no signs of the coquettish, naive and lovestruck girl from the beginning of the film. It's very similar to the change Michael Corleone undergoes in the Godfather.
As you would expect, the filmmakers took some licenses with historical fact. Dates are changed, people do things they never did in real life, certain events are exaggerated or made up for convenience, but overall the film is pretty true to history. Elizabeth was indeed tasked with undoing Mary's Catholic policies, she faced enormous pressure to wed, and there were numerous internal rebellions, including one involving Norfolk. Although no one will ever know for sure, she may have also had an affair with Robert Dudley and even had a hand in his wife's mysterious death. In any case, the film doesn't stray too far from the source material (although the love story is laid on a bit thick).
Overall, the look and feel of the film felt a little flat. The colors were a bit washed out and the camerawork and scene composition failed, I felt, to take advantage of the awesome costuming. Certainly there are some very good scenes, but nothing that struck me as lyrically beautiful or breathtaking. Granted, this may have been intentional as the 16th century was not a beautiful or breathtaking time period... people were still dying of the Plague back then!
Geoffrey Rush is superb in this film as Francis Walsingham, a highly fictionalized version of Elizabeth's spymaster and master assassin. Moreover, the final sequence where Elizabeth settles all her accounts reflected shades of the Godfather and I loved it. Rush's Walsingham is like a 16th century Al Neri or Luca Brasi, who moves with a silent and deadly grace. Cate Blanchett is also very good here. I found her to be somewhat annoying in the first half of the film, but the payoff in the end as she comes into her own with one ruthless stroke is worth it.
Honestly, it's not the greatest film (to see a spectacular portrayal of an English Queen, please see the 1999 BBC television movie All The Kings Men), but it is quite good and highly recommendable.
It chronicles Elizabeth's ascension to the throne in the mid 16th Century, a young Protestant inheriting a Catholic England from her half-sister Mary. She must cope with a constant barrage of male suitors from other European powers, all while trying to stay true to her first love, Robert Dudley. Meanwhile, the question of her Protestant faith and political leanings becomes a constant source of conflict as Rome eyes her warily while pushing plots to overthrow her from within and without. By the end of the film, she has blossomed into an archetypal and unflappable Monarch who shows no signs of the coquettish, naive and lovestruck girl from the beginning of the film. It's very similar to the change Michael Corleone undergoes in the Godfather.
As you would expect, the filmmakers took some licenses with historical fact. Dates are changed, people do things they never did in real life, certain events are exaggerated or made up for convenience, but overall the film is pretty true to history. Elizabeth was indeed tasked with undoing Mary's Catholic policies, she faced enormous pressure to wed, and there were numerous internal rebellions, including one involving Norfolk. Although no one will ever know for sure, she may have also had an affair with Robert Dudley and even had a hand in his wife's mysterious death. In any case, the film doesn't stray too far from the source material (although the love story is laid on a bit thick).
Overall, the look and feel of the film felt a little flat. The colors were a bit washed out and the camerawork and scene composition failed, I felt, to take advantage of the awesome costuming. Certainly there are some very good scenes, but nothing that struck me as lyrically beautiful or breathtaking. Granted, this may have been intentional as the 16th century was not a beautiful or breathtaking time period... people were still dying of the Plague back then!
Geoffrey Rush is superb in this film as Francis Walsingham, a highly fictionalized version of Elizabeth's spymaster and master assassin. Moreover, the final sequence where Elizabeth settles all her accounts reflected shades of the Godfather and I loved it. Rush's Walsingham is like a 16th century Al Neri or Luca Brasi, who moves with a silent and deadly grace. Cate Blanchett is also very good here. I found her to be somewhat annoying in the first half of the film, but the payoff in the end as she comes into her own with one ruthless stroke is worth it.
Honestly, it's not the greatest film (to see a spectacular portrayal of an English Queen, please see the 1999 BBC television movie All The Kings Men), but it is quite good and highly recommendable.
