Grandeur + fantastic costumes + screen hotties = appealing look at 'history'
Lots of critics have stated that Elizabeth: The Golden Age is nowhere near as good as Elizabeth. I think they are flat-out wrong. I will concede that there is almost no way to repeat or top the impact of the first film, but they come pretty close.
(From here on out, I will have to borrow EW's critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's naming system: "E1" and "E2")
I find it a bit odd that a director with relatively little experience was handed E1 and its assuredly huge production budget in the first place. I guess that goes to show that you do not have to be born in a place to properly revere its history. (Although his following film, Four Feathers, was a real snore!) Whatever his background, I say "Let Shekar Kapur at it!" He did a fabulous job with the first film, revealing the shining Cate Blanchett and breathing new life in to the costume-drama and historical piece genres. I was in high school the first time around, and was also inspired to learn more about the vaunted monarch. Kapur says that he has a trilogy in mind and I can't wait to see the final installment. As long as he keeps making these movies, assuming he doesn't relax his standards, I am there to see them.
E2 represents the natural progression in the life of an extraordinary woman who was bounds ahead of her time. E1 focused on her climb to power, but E2 explores the emotional, personal, and political costs of staying on top. Here is a woman who has just about everything at her command, but she still wants more. Her wants, it turns out, are for the things that come with a more normal life. Not only that, but the stakes of the game that she is playing are her country and her life (for her, in that order). One critic said that this was the most expensive game of Barbie that they had seen. True, perhaps, but only in the way that it was Elizabeth who was the puppet master. It is fascinating to watch her fly in a rage at her lady in waiting for daring to yank some slack into her own strings, rather than depending on her mistress to allow it to her. The relationship between the two characters, rather, between so many of the characters is what drives this movie, not a succession of action-inducing murder. There are still intrigues and assassination attempts in E2, but this time it is about the person underneath the crown and the costs of bearing it.
So no, E2 is not going to be as thrilling as E1. That kind of magic is hard to repeat, but the second film is no less marvelous in many other ways. I still think that there should be Oscar nominations all around, and a certain win in the costume category. Geoffrey Rush has certainly given another terrific performance. I adore the paternal relationship that has sprung up between Walsingham and his sovereign; I hope that depiction was accurate, because anyone familiar with the life of the lady knows that her own father never gave her a positive model. Walsingham too has given up much for the sake of queen and country, and he is paying for it with his health. Like him, Elizabeth has known power and control, but cannot relinquish it no matter the personal cost. They reveal the addictiveness that such command can inspire, while also showing that it can eventually wear your down and come close to destroying the person inside.
...
--See 'comments' for more--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Another actor who did a surprisingly great job was Jordi Molla as Phillip II of Spain. His character is a mad-monk of a man, determined to stamp out Elizabeth if he cannot have her (I forget whether the movie covers this, but he made a proposal of marriage to her before embarking on his crusade). His distinctive walk displayed the ingrown-infirmities that royals suffered from. It's almost laughable really, and I have to stop myself from offering the character some antihistamine tabs. That tells me that his performance was utterly convincing, and in the end, I was a little surprised.
Samantha Morton was luminous. There is hardly another word for it. Her Mary, Queen of Scots was also relate-able as a woman who had great aspirations but who also had to live in fear. I have heard that one critic said that she outshines Blanchett, but I cannot agree. Ms. Morton is a great actress, but I don't feel that she can carry a movie quite the same way. Still, if Mr. Kapur makes it, I will pay $8 to see a 'life of Mary' movie. There is a lot of interesting story-fodder there too. What a decision to have to make: Elizabeth can't leave her alive, but if she puts Mary to death, then she is in turn opening up the possibility of her own execution if the tricky balance of the highly charged politics tips the wrong way.
The one person who strikes a discordant note is Clive Owen. I hate to say it, but after thinking on what it was that didn't sit right with me about the movie, he is the only ingredient that I can point to as lacking. All of the other players are in place and perform admirably. I know Raleigh's highlighting feature was his swagger, but somehow it comes off just a touch wrong to me. I don't really like saying this, and I can't explain it any better, but there it is. I was happy to hear of Mr. Owen's participation, but a little let down now that I have had time to think a little. That is terribly inarticulate, but that is as much as I can elaborate just now.
I was also curious to see Abbie Cornish's performance. Much has been made over her, so I wanted to see if the buzz was justified. I think she did a good job with her character, but the competition is so fierce for scene-stealing that she didn't have much of a hope of outshining the luminaries she was working with. I would be happy to see more of her, but so far, the jury is still out for me. I wanted to see Emily Mortimer come back as one of the ladies in waiting.
The sweep of the film and the grandness of the costumes was very satisfying. I liked the music, although Lunanshee found it a tad intrusive at times. I never pay much attention to such things, though, so I am not a reliable critic on that score (har har).
I dearly hope there is a third film. I can't imagine that Mr. Kapur would make it without Cate Blanchett; that would be like making The Hobbit without Peter Jackson (I still have my fingers fervently crossed on that one!). In my opinion, neither movie could hope to live up to the success and quality of their respective predecessors. Fortunately, there is still more story to tell about the life of this eternally fascinating 'prince of the female gender.'
I have to agree with all the points my compatriat made regarding E2. I loved it. The movie itself is not driven by action, but rather by the interaction between characters and the psychological and emotional turmoil the characters endure. E2 is an intimate look at the inner workings and deepest desires of one of the most iconic figures of Western History. I trust that, while some of the drama was fictionalized, both director and Blanchett executed a realistic portrayal of the queen's inner workings. I read in a movie magazine (I can't remember which) that Blanchett actually read many of Elizabeth Regina's personal correspondence to try to get a true portrayal. I think the critics who have been harsh in their reviews missed the whole point of the movie. You are not watching an exercise in power, you are watching the inner turmoil someone who exercises that level of power experiences. Definatly recommend. I loved it.
Post a Comment