It's old news that 1998 was the year of Queen Elizabeth 1 at the movies, as she was a central figure in two films that were both nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. That other film, Shakespeare in Love, quite surprisingly went on to win the coveted award. In fact, it can be said that Elizabeth came up wantonly short on wins at this year's Oscar ceremony, despite a plethora of nominations. Regardless, the movie has done well at the box office and will undoubtedly continue to garner attention as it moves to video later this year.
If Shakespeare in Love shows jolly old England at its winsome and frolicking best, Elizabeth renders the country in bleak, foreboding tones. But, of course, this story is far more serious and purportedly more fact-based than the other film's work of sheer imaginative fiction. Elizabeth attempts to retell the title character's rise to the role of Queen and the subsequent difficulties in the earliest, most tentative years of her reign.
In the film's inception,
Elizabeth, a Protestant and daughter of King Henry VIII who severed England's
ties with the Catholic church, is imprisoned by her Catholic half-sister,
Queen Mary, who was King Henry's successor. Mary's Protestant pogroms earned
her the unfortunate nickname, "Bloody Mary," and the torching of a trio
of heretics graphically opens the film, setting a serious tone. Although
it is not clear from the movie, Mary's husband, King Phillip of Spain,
is the one who orders Elizabeth's release to house arrest. Eventually,
true to history, Mary dies and Elizabeth ascends to the throne where her
real troubles begin. As a Protestant Queen surrounded by a predominantly
Catholic court, plots abound and marriage proposals to important Catholic
foreign dignitaries proliferate. With the help of Sir Francis Walsingham,
the Queen's sinister protector, her kingdom
is eventually and brutally
shored-up, allowing her to rule for forty distinguished years in what has
become known as England's Golden Age.
Sixteenth-century England was undeniably a country preoccupied with Christianity and a hotbed of religious battles played out politically, something the film only alludes to rather than specifies. Unfortunately, this movie's pagan viewpoint diminishes and scoffs at the important differences between Catholics and Protestants at the time, doing an injustice to the full background of these true historical events. Instead, although the movie clearly differentiates the two Christian groups, it offers very little explanation why they were at such odds both politically and more importantly theologically. This regrettably only supports the view that the Christian faith is a mere religion of custom and convenience, not the one true faith.
The movie's disturbing bias against Catholics in particular is more historically stereotypical than fully justified or realized. Queen Mary and her court are adorned in boring black and spend their time mopping or raving--contrastingly, Elizabeth and her friends wear delightfully colorful dresses and have a lot of fun dancing. Mary's kingdom, right on down to her gloomy sitting room, is shadowed in dismal darkness. But as soon as Elizabeth becomes Queen, the palace is suddenly better lit and more cheerful.
Protestants fare only slightly better. Even historically stalwart men for the Protestant cause like Sir Francis Walsingham are wrongly depicted as cut-throats, literally. Elizabeth herself, traditionally a valid and respected Protestant, is shown to be a lusty adulterer with little understanding or practice of true Christian virtue. In fact, this Elizabeth is no virgin at all, and seems more concerned initially with dancing and bedding Lord Dudley than running the country.
The real issue, however, is that neither the motives of Catholics nor Protestants is clearly articulated. The viewer never understands the reasons behind the animosity and subsequent action, and are made to assume that they are of no real relevance. They are merely story points of no consequence, except to separate the good guys from the bad. Without an understanding of the bigger picture, these historical figures are completely devoid of Christian character and motivation. All the warts are on display, and none of the goodness. Hollywood has again rewritten history for the sake of bawdy entertainment.
Regardless, Cate Blanchett, gives a sturdy performance, vividly capturing the Queen's actual quandaries. Her moral decision to give up a private and sexual life for her country's good is the movie's one well-made point. Geoffrey Rush turns in another admirable performance as Walsingham, despite the fact that the character is too loosely and erroneously based on the actual historical figure. Richard Attenborough functions flawlessly in his role as the Queen's addled advisor, and Joseph Fiennes captures much of Lord Robert Dudley's pathos.
The movie is intriguingly and beautifully filmed for the most part. It makes some interesting use of camera angles, but then fails to do so in scenes when they would have been useful. Most of all, the deficiencies both in the film's story points and historically wishy-washy execution contribute to its overall demise. Whereas the movie does an excellent job of accurately showing how utterly difficult being the Queen of England was during these times, the abundant historical liberties and lack of important detail dramatize these events in a way that is difficult to follow and harder to fully enjoy. This movie could have been far more interesting and entertaining if it went into more detail on the real issues, and avoided the more fabricated aspects of Elizabeth's reign which it unashamedly favors.
Steven Baldwin (3/25/99)
