Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Terrible, terrible "film". Spending the weekend in Tromsø in Norway, I sheltered from the rain in the cinema, and went to see this (being the only film starting at the time). I hadn't heard of it at all, so I'm genuinely shocked at the high ratings here, and the generous praise. I saw it in English, with Norwegian subtitles... so when the Spaniards (or the Austrian) were speaking, I was in the dark, no English subs. But... ...it was awful! Completely disjointed, all over the place. Plot lines appeared and disappeared for fun, and it felt like it was going nowhere and taking the most convoluted route to get there. It didn't feel like there was any coherent plan here, it felt like they took the characters of Elizabeth, Raleigh and Walsingham and then shoehorned them into a two hour film. It felt like a photo montage, a series of set pieces, always preparing the next big "Monumental Image". It would have been better as a collection of paintings. The Mary Stuart character was just a hollow "evil" stereotype. The "baddie" English were... faintly pointless and forgettable. The Spaniards were all lisps and stereotyped Catholicism (the negative type). The Sea Battle was *terribly* done... what the hell was up with the horse jumping in the sea; was i supposed to care? They could have done with watching Hornblower. Some unresolved issues: Why, oh why, did they drape a cloth of 21st century morals over the story? It felt so entirely false and ridiculous!! Was it just me, or was there a big, big lesbian suggestion between Elizabeth and Bess??? Why did I feel that a film about Raleigh's adventures in America would have been far more interesting whenever he was on screen? I'm pretty sure I'm not a genius politician, so why was it so tremendously obvious that killing Mary Stuart would start the war? Why did they keep emphasising the "Elizabeth/Virgin Mary" thing (like at the end). Wasn't she meant to be Protestant?! And what on earth was the midget about??? A tedious, unfulfilling, disjointed, directionless mess. Still... nice costumes.

The producers of this film took one of the most dramatic moments in English history and turned it into a beautifully costumed and artistic piece of garbage. Having seen Helen Mirren's version, this one pales in all categories-drama, plot, dialog, history and actors. With the rich history of record and the countless rumors from the period, the producers decided to make up their own out of whole cloth! Sir Francis Drake gets maybe a dozen words, and the Armada facts are turned upside down. I don't recall the English losing a single ship, and the Spanish only a few-and though the fire ships will wreak havoc on the Armada, it will come about as they travel home-not as in the film in a giant conflagration. But then, the focus was to make a fairy tale. And, interestingly, not the fairy tale of English legend, "God blew and they were scattered." Instead, the fairy tale is of high school melodrama.

I've seen lots of actresses play Elizabeth, most recently Helen Mirren, and I admire Cate Blanchette's performances most of all. She is regal, with a lovely, throaty voice, and she vividly portrays the historical Elizabeth's intelligence, erudition, and charismatic presence. I predict that she will be nominated for, and win, Best Actress in the next round of Oscars. This movie is gorgeous. Everything was stunning, from the settings and cinematography to the costumes. It's a visual feast as well as a compelling drama. Although the script does deviate from historical reality in--for example-- its representation of Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake does appear during (and before) the Armada. Viewers who know nothing of English history should, however, read a bit about Elizabeth I on Wikipedia before attending.

I gave this movie one solitary star, and I suppose I will attribute that one to the actress who played Mary, the rival queen as hers was the only acting that stood out to me. Beyond her it seemed that the director had no ability to utilize the skill set of otherwise such great actors such as Geoffrey Rush. Worst of all, the movie bordered propaganda in its political incorrectness and it is becoming more and more of a frustration - as a non Anglo-Saxon - to watch movies such as these. Opening and ending titles which pitch England as the soul country to have fought Spain in those times and the immediate superpower afterwards, leave a wry taste in my mouth. If one makes historical costume dramas then at least tread the genre with some responsibility and don't grossly twist and distort history. As, during this particular episode in history, the French were fighting Spain and the Dutch were waging their war of independence from Spanish rule. Then, to end the movie with the words that England entered an era of peace and prosperity could have used the word 'relative'. As within half a century the country would plunge into civil war and declare one war after another over petty commercial rivalry. Make a fiction film if one cannot tell a story honestly. Otherwise you're a colleague of Leni Rievenstahl.

Most of the time it's the casting that makes a film and keeps us coming back for more. This is the case for "The Golden Age", the sequel to "Elizabeth", a film that turned Cate Blanchett into a star, introducing her considerable talents to the masses. In "The Golden Age", Blanchett is given more screen time and the opportunity to show the range she is capable of, giving us a portrayal that is complex, rich, exquisite, and ultimately glorious. As a matter of fact, it's hard to imagine anyone else, having the power this actress is capable of showing on screen. She carries the film, and it's her ability to interact with such varied characters that gives the film its strength. It all depends on the chemistry between her and the talented actors that support her, particularly, Clive Owen's rogue pirate. "The Golden Age" depicts another critical moment in the life of the Virgin Queen, as she must find the strength in herself to gather the support and strength she needs to save England from a brutal military attack by the Spanish Armada, the most powerful navy at the time. Elizabeth must deal with family issues, ethical issues, sentimental turmoil, another self-confidence crisis, and much more intrigue and attacks from both the Spaniards and their supporters on both sides of the ocean. There are scenes in this film that will be remembered as perfect examples of what cinema can achieve, as the camera frames key characters during critical times in the story... Most impressive are all the scenes in which Cate participates, as she is able to show the amazing nature of a woman who endured much criticism and political turmoil and eventually transformed herself and her nation into one of the most powerful empires in the world. There are interesting analogies in the film, particularly as Elizabeth adopts one life over another and allows her spirit to soar, vanquishing any negative impulses and nurture the surrogate child that her country becomes. According to the film, she finds herself incapable of finding an equal mate because of special circumstances, and then she rediscovers the strength that she has always possessed and turns into the leader everyone will respect, follow, and somehow adore. "The Golden Age" is a very handsome film, with superb production, and some spectacular costumes, exquisitely worn by Ms. Blanchett. It's definitely on its way to becoming a classic, a proud example of what some might call an intimate epic.

Don't believe the poor reviews "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" has received. While it may be true the film is not historically correct, most of us do not go to the movies for a history lesson. We go to be entertained. On that basis, this film is a winner. It has romance, intrigue and betrayal. It is basically a melodrama. The photography is great, although sometimes the director gets carried away with the camera movements. The orchestral score in fine, although it is overwhelming at times. The acting is absolutely first rate. I thought that "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" was more entertaining than any of the "Pirates of the Carribian" movies. If you want an entertaining movie that is geared more towards adults than children, then you should check the movie out.

This rates as high as it does for me because of the cinematography. It is dazzling and Blanchett can't be denied, but "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is like a chick-flick with explosions plus costumes, super hair, and loud, intrusive music. The result is faux epic. My wife summed it up well as we left the theater: "I feel like I've just flipped through a coffee table picture book for two hours and somebody turned up the stereo." History wrote this plot but Nicholson and Hirst thought they could do better. They couldn't, or certainly didn't. Freshmen composition classes come up with better stuff. Trite, forced, predictable. Did they even run this by an expert in English history? You gotta wonder. The script is oozing with 21st century mores and clichés. It made me think (during the movie, mind you) of the way Dutch painters depicted Homer and Aristotle in the garb of 17th century Holland. Are we that dumb? Sir Walter Raleigh is a caricature and Sir Francis Drake, never properly introduced, was a throwaway. Geoffrey Rush is wasted as Walsingham. Come to think of it, nearly everybody is wasted. Every single character is underdeveloped, with the possible exception of the title character—possible exception. "Golden Age" set the target high and then turned and fired in the opposite direction. Realizing the script had missed, Director tried to make up for it with window dressing. Substance would have served this queen better. With the colon in the title, I almost expected to see Bruce Willis saving the day. You can see why "Golden Age" came out in October because it's not going to compete for Oscars in categories that anybody cares about. With all the budget they had for this movie, you'd Universal could have found better writers.

With a view clearly centered on the woman behind the figure of the queen, "Elizabeth" is a passionate portrait of the XVI century. The court, the costumes, the social hierarchy and procedures are thoroughly depicted showing both the richness and darkness of the time. The queen (Cate Blanchett) is the main character, showed intimately, almost striped before our eyes. She starts as a monarch and with the pose one would expect from her. And yet soon we see that there is something more to that persona: the loneliness, the sense of duty with the lack of freedom it implies, the desire to love and simply be loved in return; to be loved by what she really his and only that. As she lowers her defenses and allows Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), a charming pirate with news of a world she has never seen, to come close, we could almost say she was only a woman during that time; no title, no obligations, pure will to be what she feels like. However the intrigue around the crown rushes in, the plot thickens, and the woman is set aside, giving room for the queen. It is after this, when it comes to the end of the movie, that something changes. Our intimate view of her character is lost and instead there seem's to be a little twist, as the overall feeling of the movie changes to that of an epic. In the final shots there's almost a deification of her and it's hard to believe it. And most of all it's less interesting because the woman behind the "queen" is more captivating than the idea of the "queen".

We had been looking forward to seeing this film - and made a point of re-watching the original 'Elizabeth' from 1998 a week before making the trip to the theater. I will say that this film is technically beautiful in the grand cinematic style which was once associated with the epic films from the bygone era of the Hollywood studios with it's fantastic costuming and sets. But - I am sad to say that this film was a disappointment. It suffers from numerous over-dramatic sequences which rely much too heavily on symbolism. After all, how many times & ways should one be forced to view Cate Blanchett posed in an angelic persona? Unfortunately, as one sits through this film, one must wonder what the writers & director were thinking. It is obvious that someone was unsure of which direction(s) they wished to steer this film toward - romance, war epic, drama,etc. The awkwardness of this film projected a feeling that various pages of the script must have been stuck together as it continues along - giving it a feel that can only be described as disjointed and forced. The problems with this film seem to be caused by a combination of a weak script, bad direction, and bad editing which resulted in this short-changed follow-up to the well-done original 1998 epic of 'Elizabeth'. Cate Blanchett and the entire cast are good actors & do not disappoint in their character portrayals. But sadly, this film was not up to the performances of these fine actors and we left the theater wondering why the director, the editors, and screenwriters all failed to do their jobs.

I hadn't heard too much about this film, but had seen the posters for it, so I gave it a shot. And after leaving the theatre I really wasn't sure what to say about it. There's a lot of good stuff in this film, but there're some pitfalls as well. On the plus side the sets and costumes are magnificent. A great deal of care and love when into the art direction to bring us an Elizabethan renaissance film, replete with court intrigue and foreign emissaries who threaten invasion because of high seas thievery courtesy Clive Owen's character. Visually this film is very lush and impressive, though somewhat confining at times. We're never really shown Elizabethan England, just the "important parts" that are salient to the story. And, as Elizabeth's favorite playwright would say, "there's the rub". And by this I mean that the film is a bit all over the place. It's a costume drama, it's a romance, it's a period political thriller, it's a military epic, and so forth. It even skids the fantasy genre with some of the fancy camera work that was done. But, all in all, the film's primary thrust is to try and grab hold of all of these genres, and tie them together into some kind of cohesive and suscint manner. The romance, the intrigue, the sisterly emotions, the rivalry between matriarchs, and the "battle scene" hearken back to a time when Hollywood used to crank out these kinds of movies with some regularity. But the context between those films and "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" are nearly day and night, even though both are striving for a high water mark in historical drama. I thought "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" was technically a competent production. In fact, given the difficulties there must have been getting some of the shots I'll give it high marks as a pure production effort. But as a film I simply found it to be a touch too ambitious, and over-indulgent near the end. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy a lot of the film, because I did. Blanchet's Elizabeth is a strong woman; full of zest, energy, and a bit of anger, which she levels at her adversaries. But she's also a chief of state, internationalist, and, of course, the queen of England. She doesn't wear several hats. She wears a crown. But even so, and this is where the film falls a bit short, she doesn't demonstrate a cohesive ability to command all. She shows she's in charge, but doesn't act like she's in charge until near the end. The film was geared and aimed at a female audience (a thing which I had not expected), and so a lot of the energy is directed at that audience, with the appropriate emotional flourishes. Combined with some so-so CGI for the action sequences (and a horse with a perm which almost had me laughing), one wonders where the film was headed. Elizabeth didn't save England with her emotional power alone, and yet this is the gist of the film. It's a real let down in this regard. The film is a mixed blessing. There's a lot of decent acting, and some exceptional performances by the leads. Married to a rather extravagant art director to bring to life palace, throne room, chambers, and galleons at sea, and one can easily see that this was meant to be a top notch production. But some of the logical loopholes where Blanchet's character is concerned conspire with some of the story loopholes to hold back a better film. As a guy all I can say is that it's not something I'd watch again, and I'm not too sure I'd recommend it to any female audiences. But, if you don't mind your period dramas skirting the edge of high kamp, then splurge on a ticket, and see what "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is all about.