Conversely Elizabeth is initially portrayed a naive young woman who dances around green fields with her lover Robert Dudley in endless sunshine and suggests that she is like a lamb to slaughter when imprisoned by Mary for suspected treason. Here Elizabeth and her attendants are seen passing under the Bridge of Sighs of St John’s College, Cambridge, despite the fact that the crossing was not constructed until 1831, more than two centuries after Elizabeth’s death. However I think Kapur underestimates Elizabeth’s abilities here for it is well documented that she was extremely able and intelligent; writing fluently at the age of eleven, speaking several foreign languages, growing up amidst political intrigue in the court of her father Henry V111, repelling the sexual advances of Thomas Seymour whilst living with Katherine Parr during the reign of her half brother Edward; she developed a maturity beyond her tender years. However Kapur does illustrate some political acumen as she skilfully denies charges of treason when questioned about a plot on Queen Mary’s life.
Kapur gets full marks for his homework on Elizabeth’s coronation; Blanchett is a mirror image of the portrait hanging in the National Portrait Gallery which commemorates the succession, although this in itself was produced long after the event. The film accurately portrays sixteenth century England and the protestant Elizabeth as being in great ‘danger’, a bankrupt nation vulnerable to attack from enemies France and Spain who wanted a ‘legitimate’ catholic on the English throne. David Attenborough as her advisor Sir William Cecil constantly advises Elizabeth of the need to marry a foreign prince in order to secure an heir and strengthen England’s inferior position in the world. As a result the subject of marriage is adopted as one of the films major themes. Unfortunately Cecil is portrayed as an elderly gentleman when in fact he was only in his forties.
Throughout the film Elizabeth wrestles with the subject of marriage, her affection for Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester is constantly illustrated; despite being banished from court for suspected involvement in the death of his wife and being implicated in a plot to kill her, Elizabeth proves her affection by sparing his life. However in reality Leicester did not betray Elizabeth and remained loyal until his death. Fiennes never really plays the role with enough passion to be taken seriously as a suitor. It is the visit of the Frenchman Henri Duke of Anjou that is particularly annoying. At first it looks as though Elizabeth is smitten; she considers matrimony, marches with vigour towards his quarters and witnesses Anjou hosting an orgy dressed as a woman, is such an inaccurate scene really necessary?, or is its inclusion merely to boost ratings and sell more tickets?, needless to say Elizabeth firmly rejects his proposition. According to Kapur this story takes place during the 1560’s when Elizabeth was a very young woman, wrong! , in reality the two never met and the proposal was for marriage to Francois, Henri’s younger brother in 1579 when Elizabeth was forty five. However this interlude does include a splendid water pageant with an assassination attempt on Elizabeth, justly illustrating her vulnerability as the virgin queen. Throughout the film Elizabeth dodges the question of marriage, in one conversation with Cecil she announces ‘’I will have one mistress here, and no master’’, later on she asserts herself as a ruler and a ‘Prince’ by announcing ‘’ I may be a woman, but I have the heart of a man’’; unfortunately these words are misquoted, stolen from her ‘Tilbury’ speech delivered in 1588 to raise morale on the eve of the Spanish Armada.
Conspiracy, is another major theme, this occurs when Elizabeth fails to marry a catholic and the Pope finally excommunicates her, thus paving the way for a series of murderous plots. Here Christopher Eccleston does a convincing job as the evil and jealous Duke of Norfolk, a protestant with catholic sympathies he is heavily involved in the Ridolfi Plot to overthrow Elizabeth and possibly assume the role of monarch himself. However owing to brilliant detective work by Elizabeth’s spymaster general Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) the plot is unearthed and all but the Earl of Leicester perish. One by one in scenes involving; contemplation, defecation, copulation and flagellation the culprits are rounded up to face the axe.
The closing scenes are a true reflection of the age as Elizabeth believed wholeheartedly in the notion of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, hence her decision to remain a virgin. The film ends in about 1572-3. Elizabeth cuts off her long red hair, applies a wodge of white make up and announces her intention never to marry as she is already married to her people. These scenes are accompanied by the dramatic music of Mozart’s ‘Requiem Mass’, depicting a ‘day of judgement’ but also used in the Roman Catholic mass until 1970, there’s surely a contradiction here!; and ‘Nimrod’ from Sir Edward Elgar’s ‘ Enigma variations’, usually played at solemn events such as funerals at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. I know it could be argued that such pieces are relevant to the story, the end of Elizabeth’s youth and the beginning of the ‘Golden Age’ however I personally, found these pieces irritating and can’t help thinking that there must be some more suitable contemporary pieces available. Finally the film ends by stating that Elizabeth went on to reign for a further forty years which of course she did not, a more accurate figure would be twenty nine.
The costumes and make up are brilliant; Alexandra Byrne and Jenny Shircore fully deserve the Oscar nomination and Oscar respectively. Cate Blanchett did well in her portrayal of Elizabeth’s personality considering her relative inexperience as an actress in a role of this calibre. However it is Kaptur’s interpretation which is interesting, the theme of feminism is strong as Elizabeth constantly battles to assert herself amongst a battery of male advisers, one cannot help making comparisons with strong influential figures such as Margaret Thatcher and the late Dianna Princess of Wales who died shortly before the film was made. The study of ‘interpretations’ is also a key ingredient in modern History teaching. The numerous factual inaccuracies provide a challenging exercise for pupils to distinguish between fact and fiction in addition to comprehending the directors’ motivation.
So should you contribute to the $82.1 million dollars that the film has already made worldwide or give this one a miss? Well as with all things its horses for courses; an accurate piece of History it is not, an entertaining evening with a spot of sex, violence and intrigue it maybe. The film does not even begin to compete with the accomplished performance of Glenda Jackson as ‘Elizabeth’ in the 1972 classic ‘Elizabeth R’ or the more recent film ‘The Virgin Queen’ starring Helen Mirren. If you want a more polished and accurate portrayal I suggest you try one of these.
BIBILOGRAPHY
- Film – ‘Elizabeth’ Universal (1998)
- Wikipedia – free internet encyclopaedia
- Film reviews – Internet – accessed on 28/12/07
- Rogerebert.com
- CNN - Blanchett a queenly knockout as ‘Elizabeth’ by Paul Tatara
- Time Out London – Elizabeth movie review
- Imdm.com / reviews - by Steve Rhodes
- About Film.com- By Carlo Cavagna
- Los Angeles Times – by Jack Matthews
- Nitrate Online – by Elias Savada
- The Austin Chronicle – by Russell Smith
- BBC Films by Matt Ford