Elizabeth: The Golden Age
This is a review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, which my wonderful James took me to see last night (*squeee*). I'm not cutting it for spoilers, because it's *historical* ;)
It's a good film. Very good. I think it compares well the the first film (Elizabeth, 1998), and is very similar in tone - much depends on characterisation of Elizabeth herself, and the historical events serve as background to that rather than being exciting in their own right. Raleigh is interesting because of how he makes her feel, the Babbington Plot is interesting because she's implicated in its outcome even though it was all beyond her control, the Armada battle bit is inter-shot with scenes of her fretting about what's happening, and so on. So it's lucky that Cate Blanchett is very good at being a rather severe and aloof queeny type, as portraying convincingly what it might be like to be a woman who's completely robbed of anything that's meaningful about being a woman (well, almost).
The acting support is generally very good. Geoffery Rush was fantastic as Walsingham, just as he was in the first film; it's only a shame that the character is now older because in Elizabeth he was more vigorously cunning and frankly quite sexy. It's not a sudden change though - the way the character has mellowed in some ways, but is still capable of horrendous things like torture, is entirely convincing. And I liked the bit where Elizabeth made him try a raw potato, offered to her by Raleigh.
Raleigh himself was played by Clive Owen, who, let's say, isn't one of my favourite actors. To be fair, he's learnt to intone things more than he did in King Arthur ("I want to go home, Lancelot"), and as a dashing and unsubtly ambitious sailor type he's quite convincing. He just doesn't swash my buckle, so I didn't fall for the character. But it was nice that it wasn't just an issue of physical attraction that was going on - Elizabeth seemed fond of everything about him, including just the fact that he is a man, and Bess clearly was clearly after more than sex. I was pleased that they included the cliched Raleigh bits - covering up a puddle with his cloak, and bringing potatoes and other wonderful things to court. I couldn't help thinking of Blackadder II in the latter scene though...
I wasn't sure about Mary Stuart, played by Samantha Morton in an accent that was not only a bit false but also sounded like a fairly modern brand of Scottish. Perhaps a real Scot could correct me, but I wasn't convinced at all. I'm also not convinced that a woman who spent her infancy in France would have such a strong Scottish accent. Surely she should have been older too - wasn't she imprisoned for 19 years or somesuch before she was executed? Above all, I think I didn't like her portrayal because she didn't seem very much like a queen. Surely this was a good opportunity to have a character who mirrored Elizabeth, so that her execution really did seem wrong when it occurred - but she completely lacked the queenly qualities of the stern, aloof and generally very stately Elizabeth.
The smaller parts were well acted, the best of which being Philip II (well, I thought he looked a bit young too, but he did have lovely eyes), Rhys Ifans as the engineer of the Babbington Plot (very sinister, and reminded me of Daniel Craig in the first film), Tom Hollander as Mary's jailer (he plays everything well, doesn't he?), and David Threlfall as Elizabeth's astrologist.
The film itself was utterly gorgeous. The dresses Elizabeth got to wear were fantastic, and I especially liked the bit where she dazzled a potential assassin wearing a brilliant white dress and taking on a very Galadrielesque air. I loved her suit of armour too. Raleigh's dress sense was impressively manly, though, as I said, he still failed to swash my buckle.
A lot of you might also like the film because it's an exercise in spotting bits of Cambridge (and Ely) where it was filmed. The first thing you'll notice is John's Bridge, but there are plenty of other bits, and it's very clear when they're in Ely Cathedral. The ship battle scenes were also very lovingly shot.
This brings me to implausibility. Firstly, jumping out of a ship into the Channel during a ship battle that's taking place in a storm is so not the way to survive. I already said why I found Mary Stuart a bit wrong. I'm not sure if the pistol one of the characters was using was right, but it was very difficult to get a clear view of the lock, so I'm not sure - I wondered if it was a wheellock, but it was fuzzy and fast moving and we were sitting right at the front ;)
So yes, it's a good film. Don't go to see it if you just want action thrills, because it's not the most exciting thing you'll ever watch. But do see it if you liked the first one, if you like Tudor history, if you want to Cambridge-spot, if you like arty films that dwell on characterisation, or if you fancy any of the actors in it. I enjoyed it, despite usually being a thrill seeker.
It's a good film. Very good. I think it compares well the the first film (Elizabeth, 1998), and is very similar in tone - much depends on characterisation of Elizabeth herself, and the historical events serve as background to that rather than being exciting in their own right. Raleigh is interesting because of how he makes her feel, the Babbington Plot is interesting because she's implicated in its outcome even though it was all beyond her control, the Armada battle bit is inter-shot with scenes of her fretting about what's happening, and so on. So it's lucky that Cate Blanchett is very good at being a rather severe and aloof queeny type, as portraying convincingly what it might be like to be a woman who's completely robbed of anything that's meaningful about being a woman (well, almost).
The acting support is generally very good. Geoffery Rush was fantastic as Walsingham, just as he was in the first film; it's only a shame that the character is now older because in Elizabeth he was more vigorously cunning and frankly quite sexy. It's not a sudden change though - the way the character has mellowed in some ways, but is still capable of horrendous things like torture, is entirely convincing. And I liked the bit where Elizabeth made him try a raw potato, offered to her by Raleigh.
Raleigh himself was played by Clive Owen, who, let's say, isn't one of my favourite actors. To be fair, he's learnt to intone things more than he did in King Arthur ("I want to go home, Lancelot"), and as a dashing and unsubtly ambitious sailor type he's quite convincing. He just doesn't swash my buckle, so I didn't fall for the character. But it was nice that it wasn't just an issue of physical attraction that was going on - Elizabeth seemed fond of everything about him, including just the fact that he is a man, and Bess clearly was clearly after more than sex. I was pleased that they included the cliched Raleigh bits - covering up a puddle with his cloak, and bringing potatoes and other wonderful things to court. I couldn't help thinking of Blackadder II in the latter scene though...
I wasn't sure about Mary Stuart, played by Samantha Morton in an accent that was not only a bit false but also sounded like a fairly modern brand of Scottish. Perhaps a real Scot could correct me, but I wasn't convinced at all. I'm also not convinced that a woman who spent her infancy in France would have such a strong Scottish accent. Surely she should have been older too - wasn't she imprisoned for 19 years or somesuch before she was executed? Above all, I think I didn't like her portrayal because she didn't seem very much like a queen. Surely this was a good opportunity to have a character who mirrored Elizabeth, so that her execution really did seem wrong when it occurred - but she completely lacked the queenly qualities of the stern, aloof and generally very stately Elizabeth.
The smaller parts were well acted, the best of which being Philip II (well, I thought he looked a bit young too, but he did have lovely eyes), Rhys Ifans as the engineer of the Babbington Plot (very sinister, and reminded me of Daniel Craig in the first film), Tom Hollander as Mary's jailer (he plays everything well, doesn't he?), and David Threlfall as Elizabeth's astrologist.
The film itself was utterly gorgeous. The dresses Elizabeth got to wear were fantastic, and I especially liked the bit where she dazzled a potential assassin wearing a brilliant white dress and taking on a very Galadrielesque air. I loved her suit of armour too. Raleigh's dress sense was impressively manly, though, as I said, he still failed to swash my buckle.
A lot of you might also like the film because it's an exercise in spotting bits of Cambridge (and Ely) where it was filmed. The first thing you'll notice is John's Bridge, but there are plenty of other bits, and it's very clear when they're in Ely Cathedral. The ship battle scenes were also very lovingly shot.
This brings me to implausibility. Firstly, jumping out of a ship into the Channel during a ship battle that's taking place in a storm is so not the way to survive. I already said why I found Mary Stuart a bit wrong. I'm not sure if the pistol one of the characters was using was right, but it was very difficult to get a clear view of the lock, so I'm not sure - I wondered if it was a wheellock, but it was fuzzy and fast moving and we were sitting right at the front ;)
So yes, it's a good film. Don't go to see it if you just want action thrills, because it's not the most exciting thing you'll ever watch. But do see it if you liked the first one, if you like Tudor history, if you want to Cambridge-spot, if you like arty films that dwell on characterisation, or if you fancy any of the actors in it. I enjoyed it, despite usually being a thrill seeker.