Elizabeth

Stories that have historical importance usually deserve and benefit from a cinematic treatment,  providing an opportunity for many to learn of groundbreaking or fascinating periods and events that most wouldn’t be aware if they weren’t an avid history buff. One of the more prominent figures that has been showcased in media is Queen Elizabeth I. Being known as the Virgin Queen and as one of the last monarchs in the House of Tutor, Elizabeth  was showcased in several forms of media throughout the centuries like art, theatre in dramatic stories from playwrights like William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, and eventually tv and movies. These portrayals have ranged from sophisticated and commanding to out of her element and even childish, with one of the well-known versions of this mindset being her portrayal in the British comedy series, Blackadder, which was not kind to her to say the least. Regardless of how authentic any of these portrayals are, enough people know of her, but how many know much about her? While she’s been the focus of films before, the 1998 film definitely garnered a lot of attention. Set in 1558 after the death of Henry the VIII, princess Elizabeth (played by Cate Blanchett) is placed under house arrest for supposedly conspiring to overtake the throne while her sister, Mary, (who was holding the throne) dies from cancer. Now declared Queen, Elizabeth must fight off enemies from the outside, with the French Mary of Guise (played by Fanny Ardant) invading with an experienced army, as well as enemies from the inside, as many Catholic priests and lords hate her for her protestant beliefs and wish to see her assassinated. Trying to lead a fragile and crumbling society left to her by her sister, Elizabeth must resolve these conflicts, struggle with her forbidden flirtation with lord Robert Dudley (played by Joseph Fiennes), and reach a point where she can proudly claim herself as the Virgin Queen of England. Mapping out the early stages of Elizabeth’s reign, The movie was met with critical appraisal upon release and was even nominated for several Oscars, but how successful is a movie when it fails to portray its lead figure correctly?

The story of Elizabeth’s monarchical reign within a time of strife and political turmoil is one that’s prime for a movie that could showcase various qualities of the figure in a honest and balanced way. One of the key criticisms that people put on this movie however,  was its gross historical inaccuracies, and how it altered events and circumstances to happen far earlier in Elizabeth’s reign than they initially occurred. When making a film based on real life,  changes can be done if it doesn’t detract too much from reality and if said events stay true to the spirit of the real person, but the alterations go much further than necessary, turning several real-life situations into cliched scenarios and detracting from its purpose as a historical film by falsely presenting a fabricated truth instead of just giving the solid truth. A majority of the events that take place in the film are real, but when they occur and often how they occur are different, which is messy in delivery, but isn’t going too far out of the realms of plausibility yet. The real diverging parts are to do with the people, what they do, how they are portrayed and how important they are in the overall tale of Elizabeth. On the surface, the movie pretty much unloads exactly how you would expect a story of this type to unfold; banished ruler returns to take throne after custody battle ends with another family member dying, ruling is tricky and comes with consequences from within the court and on the battlefield, and circumstances have to happen so that said ruler and the people of said rule have faith in their leader. It’s a shame that this format which has plagued cliched prince and princess stories for generations proves to be more factual and true to real life than expected. Elizabeth’s real-life story seemed to flow much smoother than how it was portrayed in this film, as the story here feels shallow, weirdly empty in scope, and doesn’t leave much of an impression for a person who should leave a big impression. Weirdly the movie flows as nicely as it does thanks to the directing, as Indian director Shekhar Kapur manages to be tight, concise and makes an otherwise boring story go by pretty quick. Its clear from his past in Bollywood films that he has an eye for pleasant visuals and aesthetically appealing shots, but maybe this story wasn’t the best choice for him as he clearly wasn’t able to structure it in a comprehensive or interesting way.

The characters in this film are people of history, so attention to detail in how they look is about as important as getting someone who can portray them in an effective way. Queen Elizabeth has had many people portray her throughout the Hollywood ages like Glenda Jackson, Bette Davis, Judi Dench, and Margot Robbie. Cate Blanchett received strong praise for her portrayal in this movie, and it makes sense as she carries with her this fantastic sense of class and dignity while still being able to appear fragile and not snobby. Even if you take out the fact that she looks eerily similar to her (especially with the wig and make-up), she is a great choice for the role. Unfortunately, the writing and the layout of the film leaves her with a very flimsy character and with little to no personality, something that really ruins a lot of this movie. For a film about her, it doesn’t explore her as a person, giving no insight into her wants, desires, or even her drive to become the Queen. Apparently, the film removed a good chunk of her own decision-making and strategic mind, leaving her looking like an aimless incompetent ruler and only a chess piece against other high-power figures (usually men)  in her own story. What should’ve been the most positive showcase for her instead comes across as the most demeaning through this cinematic alteration. Most of the side characters struggle with this fictionalization as well, coming across like cartoon characters and being drastically different from their real-life counterparts. Actors like Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, and Richard Attenborough on their own are fine, but have characters that are very bland and don’t have much screen time to establish personality, whereas roles like Christopher Eccleston, Fanny Ardant, Edward Hardwick, and James Frain just come across as one-note stereotypes that suck out a lot of the film’s authenticity. A movie based on real life shouldn’t feel fabricated to this degree because it puts into question how much of what is being show is truly real.

The technicals of this film are its strongest aspect, where a period of time that was very visually distinct with its architecture, clothing, and rampant amount of white face-paint for its royals, could be very nicely portrayed as it is here. It looks like a majority of the crew working in production has had a hand in making films that take place within a past time period, explaining how they are able to correctly adapt it. The movie gets to capture that style and sense and does it in a very grounded fashion. It isn’t presented and filmed like a straightforward movie, with cinematography by Remi Adefarasin getting some great shots that capture things in a realistic even sometimes gruesome fashion, but can also be portrayed in a elegant, brightly lit, dream-like state as well. It’s a great looking movie that has great color, angles, and production design by John Myhre, but it never looks unrealistic or too over-the-top, it still feels like it exists within the realm of reality. The score by David Hirschfelder is also quite good; capturing that typical aristocratic jovialness with the instrumentation, but still managing to capture this almost operatic presence and quality to the tune that makes it effective in a story about someone who SHOULD command authority and status. The screenplay manages to fail not only in its plot execution, but also in its dialogue. The characters certainly talk like they are in the correct time period, but the flow of the dialogue and the expositional nature of the story makes it feel disingenuous. It’s strange that the writer for this movie, Michael Hirst, would go on to work on TV shows like Vikings and The Tudors, which would have to adopt a similar kind of atmosphere and dialect, but maybe its something that he improved upon later in his career.

Elizabeth is not a bad movie by any true sense, but it is a flawed one that arguably misses a lot of what a historical biopic should do. It doesn’t give proper insight into the workings of Queen Elizabeth’s reign and that isn’t only because a majority of it didn’t occur in a certain way. The movie spends so much time on WHAT Queen Elizabeth was that it never stopped to think about asking WHO she really was, there is no debriefing on her personality therefore she is a shell of a real person and one that isn’t portrayed as a figure that should be remembered. The director, writer, and cast returned for a sequel movie the following year which appeared to portray Elizabeth’s rule further down the line, so maybe that clarified more, but from this movie’s perspective, it doesn’t look like Elizabeth was that great a Queen. But outside of that, from an average movie-goer experience, its perfectly harmless and has some good qualities to it. Its well-directed, acted and it looks and sounds very nice, but it might be a film that leaves your memory quite soon after viewing it.