31 Movies of May, Day 15: Elizabeth
May 15th viewing: Elizabeth, chosen by the Divine Right of the Lord
Year of Release: 1998
Directed by: Shekhar Kapur
Written by: Michael Hirst
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Christopher Eccleston, Richard Attenborough, Kathy Burke, Jamie Foreman, Edward Hardwicke, Vincent Cassel, Daniel Craig
Accompanying Beverage of Choice: Black Umbrella (Oatmeal Rye Stout, 7.5% ABV), Twisted Hippo Brewing, Chicago, Illinois
(Support Independent Breweries - buy local when getting buzzed during quarantine)
I really expected something more out of this film.
I wouldn’t say I went in with particularly specific expectations. I knew people generally regarded the film well, and I knew it had a highly praised performance from some up and comer named “Cate Blanchett.” But I definitely wasn’t expecting something so very much like movie day in AP European History.
Elizabeth doesn’t quite fall into the trap that many biopics experience. It doesn’t exactly graft a cliched story onto a lifelong arc, in part because Elizabeth’s life already provides plenty of grandiose conflict for the plot, but also because it smartly only covers a relatively brief period of her life surrounding her ascension to the throne. But it seems to take for granted that its subject is one of the most historically notable people in the Western canon, and as such leaves a lot of Elizabeth’s internal thoughts and motivations unexplored.
Much of this relates to the greater conflict of Catholicism vs. Protestantism that frames Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne. I wouldn’t expect the film to get into a full analysis of why this grand debate was raging at the time, or bog us down with exhaustive details of what separated these two branches of Christianity. But it does seem fairly essential to explain why the characters in play choose the sides that they do, most of all Elizabeth, and neither the dialogue nor the performances do much to address that key detail.
The film does spend some time indicating that Elizabeth does care about the conflict, and chooses Protestantism for a reason. She refuses to renounce Protestantism when it could easily save her life, and her chief adviser (played by Geoffrey Rush at his Geoffrey Rushiest) describes her as ruling “with the heart, not with the head.” But other than some tangential implications that it has something to do with her father’s legacy, it remains very mysterious why she feels compelled to stand up for Protestantism and against the Catholic Church. Similarly, little is done to explain why her predecessor Mary is so dedicated to preserving Catholicism in England. Only the political implications of these allegiances seem to weigh on the plot, as opposed to the personal convictions that drive the decisions.
This DOES work for characters that don’t have any particular convictions. Christopher Eccleston’s Duke of Norfolk is particularly well done, portraying a striver who is pro-Catholic on the surface but you can tell by his demeanor that he doesn’t really give a lick about that. He just lusts for power and is convinced power will make him fulfilled, regardless of whether it will or not. Similarly, Joseph Fiennes’ Lord Robert makes considerable sense, in that he seems to be motivated solely by horninesss.
As an arc of achievement, Elizabeth makes sense. Its titular royal becomes noticeably more self-assured and crafty as the story moves on, and her evolution from out-of-her-depth young adult fearing for her life to all-powerful ruler is compelling. But other than some of the heartbreak from her doomed romance with Robert, you rarely see how she personally feels about her own maneuvering or her battles with parliament. The whole film feels like a game of Civilization at times - all multiple choice quiz plot points of who, when, and where, but rarely why.
Yet even without the why, Blanchett’s performance at least still works pretty well. I’d be on the lookout for this promising newcomer in the future, y’all. I think she just might be going places.
