![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Oct. 18th, 2007 10:31 amAs far as costuming goes, this film is beautiful to see. It's shot very nicely, and some of the cinematic effect is well done. Elizabeth's speech from a coastal promontory- modelled on Elizabeth's notable speech to the troops assembled at Tilbury- is effective in casting the Queen as a contemporary Boudicca and seems to remain mostly true in spirit to the two principle variant texts of the speech.
Cate Blanchett does a reasonably effective job as an imperious Elizabeth I, and Geoffrey Rush does a decent job with the almost tragically under-developed Sir Francis Walsingham.
Unfortunately, history makes a poor story arc for screenplays, and in the effort to wedge it in, there are significant historical liberties taken and fairly significant timeframes telescoped into nearly nothing for dramatic effect. For instance, historically, the courtship between Sir Walter Raleigh and Elizabeth Throckmorton, commencing with the birth of their son Walter was a span of about three years- and Walter was the second-born; but the film portrays him as a first-born, arriving after Raleigh's period of disgrace had ended (which would have been when the boy was about three). Much of the plot centres about an inferred love triangle- or perhaps more accurately, an unrequited interest in Raleigh who favoured the lady-in-waiting over her queen. Raleigh is elevated to a position of importance which seems inconsistent with his prominence in the historical record- he comes off as a more pivotal character than Walsingham, who has to be one of the most pivotal eminences grises in history- but this is why historians don't write Hollywood screenplays.
All in all, though, it's an enjoyable enough film if you don't look at it too critically from a position of expecting historical authenticity. There are bits which are compelling to see on the big screen, but you could probably just wait for the DVD to show up on Netflix or in a local rental store, or to show up in the marked-down racks if you'd not mind owning it.
Cate Blanchett does a reasonably effective job as an imperious Elizabeth I, and Geoffrey Rush does a decent job with the almost tragically under-developed Sir Francis Walsingham.
Unfortunately, history makes a poor story arc for screenplays, and in the effort to wedge it in, there are significant historical liberties taken and fairly significant timeframes telescoped into nearly nothing for dramatic effect. For instance, historically, the courtship between Sir Walter Raleigh and Elizabeth Throckmorton, commencing with the birth of their son Walter was a span of about three years- and Walter was the second-born; but the film portrays him as a first-born, arriving after Raleigh's period of disgrace had ended (which would have been when the boy was about three). Much of the plot centres about an inferred love triangle- or perhaps more accurately, an unrequited interest in Raleigh who favoured the lady-in-waiting over her queen. Raleigh is elevated to a position of importance which seems inconsistent with his prominence in the historical record- he comes off as a more pivotal character than Walsingham, who has to be one of the most pivotal eminences grises in history- but this is why historians don't write Hollywood screenplays.
All in all, though, it's an enjoyable enough film if you don't look at it too critically from a position of expecting historical authenticity. There are bits which are compelling to see on the big screen, but you could probably just wait for the DVD to show up on Netflix or in a local rental store, or to show up in the marked-down racks if you'd not mind owning it.
