History Forum / General / British History / October 2007

Won't repeat the same criticisms found many places about this
film by cinema critics .....I agree with them.
Sort of held back going  because of those reviews. But Cate
Blanchett ,that  Australian natural
resource, is such a wonder to behold could not resist, worth it for
Cate!

Being both an amateur history and film buff (tho no expert in
either),
I learned long ago to turn  my historical integrity filters way down ,
especially for any costume drama , ah well that's a good ol
Hollywood tradition going back to D W Griffith.
Real history is full of such odd turns and twists and delightful
details that one would have thought that directors and screenwriters
would enjoy
the challenge of using that material in a way that fit the two hour
cinematic format and still entertain  the , in general non-history fan
audience,
well... that's a different story.
Alas they seldom rise to the challenge, it does happen.
O well, I long learned that Hollywood is probably
right, ticket paying audiences don't give a damn about accuracy, so
give em what that want. (Now days usually explosions.)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age is an odd fish. Kapur has pretty much
followed  the model of his first film with a, well would  not say
'comic-
book',..  but 'graphic novel' pastiche of the events in England in the
1580's.
Laden even more with awkward romance trappings.
Does not work as well this time.

Ok, I will buy into Kapur's higgly piggly story telling, but what the
heck was wrong him? The soap opera seems totally not thought through,
editing sloppy with even touches of 'O I give up' continuity!

I won't go on, but will cite two examples.
Say! I thought explosions
still sold tickets? So why is the war with Spain done in 'fast
forward' fashion? (Not sure of this but heard the budget was 50
million, guess
that doesn't buy as much CGI as I thought these days!) I mean these
years were the most action packed of Elizabeth's reign.
So 'hot-rod' that.

Weird continuity....like we see Raleigh's, I guess that's his ship?,
heading towards the Armada.....(Raleigh, by the way, was not even
in the sea fray, but who cares?)
Framing focuses on that, then cut to the battle, cut to the
'captain's' cabin and we see a map and the implication that there is
an English
fleet in the engagement, where did that fleet come from!,....that's
just plain terrible narrative!

I thought for sure Francis Drake would be missing, but!........
I could swear at the start and during the sea battle, that the guy
who
looked like the commander was referred to, at least twice, as Drake.
Even Raleigh asking him to give the order for his daring do. But
maybe
I  heard it wrong.
That actor playing Drake is not mentioned in the credits.

By the by that sea battle was one weird combo of Battle of
Gravelines,
The Siege of Antwerp (the fireships at Cadiz)  and the North Sea
storm
all done in a The Monty Python 'Summarizing Proust Competition"
framework!
Mighty strange.

By the by what was Shekhar Kapur's problem with Elizabeth's
Speech to the Troops at Tilbury? Replaced with a sort of ok Henry V
pep talk, .....but the original by Elizabeth herself is quite good
enough.(What was good enough for Glenda Jackson and Helen Mirren
not good enough for Blanchett?)
On top of that Kapur's camera and vista as Elizabeth addressed the
troops was plain listless at a time when he
needed a heroic Saint Joan- Henry V firebrand panorama!
Strange.

Seems Kapur had fun with the first film, but just seemed to kind of
give up here, alas.