golden4.jpg

Yippy-Kay-Yay, Mother Country

Elizabeth: The Golden Age / Ranylt Richildis

Film Reviews | October 13, 2007 | Comments (24)


Be careful what you wish for. I’d been hankering for years to see the defeat of the Spanish Armada rendered onscreen, cockteased by countless Elizabeth I movies which flirted with the battle but never quite gave it to me rough and hard enough. Tom Hooper’s recent version with Helen Mirren, I was sure, would finally do for me, but it too skimmed over full representation, preferring politics to pandemonium (not that there’s anything wrong with that). We have the goddamned technology, I complained. Where the hell’s the goddamned flotilla? I’m generally a crotchety CGI-basher, but there’s something about the promise of seeing dozens of Spanish and Portuguese man-of-wars drowning in their own hubris that’s always kind of beckoned. Who doesn’t love a major historical battle writ large, bracketed by a strong cinematic context?

Unfortunately neither the battle scene nor the context in Elizabeth: The Golden Age brought me over completely. And given director Shekhar Kapur’s track record (he of the 1998 Elizabeth as well as Bandit Queen, an unforgettable Indian film about another female who grasps power in a male-dominated world), I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume gouty, gangrenous studio meddling. In fact, it was probably some boardroom dunderpate with the very same gimme my Armada! vision who shat all over the battle sequence and, by extension, most of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Or maybe Kapur’s lost his nuts ‘n bolts since 1998. It’s hard to claim the cause, but the effect is unmistakable: overwrought melodrama. Some of this melodrama pulsed just beneath the surface of Kapur’s first Elizabeth movie, erupting in the final scene with a banging release of tension. But for the most part, that first stab was staid and controlled by contrast. Kapur’s sequel revives the sledgehammer final scene of the original and extends it over the course of an entire movie. Overstuffed metaphor in quiet spurts is palatable, forgivable, and even laudable when done to effect, as it was when Cate Blanchett rose on her dais at the end of Elizabeth as the alabaster sacrifice to her nation. But overstuffed metaphor that roars at you through cloddish teeth for two hours deserves much pointing and laughing.

The Golden Age picks up in 1585. Spain, we’re reminded, is the most powerful empire in the West under Philip II, holy wars rage, and Elizabeth perches on a throne compromised by Mary Stuart’s existence, Catholic unrest, and her own unfulfilled biological drives. Kapur ensures we get the queenhood/ motherhood connection by knocking us over the heads with it in scene after scene. This Elizabeth is a w-o-m-a-n with womanly needs. A good chunk of the film is taken up by a love triangle between the Queen, her favorite lady-in-waiting, and a swashbuckling, puffy-shirted Sir Walter Raleigh. The casting is inspired: beyond Blanchett as Elizabeth (who looks as if she’s about to act out of her own skin, she’s so precise), someone somewhere finally realized that Samantha Morton was born to play Mary Queen of Scots, and Clive Owen born to play Raleigh. Geoffrey Rush, that ubiquitous Elizabeth-film face, lurks in the background as Walsingham, and Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill and Enduring Love — shudder — notwithstanding) once again melts chins and noses with his hotness as a prowling turncoat. Between the cast and the (astonishing) costumes and the cavernous sets, there’s much reason to forgive the film, and much to enjoy; I’ll admit that, despite its flaws and its ridiculous posturing, I was in the right mood to almost delight in the film’s cheesetastic excesses.

But I feel duty-bound to warn readers: the same absurdity that injects The Golden Age with midnight-screening cult potential is bound to piss off legions of more exacting viewers. Clive Owen, for all his talent, deserves much eye-rolling in his bodice-ripping duds, and much hooting during the battle scenes, leaping from burning ship to burning ship with a Douglas Fairbanks swagger, wind-blown and sea-matted just so. The execution of Mary is freakish — Kapur styles and lights Morton like a pin-up girl as she gazes up at the axe-man from her chopping block, erotic and pliant in her legendary red death-dress. The defeat of the Armada is rendered in the deep oils of a Salvator Rosa painting and presented as high myth (as it has, to be fair, come down to the English mind via history). The sky roils overhead, the sea churns, white stallions dive slo-mo into the waves, and bells, rosaries and crucifixes sink into the deep with symbolic finality. This weather/power motif is almost stifling; Kapur takes the famous divine-intervention element of the battle and runs with it like a half-crazed monastic lush. It can’t be left out of the mix — it’s so central to the participants’ point of view and to naval history — but the unleashing of a thousand windy metaphors and declarations flogs the horse, ultimately, to a nauseating red mash.

Despite all this, there’s something in The Golden Age for literature buffs, if for no one else. Kapur and his team have obviously been inspired by Edmund Spenser’s epic love-letter to his monarch, because this particular cinematic Elizabeth is no question the Faerie Queene. When she isn’t wrapped in sky blues and sun golds that mark her out as a divinely appointed ruler or an embodiment of the natural order, Elizabeth floats along in virgin white, surrounded by winged netting, heavenly light ballooning around her. She even inhabits the image of Spenser’s Britomart when she marshals her troops in the trappings of chivalric romance: full armor and a white horse. Kapur’s apparently also read up on his Gothic theory, because he deploys the anti-Catholic tropes that infested the English Gothic novel in the 18th century: Catholic Spain and Mary’s prison-castle are places of shadows and Papist corruption; Philip and his ambassadors are decked out in their signature black; Gothic imagery is associated with the enemy (and with the English court’s own dungeon-full of Catholic traitors languishing in chains and iron-maidens — reflecting the Inquisition anxiety that motivates the Queen). Spiritual and intellectual light can only be found, in other words, in Elizabeth’s nation. It’s an old bias that courses through English literature from the Renaissance on, and Kapur excels in reproducing that patriotic/xenophobic state of mind by plunging into England’s Gothic repertoire, paying attention to his use of light and shadows, fiddling with the sublime during the battle scenes, and fashioning a world seen through English Protestant eyes, bigoted as they were.

Ranylt Richildis lives in Ottawa, Canada. She can usually be found sneezing in college libraries or dropping chalk in lecture halls, but she’s somehow managed to squeeze in a film or two a day for the last decade.


We Own the Night | Why Did I Get Married?



Comments

"drowning in their own hubris" - I love it!!

The bodice-ripping, swashbuckling elements of this movie were laughable - although not as laughable as Princess Isabella's arch looks at her father after their defeat.

I wish, in the case of Mary, that they had played to common anecdotes and had her dog come out from under her skirts after she had been beheaded. Putting that little terrier in the scenes before and then just omitting him was just disappointing. My bleeding, historical heart was just waiting for it.

Posted by: Christina at October 13, 2007 1:34 PM

Curses. I also wanted to love this, for all parties involved (Fueled by my crush on Cate and my man-crush on Clive).

Really though, excellent review. I also loved the hubris line.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 13, 2007 5:06 PM

I admit I'm not the biggest history buff, so I can't comment on how accurate it was or anything. But I enjoyed it, if only because my socks were knocked off by Cate Blanchett.

Posted by: lizzle at October 13, 2007 7:07 PM

I agree with this review. Though I winced through some of the melodrama, on the whole The Golden AGe was lots of fun for the costumes, Cate Blanchett (oh my, she was awesome), Clive Owen and Samantha Morton.

Posted by: Kristin at October 13, 2007 7:42 PM

By all accounts Mary's execution was freaky. The axeman was sloppy as hell and went to town on her neck.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 13, 2007 8:00 PM

fantastic review

Ranylt Richildis, I am won over

Posted by: Thaf at October 13, 2007 8:27 PM

Wow, great review. But seriously. this movie could be a big steaming dog turd and we'd still go see it and pay full-price. We're whores like that, my husband and I.

Tonight, in fact, we're watching the 1998 version and last weekend, we watched the Glenda Jackson version from the 60s (I think, or 70s?). The Mary execution scene in that old flick is GREAT.

Anyway, we're both history buffs, I'm the lit fiend, so we'll see. We're taking our 13 year old daughter, despite the violence. I think she can handle it and I love the fact that she's about to wet herself to see it, too.

Posted by: Kathy at October 13, 2007 8:45 PM

Crap. This is the fourth review I've glanced at to sorta-pan the movie. I've been looking forward to it for months. I'll still see it of course but I'm definitely getting the wind knocked out of my sails, so to speak.

On a plus, maybe we'll get a remastered and Hi-Def release of Elizabeth when this hits DVD. My copy of that movie looks pretty terrible on an HD TV.

Posted by: Rob at October 13, 2007 8:54 PM

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT I would add that there was a FLAGRANT under-use of Tom Hollander. FLAGRANT.

Posted by: redbeaniegirl at October 13, 2007 10:18 PM

ELIZABETH II: THE REVENGE...they fucked with her country - big mistake! Weather/Power Motifs! Catholic unrest! Symbolic finality! This time it's personal, bitches!

Posted by: Case at October 14, 2007 5:39 PM

Man, I was so disappointed to hear such bad things about this movie, and was completely ready to skip it altogether. But now you tell me both Gothic sensibility and the Faerie Queen get alluded to? That plus Clive Owen in all his ridiculous awesomeness must be seen. Thanks for alerting us not just to the bad, but also the good. Fantabulous review.

Posted by: kalexal at October 14, 2007 5:54 PM

Case, that was hilarious!!!! :D Love it.

Posted by: D at October 14, 2007 6:27 PM

Ranylt, you are my new favorite Pajiban. I read this about eleven hours ago, and all the doo dah day since I've been muttering "yippy-kay-aye mother country" to myself and giggling furtively. All my friends think I'm batshit crazy, but...totally worth it. Hee.

Posted by: isabelle at October 15, 2007 12:46 AM

If you go to see Elizabeth The Golden Age--and I do not recommend that you do--play this fun game that is sure to be a hit at midnight viewings:

It's called count the microphones! About half this flick features boom mics dangling into the frame. Count them out loud with all the audience! You'll easily hit 150 or so.

And as an added bonus, shout really loudly when you see the entire boom and mic. (Hint: it's in one of those scenes that are filmed through a latticework.)

The production was really amateurish, and that makes it fodder for cult status.

Posted by: Robert at October 15, 2007 1:29 AM

Ranylt, I must compliment you on your writing style. Not too much and not too little. You show off without being obvious. Don't change a thing.

Posted by: OldSchool at October 15, 2007 9:23 AM

I'm with Isabelle - "Yippy-Kay-Yay, Mother Country" makes me laugh everytime I see it. Hee!

Fantastic review, RanyIt.

Posted by: Edith at October 15, 2007 9:56 AM

In the first movie, I was willing to forgive innacuracies, because it told a great story and was well shot and well acted. This didn't have that going for me. Elizabeth has somehow been reduced to a petulant,whiny bitch, and WAY to many characters became black and white (a pit fall the first one avoided). The acting was good, but couldn't overcome the script. And THEN there was the playing rough-shod with history.

Posted by: Rowen at October 15, 2007 10:27 AM

We saw it Saturday night -- been waiting for months, couldn't resist despite the underwhelming reviews. Love Cate, love Clive, love Geoffrey, love British history. You could say I'm the target audience.

Two comments to sum up how I felt about this film:

Huge budget + one of the greatest naval battles in history = mild mouse fart.

Samantha Morton wasted with about five minutes of total screen time. Bwuh.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at October 15, 2007 10:30 AM

"Dunderpate"!! I adore you. The review was as wonderful as the movie was mediocre. I would change only one word, the final word, which I would make present tense. Brava!

Posted by: rudy at October 15, 2007 2:31 PM

I personally was unaware that Sir Walter Raleigh singlehandedly defeated the entire Spanish armada. I mean, Clive Owen is the father of my babies and all, but I still had to laugh. I was pretty surprised when I found out this was the same director of the first one. There was a bit of melodrama in the 1998 film, but nothing like this. It wasn't unenjoyable per se, but definitely bordered on silliness (and occasionally crossed that border), and I wouldn't say it bears repeat viewing.

Posted by: MG at October 15, 2007 3:29 PM

I have been reading the reviews and comments on this site for a long time, but have never contributed to any of the discussions. I have decided to break that tradition because I am completely EXHAUSTED of the cinematic hold that Elizabeth I has on an era that produced more than its fair share of remarkable (at times, infamous) women. I am DEAD tired of yet another movie about Elizabeth. I am tired of elevation of the defeat of the Armada. The Spanish Armada was doomed from the start--the original commander died before the expedition could take place and was replaced by the Duke of Medina Sidonia (who would have gotten seasick in the bathtub and had no real experience as a commanding officer); many of the ships that made up the Armada were not designed for service in the North Atlantic (only three ships of the line were lost)...and I could go on. I understand that for the English (and by extension, those of English descent) this is a story from which the MYTH OF NATION can (and has been) nurtured and consolidated, but DAMMIT, no MORE ELIZABETH!! Even if Clive Owens brings back the potatoes!

Posted by: Marifer71 at October 15, 2007 10:36 PM

Marifer, I couldn't agree more.

Not only am I sick of Elizabeth I, I am sick of the entire Tudor family! Hollywood would have us believe that they were the only old royal family that ever did anything film-worthy.

How many hundred uninterrupted years of Plantagenet rule, and the only movie we get about them is "The Lion in Winter"?!? (Adaptations of Shakespeare don't count.) How I would love a good, accurate film about Richard III, just to name one.

Posted by: AelaC at October 16, 2007 11:26 AM

While the movie was ok (just ok, no where as near as good as the first),it did make me unlove Clive Owen, he is now off my crush list.I am sure that breaks his heart, lol.

Posted by: Lea at October 17, 2007 12:07 PM

"a world seen through English Protestant eyes, bigoted as they were."

gee, the Inquisitions have just been a total PR nightmare for the papists........

ah, but the truth does sting.

English Prot eyes, bigoted against total theocratic hegemony, lurid corruption, and slow torture undo death for millions.

they've got my vote.

but agreed, royal exhaustion.

Posted by: kikz at January 30, 2008 8:19 AM