Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Written by Michael Hirst
Starring Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Finnes, Richard Attenborough, and Christopher Eccleston
As Reviewed by James Brundage
Of all of the things that Whoopi Goldberg said at the Academy Awards, outrageous, often unfunny, and definitely uncreative as s most of them were, the one most true was her opening. Her opening stated, while she was dressed in full Elizabethan regalia, that “this is a year about movies made to honor me.”
Elizabeth is one of the two movies with the Virgin Queen (hah!) of England in them, the other, and far better one being Shakespeare in Love. It follows Elizabeth, portrayed by a much thinner Cate Blanchett, through being a princess to being the target of multiple assassination attempts to eventually marrying herself to England.
I will grant the film a point of merit on the account that, in my four years of work as a film critic, I have never once watched a political thriller set in the 16th century. I will also grant it a few kudos on performances, on costumes, on lighting, cinematography, and rather skilled direction all together. But, please, Best Picture?
Normally, when viewing the nominations for the awards, some of them (i.e. Sound F/Xs Editing and Special F/Xs) have only three nominees, three films which were judged to be the best. Why can’t they do Best Picture the same way? This year we deserved tie between Saving Private Ryan, Shakespeare in Love, and Life is Beautiful, three excellent films that all equally deserved the prize. However, as our shoo-in nominations we gave The Thin Red Line, a nod (which it didn’t deserve, although I maintain my support of the film) and we also gave Elizabeth a tap on the shoulder.
I can understand The Thin Red Line. For one, it is a much better film. For two, it was directed by Terrance Malick, a man who is the J.D. Salinger (or Thomas Pynchon, if you prefer the truly postmodernist trend) of filmmaking. Here is a person who hasn’t made a film in 20 years and still hasn’t lost his touch. Counter this with the Shekhar Kapur, a man who has never made a film I have heard about much less seen. Not to say that a first major work of a director isn’t always a bad thing (i.e. David Lynch, Jim Jarmush, Kevin Smith, Gus Van Sant), but please make it something that just doesn’t ride Hollywood’s latest binge of the costume drama.
I am not saying, mark you, that the film was bad. Far from it, it is actually one of the best films of the last year that I saw, but let us contrast this with the concept that, in order for a film to be nominated for Best Picture, it should display a mastery, not a plain old good job, of all aspects of filmmaking. Elizabeth, although featuring outstanding performances, falters on storyline. Were this political thriller set in modern day, with the same performances, I would review it terribly. However, it is not.
Elizabeth does have certain interesting qualities, which are the only aspects that make the film enjoyable. For one, it displays a brilliantly dark character in Geoffrey Rush’s portrayal of Sir Francis Walsingham, a cold-blooded killer. Christopher Eccleston similarly gives an excellent performance of the “villain” of the film, although with a movie like Elizabeth, Mr. Hyde would seem like a nice guy.
The biggest flaws in the film are very simple, and the same mistake that A Perfect Murder made: all of the characters are so utterly unlikable that the story has no hold over you. Even knowing the ending (based on history), I personally wanted Elizabeth to get killed. It’s not bad acting: the acting was great. It’s bad parts.
I will spend my last little bit complaining about the writer. The writer, a no one named Michael Hirst, will be completely forgotten after this review. Aside from people like Stephen Zallian, no one knows who writes the movies, and thus this man will be forever forgotten for taking a movie that had excellent potential and sinking it like a submarine in “Battleship.”