Let me start this review by letting myself out that I was not impressed by “Elizabeth”. It just did not do it for me. Despite some mystical performance by Geoffrey Rush which is the only one stood apart, the movie lacked soul and content. Cate Blanchett is animated and does shine in couple of scenes but does not make up the movie for its lethargic and dull screenplay.
The movie is the emergence of Elizabeth – I (Cate Blanchett) from a very early age as a queen. During 1558, with Catholic and Protestant forming the matrix of religious chaos, Elizabeth as Protestant takes upon the throne from her half sister. With many sour tongues, she believes in her conscience. Things are not going England’s way and she need to have a marriage of convenience for saving the Kingdom. But her love is for Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) and at the ripe age of enjoying life, she is dumbfounded by the responsibility of the Queen. And also she needs to survive the dangers her very own men pose upon her. The political drama along with her advisor Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) takes its final stage going through the tour of betrayal, jealousy and maturity.
As such the movie can be compared to the gangster emergence of Michael Corleone in “The Godfather”. The problem of course is that there is no proper guidance or she does not utilize and realize her actual power to govern things differing from the authoritative and clever Michael. The mood and style of the movie did not impress me at all. Director Shekar Kapur’s choice of going with the dull but exhibitory display of the saga amplified the dullness than the decoration. Elizabeth is caught in between the age and the responsibility. Her little to no experience among the men of commanding voices and degrading eyes are not something a very seasoned person can handle. The film does not capitalize on it. She wanders aimlessly with emotions animated but not hard hitting.
I am going to be crucified for telling this but I cannot believe how Blanchett won an Academy Award for Best Actress. Not that she is miserable in the role but the strength of her stand is not justified enough. Her play of innocence and realization in the start fits well. Especially I admired the scene she practices with herself before appearing for the discussion of the policy of having a single church. She is captivating in bringing that moment of fear, responsibility and authority nicely with precise innocence. And immediately it slowly starts to fail one by one. There is no real emotion coming after that. In fact the character sketch is flawed that her reaction to the knowing of Dudley being married can be quoted as an example.
At any point of time, I was not with the movie. It did not generate any empathy over the character. Say if I read the history of Elizabeth, it will be the monotone recital of the events. There may be sympathy and respect imagined by us over the situation. But even after the watching the whole unfolding of events as a film, I was not able to sense that even remotely. I do not deny the hardship, danger and sacrifice she went through but the film is a slow dragging piece to consume energy from the audience in a way which also consumes the dry emotions out of them.
There is a sense of detachment in every person. When Dudley says he loves Elizabeth in entire true sense, I was not able to believe it. I was not able to believe that she believes it too. Even though Geoffrey Rush nails the shadowy character of Francis Walsingham, there is no attachment in his actions too. So I thought this is how following orders and acting on the good of country means but that is not proven good enough.
Overall as Elizabeth, we are constantly left to search the answers and feelings out of our own in a movie devoid of those. The second installment arrives this year from the same team showing the reign of golden age of Elizabeth. While every one expects it with eagerness and assured class of art, I will be expecting it too. My expectations are to see the Elizabeth with unanimated and convincing character trapped in the midst of religion, people and country.
The movie is the emergence of Elizabeth – I (Cate Blanchett) from a very early age as a queen. During 1558, with Catholic and Protestant forming the matrix of religious chaos, Elizabeth as Protestant takes upon the throne from her half sister. With many sour tongues, she believes in her conscience. Things are not going England’s way and she need to have a marriage of convenience for saving the Kingdom. But her love is for Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) and at the ripe age of enjoying life, she is dumbfounded by the responsibility of the Queen. And also she needs to survive the dangers her very own men pose upon her. The political drama along with her advisor Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) takes its final stage going through the tour of betrayal, jealousy and maturity.
As such the movie can be compared to the gangster emergence of Michael Corleone in “The Godfather”. The problem of course is that there is no proper guidance or she does not utilize and realize her actual power to govern things differing from the authoritative and clever Michael. The mood and style of the movie did not impress me at all. Director Shekar Kapur’s choice of going with the dull but exhibitory display of the saga amplified the dullness than the decoration. Elizabeth is caught in between the age and the responsibility. Her little to no experience among the men of commanding voices and degrading eyes are not something a very seasoned person can handle. The film does not capitalize on it. She wanders aimlessly with emotions animated but not hard hitting.
I am going to be crucified for telling this but I cannot believe how Blanchett won an Academy Award for Best Actress. Not that she is miserable in the role but the strength of her stand is not justified enough. Her play of innocence and realization in the start fits well. Especially I admired the scene she practices with herself before appearing for the discussion of the policy of having a single church. She is captivating in bringing that moment of fear, responsibility and authority nicely with precise innocence. And immediately it slowly starts to fail one by one. There is no real emotion coming after that. In fact the character sketch is flawed that her reaction to the knowing of Dudley being married can be quoted as an example.
At any point of time, I was not with the movie. It did not generate any empathy over the character. Say if I read the history of Elizabeth, it will be the monotone recital of the events. There may be sympathy and respect imagined by us over the situation. But even after the watching the whole unfolding of events as a film, I was not able to sense that even remotely. I do not deny the hardship, danger and sacrifice she went through but the film is a slow dragging piece to consume energy from the audience in a way which also consumes the dry emotions out of them.
There is a sense of detachment in every person. When Dudley says he loves Elizabeth in entire true sense, I was not able to believe it. I was not able to believe that she believes it too. Even though Geoffrey Rush nails the shadowy character of Francis Walsingham, there is no attachment in his actions too. So I thought this is how following orders and acting on the good of country means but that is not proven good enough.
Overall as Elizabeth, we are constantly left to search the answers and feelings out of our own in a movie devoid of those. The second installment arrives this year from the same team showing the reign of golden age of Elizabeth. While every one expects it with eagerness and assured class of art, I will be expecting it too. My expectations are to see the Elizabeth with unanimated and convincing character trapped in the midst of religion, people and country.
2 comments:
Great blog
Thanks Stace ! Keep visiting and do not hesitate to provide feedback :-) !
Post a Comment