Elizabeth: The Golden Age ...some notes

Won't repeat exactly the same criticisms found many places about this
film they are pretty much on the money. 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 set before the 19th century (thought that does not always
guarantee historical accuracy for the 19th and 20th, but those
centuries
sometimes seem treated better.)
Real history is full of such odd turns and twists and delightful
details
that I 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 , alas they seldom rise to the challenge.
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.
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!)

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 frey, 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.

And that's just a few of the things!

Al wrote:
> Won't repeat exactly the same criticisms found many places about this
> film they are pretty much on the money. 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 set before the 19th century (thought that does not always
> guarantee historical accuracy for the 19th and 20th, but those
> centuries
> sometimes seem treated better.)

As Gore Vidal said, "real history is nothing more then the final
fiction". Who's to say what historical accuracy is? I liked THE GOLDEN
AGE too, although it was somewhat disappointing compared to ELIZABETH,
which was wonderful. This new film is a bit too pompous for it's own
good, but it does have alot of enjoyable things in it. You're right, I
could watch Blanchett in just about anything. She is the queen. But I
think Clive Owen is a rather mediocre actor and is not very
charismatic as Raleigh. That was one of the main problems for me.