Date: Fri 14-May-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: SARAH

Quick Words:

Elizabeth-Blanchett-Dench

Full Text:

NOW PLAYING: Suffering From The "Been There, Done That" Just-Released Blues

By Trey Paul Alexander III

Almost by rule, rarely do similarly themed films released in the same year (or

within one year) fare well. One, usually the latter picture released, suffers

because moviegoers feel they've "been there, seen that." Recently, we

witnessed a rare exception when both Deep Impact and Armageddon -- films

featuring celestial objects hurtling towards Earth with cataclysmic

ramifications -- hit it big at the box office. Yet, the last 12 months have

also given us the under-performing The Thin Red Line, a World War II drama

that had the unenviable task of following on the heels of critical and

commercial success Saving Private Ryan , and EDtv, which tanked after The

Truman Show staked out similar territory, both of which help prove my original

hypothesis.

Now, you may be asking at this point, so what!? Well, the film under the

microscope this week is Elizabeth , which is now available on videocassette.

This Oscar-nominated picture, directed by Shekkhar Kapur, features resplendent

art direction and costuming, some of which cannot be fully appreciated on the

small screen, and a glorious performance by Cate Blanchett in the title role.

However, I found myself not wholly taken by the film, and the reason why has

to do with the rule mentioned above.

Before I viewed this film, I had seen Shakespeare in Love , the eventual

Oscar-winner for Best Picture, and was won over by Judi Dench's scene-stealing

work as an imposingly regal and wry Queen Elizabeth. The opportunity to see a

film which chronicled the tumultuous early moments of this legendary queen's

rule became very appealing, and thus I eagerly went into Elizabeth with high

hopes for further insight into this bigger-than-life royal figure from

England's 16th Century. Elizabeth strives to deliver, yet I left unsatisfied,

mainly due to Dench's indelible impression.

Elizabeth covers only the opening portion of a reign that would eventually

span over 40 years. When the 25-year-old Elizabeth (Blanchett) is crowned, she

enters a contentious time of battling powers, both national and religious, and

a twisted political landscape of a complexity rivaling anything going on in

our current Capitol's climate. This is a point both Kapur and screenwriter

Michael Hirst seem desperate for us to grasp, as they work hard to make the

machinations of centuries-old politics appear just as relevant as anything

involving Bill, Monica or Ken.

For the most part, it works. The novice queen, taken with the Earl of

Leicester (Joseph Fiennes), fails to grasp the gravity of her situation and

underestimates the duality of her top advisers, especially a sinister Duke of

Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), who would rather see her dead by duplicitous

means than bow loyally to her throne. To help her navigate these potentially

lethal waters is a mysterious operative, Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey

Rush), who will seemingly do whatever necessary to protect her from all foes.

Blanchett is gripping as a young Elizabeth who must learn to lead as she goes

without bringing herself or her country to ruin. Yet as the movie progresses,

too many of her choices seem reactive instead of pro-active to what is going

on around her; the commanding Elizabeth from Shakespeare in Love is too often

absent while many crucial moves are made behind-the-scenes by the sly

Walsingham. As Elizabeth begins to gain her voice, whether holding court

before Parliament or stating defiantly to the earl, "I am no man's Elizabeth,"

she demands our attention and admiration, but just as the film starts to gain

momentum, including a climax seemingly inspired by The Godfather, it ends, and

I for one was left wanting to see more of Blanchett as the authoritative queen

than the formative one on display for most of the film.

Maybe Elizabeth , rated R for violence, occasionally randy language and sexual

situations, is more true to historical record then my imagination would prefer

it to be, but I was left feeling she was portrayed -- by the screenplay, not

necessarily by Blanchett -- as too passive. Not enough key decisions were

attributed to her, but rather were motivated by men, most specifically

Walsingham (though Rush, totally different from his bumbling role in

Shakespeare in Love ) is a joy to watch as well. Admittedly, this may be my

bias after seeing Shakespeare in Love, and unfortunately, for Elizabeth , I

just couldn't shake it.