This Is Disappointing

I was reading Lainey today and was shocked to see that under a post about Cate Blanchette she seemed to be saying that ‘Elizabeth: The Golden Age’ wasn’t being received well by the critics. Especially Variety. So I went to the Variety website and read the review for myself. And she’s right. The guy hated it. Read it here. What shocked me so much about this was that I saw this at TIFF and loved it. I thought it was well made and, quite frankly, luminous. So here’s what I think, in response to this review:

I sincerely wish that people would stop looking at the movies as though they were intended to be made as actual biographic fact, especially when looking at the lives of real people. Most often these are theatrical representations of what history has told us to be true. In many cases, the actual life of the subject is really a suggestion — a ‘guideline’ if you will — used as a platform to tell a good story. And that is what this movie is. It’s a good story. It’s a political thriller wrapped in a love story. No one complained when it took almost two hours before the Titanic sunk and then still took another 45 mins to ACTUALLY sink. No one complained when there were characters in Bravehart who did not actually ever *live* at the same time in history. Those things were chocked up to ‘artistic’ license. They were, in fact, applauded for them. I believe even an award or two. But a movie that is less pop-art than Marie Antoinette but less historical fact than Schindler’s List (which is questionable in light of Munich, but you get my point) can simply not seem to exist in their mindset.

That I saw in this movie was a portrait. A portrait of a monarch who was, at her most basic, a human being as well. And while the Variety review indicates that many of the situations in this movie make her seem more ‘common’ than ‘human’, I believe that was actually the fact. What the movie really does is to strike a delicate balance between the two. There are some very regal moments and there are some very common moments. I do not believe that to be overwrought about having to kill a member of the monarchy counts as ‘queenly’. I believe that any common person would be devastated at having to order someone’s death. If they’re not, then something’s wrong. And if you’re a woman and Clive Owen‘s portrayal of Sir Walter Raleigh did NOT make you weak in the knees, I also think there’s something wrong with you. There was clearly not something wrong with the queen.

Of course the production values were excellent, which was also indicated by our friend at Variety. What was also indicated by that Variety review was that Cate Blanchette was magnificent. While it’s true that her work in ‘I’m Not There‘ is what’s getting her noticed this year, I really felt that this was a standout performance, even for her. Unfortunately, I probably give actors too much leeway. When I see a terse, measured, toned performance like the one Cate gave in this film, my mind often goes to wondering how many takes were required to get such a commanding scene. I imagine not very many, but in the case of Cate, I know that each one would have been as good as the last. It is often said of Gary Oldman that he refines his performance with every take. He’s always changing the performance, nuancing it. I imagine the same thing is true of Cate Blanchette and so, when I watch her final product I also have respect for the work I’m not actually seeing. Too much leeway? Probably. But she deserves it.

To sum up here, I really think that this movie could have been a breakout movie this year, but not with that review from Variety. I still sincerely hope that it will be well regarded by the fans. It deserves the same due as the original and, if nothing else, *I* urge you to see it as soon as it’s in wide release.