Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age is finally here and the acclaim for Cate Blanchett's return to her most celebrated role has come thick and fast. While some may find Blanchett astounding as she defies the Spanish Armada, inspires a nation and courts Clive Owen's debonair interpretation of Sir Walter Raleigh, all at the same time, for me it left a hollow and unsatisfied feeling

Problem is, this really doesn't show us what actually happened. All movies play around somewhat with historical fact but here history is turned on its head, the Elizabethan court seems to live in various cathedrals, Mary Queen of Scots who was reared in France has an accent which wouldn’t be out of place in the Gorbals in Glasgow and much more.
The Vatican has also weighed in and described Shekhar Kapur's sequel to 1998's award-winning Elizabeth is a "distorted anti-papal travesty" which represents a "concerted attack on Catholicism, the Holy See and Papism". "Why put out this perverse anti-Catholic propaganda just at the moment when we are trying desperately to revive our western identity in the face of the Islamic threat, presumed or real?" complains Professor Franco Cardini. "A film which so profoundly and perversely falsifies history cannot be judged a good film." What has got this Vatican-backed academic so hot under the dog collar? Why, none other than the movie's depiction of King Philip II of Spain, seen here as an obsessed fundamentalist determined to depose England's Protestant Queen and return her country to what he sees as the one true faith.

Jordi Molla's portrayal of the Spanish monarch does partly bear out Professor Cardini's complaints that he is represented as a "ferocious, fanatical madman". For me the problem is that this influential ruler, who did have many flaws including bankrupting Spain by his death, is presented as a cartoon character with no qualities. He had been married to Elizabeth’s half sister Mary Tudor and knew English politics well but his responses during his reign to the rebellion in the Spanish Netherlands; The Moricos in Spain and the rebellion in Aragon showed he was no fanatic and certainly no fool. The defeat of the Armada was his great failure but this owed far more to storms (“The Protestant Wind”) than to any naval engagement and the defeat of the Armada was no more certain than England’s victory. In fact the Armada was not “defeated” it just failed to achieve its mission and Spain remained a great naval power for another 50 years.

But what was hardest to bear was Walter Raleigh played as a cocky likely lad by Clive Owen not the scholar of Oriel College, Oxford which he was in fact. You can just imagine the scene where this ludicrous script developed as a phalanx of American producers demand changes to increase its kerb appeal in the U.S. So we have Walter Raleigh leading the English Fleet and sending the fire ships amongst the Armada at Gravelines even though he never went to sea against them. No mention here of Sir Francis Drake or indeed of the admiral of the English Fleet, Lord Howard of Effingham. And then Walter Raleigh is presented to the Queen with potatos, tobacco and American Indians and mentions his colony in America. (Today Raleigh, N.C.). Equally unlikely is the film's love triangle between Sir Walter Raleigh, Elizabeth and her assistant Elizabeth Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish). All this is a travesty of reality designed to be “Box Office” in the states. Elizabeth is shown watching the Armada in flames. She must have had excellent eyesight as she only travelled to address her army at Tilbury on the Thames and the Spanish Armada was at Gravelines on the Dutch coast 75 miles away!

This Elizabeth is also presented as a Protestant fanatic when in reality she was largely tolerant and wanted to heal the religious divisions in England after the extremism of Mary Tudor. Elizabeth was largely driven by the realpolitik of England’s survival and maintaining national unity and she largely succeeded in neutralising religion as a divisive force in England. So there is too much of a black and white cartoon quality about the movie. But for me along with the made up history the shallowness of the narrative grated. There is impressive acting talent here but it is not used properly and the movie progresses from one visual sound bite to another with the narrative development discarded at each cameo scene. It is a waste of the impressive acting deployed in favour of shallow art direction.

In the end the difficulty is this, with such an interesting reality why not tell it straight rather than make a cartoon with real actors. There is a great story to be told here but Elizabeth: The Golden Age does not tell that story. In the end it is candy which gives a sugar rush but afterwards still leaves you hungry.

User-agent: Mediapartners-Google*
Disallow: