logo

What has an Indian been doing in the 16th century English court? Directing the Queen, no less. In 1998, when Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth I: The Virgin Queen was released, it was touted as one of the two Oscar hopes for Britain – the other one was John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love, a soft romantic comedy that got much of the attention instead. Kapur did not get an Oscar nomination, however, the film and the lead actress Cate Blanchett did. A very similar thing happened at the Europe’s Golden Globe awards. It looked as if the West was not yet ready to stomach the success of an outsider. Now Kapur has directed a sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The film has opened to mixed reviews,
and that Shekhar Kapur is not able to lay a claim to the best director’s award may, sadly, be justified this time.

It is, however, necessary to discuss (and dismiss) the question of historicity before reviewing this film. A half hour spent on Wikipedia will reveal the obvious: while some details shown in the film are accurate, others are not. For example, it is also historically correct that for her execution, Mary, queen of Scots was taken on to a raised platform, and ‘the executioners and her two servants helped remove a black outer gown, two petticoats, and her corset to reveal a deep red chemise – the liturgical colour of martyrdom in the Catholic Church’. And Elizabeth did make that rousing speech to the troops at Tilbury before the Armada battle. But unlike as shown in the film, Sir Walter Raleigh was definitely not swinging on the ships that set the Armada afire, and the marriage of Raleigh and Elizabeth ‘Bess’ Throckmorton had actually happened a few years after the defeat of the Armada. Now, such historical inaccuracies would have been inexcusable if caused by the filmmakers’ ignorance or if the film was presented as history. But since this film is not laying any claims to historical accuracy, it cannot be judged on the basis of the same. It is indeed legit to do mix and manipulate known facts to create drama. But do they work in this case?

Many of the cast and crew from Elizabeth – the Virgin Queen is present in this film. Apart from the actors, Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush (as Frances Walsingham), the cinematographer (Remi Adefarasin), editor (Jill Bilcock), and costume designer (Alexandra Byrne) continue their work in the sequel. The writer of the former film, Michael Hirst has also continued, though he now shares the credit with William Nicholson. (However, the Earl of Leicester, played by Joseph Fiennes and who was Liz’s love interest in the Virgin Queen is conspicuous by his absence).

The film had potential for great drama. A middle-aged Elizabeth looking for love and companionship with the adventurous Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) while keeping pretensions with her numerous diplomatic suitors; her choice of power over carnal desires and the resultant frustration; the carefully-constructed aura around her virginity; and the conflict between political ambitions and personal desires. And all this set against a challenge of a war from offshore that keeps building up and will threaten to take the kingdom away from Elizabeth. All the film needed was a balanced and nuanced treatment to these interlaced themes. And that is where both the script and the director somewhat fall short.

The script does not fully utilize the inherent conflicts in the Queen’s situation. She is a Protestant resisting the domination of Roman Catholicism but she is also an ambitious queen proving her ‘divine right of kingship’. In her personal life, Elizabeth herself places the ‘glass wall’ between her and the men but then also desires a man’s companionship. Her predicament is such that it is only by suppressing her desires of womanhood that she can fulfill her desire and destiny to rule England. While the script gives a detailed revelation of one side of the conflict (the frustration of her physical and emotional desires), it does not connect that well with her political moves. Instead of a simultaneous movement of her personal life and political events to show the obligatory connection between the two, the film shows her personal life in detail where as the political events seem to intervene only now and then. There is inadequate attention paid to political characters – either they are absent, or one dimensional like the Spanish King (Jordi Molla) who has a single-point devilish agenda to take on the Queen, or, are ineffective, like Frances Walsingham who comes across as a semi-retired paternal figure (by contrast, Geoffrey Rush had shone brightly in his Machiavellian avatar in the previous film). It is suggested that the Spanish attack is an event that makes Elizabeth put her personal problems on the backburner to save the country from danger. I think it was a mistake to separate the personal from the political. The Spanish invasion was also a culmination of Elizabeth’s personal choices (whether it was the execution of a catholic Mary Stuart or the rejection of a diplomatic marriage to a Spanish prince) and it would have been tactically wiser to show her consciously choosing power over love (where one desire conveniently replaces another). But the film opted to play the patriotic angle by positing romantic love against an exalted love for the country. This does not work. And the director who cannot see the weaknesses in the script is as much to blame as the scriptwriter.

An important failing of the Golden Age is also the lack of ‘action’ that a viewer can feel happening on or off the screen. To set a comparison as there inevitably will be, while the story of the succession of the young Elizabeth in the Virgin Queen was set up to look and feel more ‘eventful’, her struggle with her own sexuality and womanhood in this sequel has been able to accommodate only limited action. And the one theme that could have countered this lack – the defeat of the Spanish Armada – is curiously given a summary treatment.

The production design looks rich and correct but is not always used to dramatic purpose (all of Samanatha Morton’s Queen Mary pre-execution sequences seems to be shot in one room). The camerawork indulges in some unnecessary blocking by use of pillars and stained glasses. Nonetheless, there are some elements that work beautifully in the film. The acting is A-class, particularly that of Cate Blanchett as the Queen. The relationship between Queen Elizabeth and the lady-in-waiting, Bess (Abbie Cornish) is interesting, where the latter is not only a companion and confidante, but also the device whereby the queen can vicariously live some of her desires (a touch of lesbian gaze between them, however, appears too modern). The dialogues are impressive in places, especially in their display of the English wit. The costumes of the Queen are more spectacular and innovative than in the previous film, and in keeping with the boldness and confidence of the matured sovereign (however, Sir Walter Raleigh hippy costumes would have made him inadmissible in the Elizabethan court!). The music by Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman is a treat to hear and takes the drama to a higher level in many scenes.

Elizabeth: The Golden age is a case of many slips between the cup and the lip. It could have hit its mark, and yet it doesn’t quite strike there. Shekhar Kapur is now back in India to work and make movies here. For long, he has claimed how ‘Asian’ cinema is going to take on the world. I hope he starts moving the right pieces right here.
- Padmaja Thakore