Elizabeth
I had held myself back from seeing this prestigious film, a spicy historical narrative on the early years of Queen Elizabeth+s reign, because I perceived that it was going to have certain anti-Catholic elements. For the record, I don+t participate in industry-wide boycotts, (nor do I condemn such), but I am sensitive in what I consider to be personally offensive. A critic being _offended_? Mmm hmm.
But ultimately, my voice was being demanded to be heard, especially from some close friends who (1) saw it/liked it, (2) pointed out that history can+t be debated with. The cheapie theatre had it playing. The nominations came in, and it unseated _Truman Show_. Okay, okay, twist my arm.
The movie opens with a tragic scene: three individuals, devout Protestants, are being burned at the stake for heresy. We don+t know who they are. Immediately our hearts go out to them. Dying for ideological differences is unheard of in the free world (but still commonplace in Communistic and Islamic societies), and besides, they+re praying. And burning is gruesome. Such is the opening point of the film; controversial, but a sad truth.
For this to be the beginning, it is assumed that the film will keep the religious element strong throughout the entirity of the film. Not so. The auspicous beginning is only a MacGuffin. As the film progresses, it loses interest in the ideological elements, and gains interest in Elizabeth+s transformation from promiscuous lover to "virgin queen." Violence first, and when it gets talky, switch to sex. And back again.
Does that make the screenwriters unfair to Catholics? Hmmm... Late in the film, another public execution occurs. This time, three Catholics having their heads chopped off and put on sticks. It is clear that at least one of them is very devout, and was in this dilemna because he followed through with his religious convictions. Fairness in translation? Not quite.
They were sentenced, not for heresy, but for being secretive political adversaries of the Queen. (Note that we don+t know if the ones killed in the beginning had done the same). Also, by this time we are jaded, and the focus of the story at this juncture is far more interested in the Queen+s personal love history than in the "deeper issues" of ideology. When one of the Catholic martyrs says, that they expect to be remembered, Geoffrey Rush+s character smirks... "No they won+t." Sadly, he+s right.
This isn+t the only incident of awkward jabs where the Catholics are the "bad guys". They are scattered throughout, with little pricks, here and there, as if they weren+t big enough to warrant a notice. Take the initial scenes at the Vatican. You hear that ominous minor-key chord. The rooms are dark and gloomy. The bottom text is in Bigger letters, in CAPS, THE VATICAN. You see the Pope, played by John Gielgud, who+s not Italian, and who sneers his way through the brief cameo. Not a mention is made about the historic changes about to occur in Trent, where a Catholic Counter-Reformation revival was about to occur. It is there that reforms were made to stop the abuses that occurred in the clergy, such as the misuses of indulgences. But you wouldn+t know that from this film.
Then there+s this Spanish friar, wearing a black garb, has a disheveled appearance and is at times walking in slow-mo, with that same droning minor-key chord. Technically, this character+s only sin is that he+s Spanish, and represents a threat to the queen that she will marry the Spanish Duke. And the sins of the Duke? That he is crazy, has an obnoxious laugh, and is a transvestite. Yep.
I+ve heard Evangelical Protestants praise the film, but it does no justice to them either. Elizabeth+s chief aide, played by Sir Richard Attenborough, is initially a powerful ally, but he degenerates into an inept politician. A nice guy, means well, but consistently making the wrong calls. He persuades the Queen to fight France in one scene, and little children soldiers are killed.
Who+s the positive point-of-reference? It+s not the Catholics, they+re the ominous enemy. Not the Protestants, they+re inept. And not Elizabeth. She is totally dependent upon her aides. The only character who understands the fullness of the political dilemnas is Rush+s character, a scheming, murderous, lothario. Because he+s agnostic, thus, not tied to any religious affiliation, he is the strongest hero in the film. And all Elizabeth does is rise up to the challenge of trusting him.
I do not doubt that Elizabethan history has its high and low points, as does Christian history. But what _Elizabeth_ does is it takes all the most campy elements of that historical period, and display it as much as a sexual thriller as possible. It+s the _Insider Edition_ hitting the textbooks.
This is unfortunate, because there is something very deeply profound that occurred during that period. Elizabeth, in establishing Anglicanism, declared perhaps the most major political and ideological settlement in world history. The phrase "VIA MEDIA" (In the Middle), long the anthem for Anglicans and Episcopalians, is not uttered, not once. It means that the Anglicans are schisming with Papal authority, but they are retaining the liturgy. It means that they become Catholic _and_ Protestant. It is the triumph of compromise.
For a film that begins with the burning "heretics" at the stake, it loses its focus. The proper climax would be the instituting of Anglicanism, the power of "Via Media", and the ensuing political calm. But it doesn+t. Instead, it shifts focus once it gets too talky, so that when this issue is finally resolved, apathy had already settled in. When the three Catholics are beheaded, we could care less whether they had deep religious devotion or not.
I must re-emphasize: I am speaking for myself, and not for any existing watchdog group. If it sounds that I am reactionary, or overly sensitive, so be it. I recognize that art criticism is a subjective experience, and there is no doubt that there may be devout Catholics out there who have seen this film, and probably enjoyed it. Subjectively speaking, what I saw is enough for me to be lukewarm, in the worst of ways. The acting is great, the direction is unique, the cinemotography is colorful... YAWN. So what. _Birth of a Nation_, among the most racist movies ever made, is an artistic triumph too.
Nick Scale (1 to 10): 5
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews