After watching the movie, when I checked the relevant information on the Internet, I saw a blog commenting on the movie, titled: Absurdly anachronistic. More than anachronistic, many parts are fictitious, and some are "plot" modifications made for good looks. Does this also count as "editing historical facts"? Cate Blanchett, who plays Elizabeth I, said: "It's terrifying that we are growing up with this very illiterate bunch of children, who are somehow being taught that film is fact, when infact it's invention. Hopefully though an historical film will inspire people to go and read about the history. But in the end it is a work ofhistory and selection." I don't think I've been in the tragic situation of illiterate, but when I see the history in the movie is almost completely rewritten, I've gone to not just change the angle Explanation, but the degree of reconstruction, I still feel a little uncomfortable with this "selection". But if I can accept the fiction of The Da Vinci Code, why can't I accept this Elizabeth: The Golden Age? For this double-standard, I myself have not been able to understand.
I have a lot to say about this film. First, it is my favorite "Western costume film". Second, this British history was the focus of the master's program that year. Portraits by Portrait Gallery, Saint John's College in Cambridge, music by Tudor England, etc etc). But there are so many things to jot down lately, and things are happening faster than I can remember (The Assassination of Jesse James was written a full week after I watched it, and this is the case with Elizabeth: The Golden Age; pending also After reading The Kite Runner, The Darjeeling Limited and a new album of LOMO...), so I can only talk about it in general.
Cate Blanchett is a queen as soon as she stands up, which Elizabeth has confirmed in the last episode, no need to say it again. Her clothes are fresh, comparable to Kirsten Dunst's Marie Antoinette, which confirms that she is the trend indicator of Elizabethan England, and the most important thing in historical movies is the clothes, except for some sets of clothes, which are based on a few Elizabeth I The rest of the famous portraits are based on the costumes of the time plus the current trend elements. They are both classical and modern, and are highly visible.
Sir Walter Raleigh of Clive Owen can be ignored. Standing in the middle of a crowd of good actors, his lack of acting skills and "too modern" (hate his accent in the movie, and after such a historical blockbuster, the next step is to learn a 16th century British accent Well, please!) It’s so obvious at a glance, it’s a shame. And there is also a very Pirates of the Caribbean boat scene that obviously wants to give him a chance to be handsome, but he can't afford to be handsome... Even the friends next to him want to beat people...
Abbie Cornish, who plays Elizabeth Throckmorton, is young and beautiful, a bit like Nicole Kidman, only to find out later that she is the girl from Somersault. That year, the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square showed Somersault. I wanted to see it, but I didn't go. I wonder if I can find it in Hong Kong. (I don't know why they are looking for Australians to play the British.)
Later, the tag line of the movie was: Queen, Woman, Warrior. Say exactly what the director wants to say. A strong and intelligent queen, a weak woman who is trapped in love and saddened by old age, and a warrior who sacrificed for her country. There was nothing wrong with this angle at first, but the Feminism of the empress trapped in the court who expected to go out to sea with Sir Walter Raleigh was a bit outdated in 2008. The description of The Battle of Armada (1588) is too sloppy (those with Clive Owen flying around can be avoided), which is the biggest flaw in the whole movie. After all, if Britain hadn’t won that naval battle, history would have been completely rewritten, and we wouldn’t speak English but Spanish today (I really like Elizabeth I standing on the world map, arguing with all the ministers in a hurry. The countermeasures of the Spanish warship, however, seem to predict that she will dominate the English Channel and even the entire maritime world in the future). It's especially a pity that Elizabeth I gave a very famous speech during the military parade in Tilbury. The movie actually had that scene without excerpting that speech. Instead, it was not intimidating enough. It's embarrassing not to mention the ecstasy part of the queen (but if the object is the favorite of Elizabeth I, the famous handsome boy in history, even Shakespeare will write sonnet to praise his beauty Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, Just another word).
I appreciate the part about Mary Queen of Scots. Samantha Morton, who had played The Libertine's middle and small singer before, was also very similar to the empress in distress. I like that because of the fate of my cousin Mary Stuart, I think of the fate of my mother Anne Boleyn and my sister Mary Tudor, and then I think of myself (the movie suddenly flashed back to the last episode, when Elizabeth was still a young girl and was not named first on the throne. When the heir, the red-haired girl danced on the grass, and the messenger who came to call her into the palace called her, and she looked back suddenly, as if thousands of years had passed) and Elizabeth I, who was very fond of her life.
The parts from Sir Francis Walshingham and Babington Plot add drama and are good too. Geoffrey Rush's 16th-century Briton is even more deeply rooted in his sixteenth-century Briton (though Pirates of the Caribbean's Captain Barbossa is cartoonish), starting with Philip Henslowe at Shakespeare in Love at the time. There are always actors who look like ancient people (laughs).
The Spanish part is a bit contrived, but it's okay. Spain at that time did have a little charm.
(Original post at www.xanga.com/suu4leaf, 22/1/2008 )
View more about Elizabeth: The Golden Age reviews
