Stunning Cate Blanchett

Rating: 9/10 (4 March 2001)

I resisted to watch this film for nearly two years. Altough the scenes that I had watched particularly between Rush and Blanchett struck me as really good. My descision to not watch the film was based in my truly dislike of the "costume film" genre, wich I find 98% of the movies boring and uninteristing, disguised by costumes and set decorations as true art. But I shall also comment that I have seen very good period films like "Quills" to mention a recent example, that have a story and are interesting in all their aspects wether they are based on historical facts or fictional,so I always try to leave a tiny door open to see some period films.
I recently saw Cate Blanchett in "The Gift" and was amazed at her performance. I saw her before in supporting roles in "Talented Mr. Ripley"and "Pushing Tin", and tought she was great. So I decided to rent some of her other films to look at her work. I rent "An Ideal Husband" and this film,the oscar nominee "Elizabeth". Blanchett was robbed the academy award for her performance. She is a delight, a powerful force. Even if she is not in the screen, you FEEL her presence She has the demanding task of portraying Elizabeth I through her many changes, from a young naive girl learning to be a queen to a secure woman in total charge of a country. Through all of the changes Blanchett is completely believable. Apart from her perfect english accent(she is australian)and body language, she uses in her performance something that is almost dissapeared in film acting today. Her face, through her face she conveys so many emotions from sweetness to anguish and really express the feelings of Elizabeth. There is a point in her performance that only by seeing her face, you KNEW what Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen was feeling at that moment. In a year that also saw nominations to Emily Watson and Fernanda Montenegro for their powerful performances. Is was Blanchett who should have taken the statuette insetead of Gwyneth Paltrow for her insipid performance (but she was the only hollywood actress of the lot,so the academy again kept the award between their own comunnity)
Geoffrey Rush was nominated in supporting actor category for "Shakespeare in Love" but is in "Elizabeth" that he shines as Elizabeth´s slightly malicious principal advisor. Joseph Fiennes, the lead man in "Shakespeare"is also better here as Robert Dudley, Elizabeth´s lover Apart from those performances the movie is really, really good. Shekar Kapur did a great directing job, using close ups and monologues to explore more the internal lives of the caracters, the cinematography is a very interesting palette of dark and bright colors. The story does take some historic liberties, but in compensation reveals the internal battles and conflicts of it´s principal character more profoundly that any historic film will do. But the film becomes weak in it´s last half hour. It seems like Kapur and crew became tired in the making of the film and decided to give it a rapid ending without any construction and even coherence. Kapuer direction, so interesting and distinctive in the first hour and half becomes conventional and melodramatic and nearly ruins the picture.On the other hand that "unconventional" half of the picture may have been why Elizabeth lost all the 7 academy awards nomination it had,deserving much of them (certainly along with The Thin Red Line it was the best picture in that year´s best picture race)and going instead with the conventional costume picture that "Shakespeare" was, however the only unforgivable thing about the academy and Elizabeth is Paltrow winning over Blanchett (I would keep repeating that, im offended!!) Is for that weakness in the conclusion of the film that I rate "Elizabeth"a 9, if the movie would have kept it´s style, It would had become one of my favorite "costume films" of all time. Still I strongly reccomend it for the first 90 minutes and the stunning work of Blanchett.