Virgin Acting (and Why)

Rating: Null/10 (29 May 2001)

Spoilers herein.
The first job of fine film in my estimation is to transport our minds through our eyes to another realm. This often requires dangerous adventure on the part of the artists concerned, most necessarily the director. Rarely does it occur in British-made historical costume drama. That's because they are constrained by a stuffy notion of the static observance of `important events.' In such dramas, the character displayed has to hold our interest; all else (particularly in costuming) adds a reverent poise.
This is better than that. Elizabeth is an important figure for sure, certainly among the few most influential to my life. She broke the back of Catholic meddling in civil affairs, establishing the first (albeit fragile and oft submerged) notions of state-sponsored freedom of religion. She was the first post-renaissance monarch to elevate plebian arts, as much responsible for Shakespeare as the writer himself. She was a master at coopting religious archetypes to manipulate the masses. All of this is the matter of this film. (She also tacitly encouraged Thomas Harriot in inventing what we now know as algebraic logic, but that's outside the scope of this film which deals with the simpler forces of war and brutish Papism.)
But that's not what entrances. Instead it is a combination of the director's commitment to highlight destiny as the focus, and the art of Ms Cate in projecting, infusing her personality into her surroundings.
This director is unknown to me. He seems to be of that swelling class of competent, self-aware directors without pretense. There's no dogma here, only knowing craft, especially in the eye of the camera. His DVD commentary is very good - listen to him share his notions of the eye, even to the eyes on her bedroom lace, the eye of the cross-shaped windows, the schizophrenic eye, the scheming eye. He's not a master, but he is better than what he attempts. (Compare this to the stage-struck eye of Merchant-Ivory.)
But the key ingredient here is Cate Blanchett. This woman lives in her surroundings. She is as vulnerable to fate and as open to voyeuristic examination as Emily Watson, but she is as commanding (when needed) of her environment as say Pacino (to pick an extreme case, and so flawed). Compare this to the imperious Dench (and many others) to see how important is that former quality. (There must be an Australian acting coach that teaches this, as others from Sydney show this awareness.)
The director sees this, and has been adept at building wonderful surrounding characters.
See how Rush lobbies for a closed soul. He is perhaps our most celebrated closed actor. (Many others are closed, like Freeman and Hackman, but Rush has depth that they do not.) He ultimately wins and we grieve a little. (His surrogate is played by the quiet method actor Frain. See him in `Titus.' where he shines because of this.)
See how the completely open actor Fiennes tries to lure her into simple, emotional acting. (He would succeed the next year with the malleable Paltrow - with Rush providing the same contrast.) (His surrogate in this film was the explosive intuitive French suitor.)
See how the ultraminimalist Norfolk threatens with his theatrical intensity, the traditional theatrical style of acting opposing her filmic style. (In fact much can be said of how film style undermines superficial religion, which is why Pat Robertson invests billions in cooptation.) His surrogate is played by the inestimable Geilgud in a minimal part.
See how the master Cecil is played by the grand master of British film. Watch him try to guide her through destiny with a vision greater than the other characters, but less than us as viewers: we are given control over both the camera's eye of fate and the knowledge of how things `turn out.' Lord Attenborough's presence catalyzes Cate's, and he is outgrown. (Cate's mirror is the famed Fanny Ardant, who does not close off herself and so dies. Her acting style is also external, intuitive, flamboyant.)
Blanchett is a wonderful talent, here with all the support she needs. How lucky for her - and for us. What we are given is a film of actors about acting in a film, and the forces in conflict to command us as an emerging virtual `nation' of participants.