As if Greenaway were to attempt an epic battle film...

Rating: 7/10 (12 October 2007)

I saw this film at the Arclight in Hollywood, a theater that, for better or worse, can often make films deserving direct-to-video releases seem like potential Oscar nominees. This film was introduced there as one that would undoubtedly get an Oscar nomination. I was dazzled, I was confused, I was frustrated. But I was never bored, and found myself surprised when it was over.
In many respects it is a fantastic film; visually stunning, beautifully shot and decorated, always fascinating to watch. Some of the props and costumes were on display in the lobby of the theater, and that helped pique my interest because they were ornate and exquisitely crafted. (I had arrived to see another film that I couldn't get into.) Some others have complained here of the heavy-handed score, but I found it rather interesting. I thought it brought out the sub-text of many scenes quite well, and carried some battle scenes that would have, excuse the pun, sunk left to their own devices.
But I left with many questions unanswered. I'm not sure if the stories were mangled in the editing room, or whether they never were in the story in the first place. Undoubtedly there was a lot of historical information to consider including. There are three major thematic plots concerning, in increasing order of importance, Elizabeth's love (dis-)interest, assassination attempts, and religious war with Spain. They seemed to be given inverse importance as the story unraveled.
Elizabeth's love interest in Raleigh occupied the most screen time, and I thought they were great together. But her toying with the younger Elizabeth (Cornish's) interactions with Raleigh seemed to indicate either denial of her own attractions or confused directorial intentions, and I wasn't sure which was the case. The film does well at personally investigating Elizabeth, the woman, and less well at portraying historical Elizabeth, the Queen and administrator of an empire.
The back-story of the assassination attempts isn't clearly spelled out; the historical context of the antagonists is skimmed over; when we get to the final battle scene, we barely have any idea who the foe is, we just know they have an overwhelming number of troops and ships and spend a lot of time torturing people in dungeons apparently filled with drying laundry. Mary's plots and notes seem inconsequential, and we barely have any idea just what she *was* plotting to do or how she intended to do it. We don't discover what the notes said, or see the interceptions of them occur, and they have none of the Shakespearean impact of Rosencrantz's and Guilderstern's efforts. Indeed, perhaps the writers should have taken a few cues from the artists of the era they were writing about. We barely get to know the enemy, hence we never really consider their capabilities and have trouble seriously considering them as a threat.
When the battle is over, we have no idea why the Queen was leading troops across land like a Joan of Arc when the entire battle was at sea. We never see hand-to-hand combat on land. There is no explanation of how five "fire ships" succeeded in defeating an enormous fleet. Everything up until the battle scene leads you to expect epic combat on the order of Braveheart or the writer's Gladiator, and instead, after a single confrontation, England triumphs and Spain is left whimpering with their tail between their legs. "Oh, I guess it wasn't God's will for us to win." What happened to all their ships? How did England win by burning a handful of boats and making them break formation? We didn't get the epic-style gratification of seeing the enemy suffer and fail. Hence I was left feeling like I was watching a British propaganda film.
Blanchett, Owen, Rush, and Cornish are all fascinating to watch perform, and they could probably make a car commercial seem like high drama. At times I wasn't quite sure Blanchett wasn't just recreating Judi Dench's Elizabeth, but her vulnerability gave the character much more dimension. I wished the camera could linger longer on Cornish, as it did on Blanchett or Owen, so we could have some time to consider and SEE her role as things unfolded. The dialogue of Walsingham/Rush's family did little in exposition to explain his situation or it's impact on those around him, yet we come to understand that quite a lot was known and going on - after the fact. The film should have shown us these cases, not told it afterwards. So much was lost dramatically by this directorial choice. As others have said, some of the dialogue is trite. Somehow the actors and score managed to lay their coats over this annoying puddle.
Of course it is easy to pick apart the works of others, and I found this to be a highly engaging and entertaining film. I think when you see something well-crafted, you hope it will succeed in every dimension, and I found myself with too many unanswered questions afterwards. I left wondering what *really* happened historically, and a half-hearted internet search revealed that Elizabeth gave a famous speech on the battlefield that didn't seem like what I'd just seen on the screen, although I may be mistaken.
The film is definitely worth a gander; visual eye candy that will certainly beat a stroll through the Elizabethan era costume vaults of the Metropolitan Museum. It's like a Greenaway film or Orlando, with a bit of plot to keep you awake and some superb actors to boot. It just won't let you have the taste of blood in your teeth that you expect from a war film, and perhaps the use of that context was it's greatest failing.