by Katie Reilly

Created on: November 26, 2007

Presenting history in a big budget, big screen movie is a challenge. Audiences and critics are tough. In order to please everyone, are directors to sacrifice accuracy for entertainment, and reality for aesthetics? How do they achieve that perfect balance that gets the best reviews and the biggest profits? And another question: Around whom do they to center their film?

Lately, they choose Gloriana herself, Queen Elizabeth I of England, and cast Cate Blanchett in the starring role. After the success of 1998's Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen, there were sure to be moviegoers waiting with open eyes for the continuation of a story they thought they already knew from every possible interpretive angle.

But the creators behind Elizabeth: The Golden Age, had something grander in store. They went beyond simply continuing their story of Elizabeth I. They built for viewers a new sort of historical-biography film.

In successive cinematic eras, historical film makers seem to strive harder for the perceived truth. There is less obvious makeup, less dramatic speech and more character development (think Bette Davis - the vintage Elizabeth actress - versus the following). In HBO's recent miniseries, Elizabeth I, starring Helen Mirren, the characters radiate genuine personhood. Viewers can imagine eating, playing cards and loving with them. The sets are detailed, and the music is subtle and moving. As a historical film, this HBO movie is a fine example of that balance of accuracy, reality, aesthetics and entertainment for the patient and serious viewer.

Davis coined the iconic drama, but carried the trappings of all older historical films. Mirren owned the humanity, but minimized pleasing dramatic technique.

Could the dramatic buildups of earlier Hollywood cinema meet the rounded characters of modern biographical cinema for the sake of history loving moviegoers?

Elizabeth: The Golden Age magnifies Elizabeth the woman-icon, and is upfront about it. Techniques of set design, music, lighting and camera angle highlight the Elizabeth of paintings, and animate her into a being of image and accomplishment. Then, in that larger than life setting, she is kissed, terrified, even nude. When Elizabeth is seen in this new way, audiences feel and understand the hybrid: a beautifully modern conception of the 16th century figure.

The movie also hearkens back to Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen with snippets of music and dialog. This is refreshing, as sequels so often detach themselves from the atmosphere of their predecessors, and disappoint returning fans.

As the film progresses it builds upon itself with audio and visual, until those watching are completely enthralled with the character and the aesthetics. By the end, the scenes have become so large, so monumental, that it is almost unbearable.

That is not to say that Blanchett is in constant corset or perpetually hunched over maps. It is not to say that the movie is without inaccuracies and epic-style manifestations. Indeed, a degree of fundamentalism is sacrificed in the name of the hybrid. This may be enough to turn off the purists. But can Hollywood support mundane superstars, especially in the wake of such characters as Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter? The heroes of history might need a mildly surreal context in order to compete with the newly fantastic underdog.

It is up to each individual who sees Elizabeth: The Golden Age to decide the movie's success. As both historical and a sequel, it undertakes quite a challenge. The challenge is met, though in a way that might leave some wondering about the direction of historical and biographical cinema. Yet without a doubt, the film is unique and pleasing, something to be appreciated by audiences and critics alike.

Learn more about this author, Katie Reilly.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.