Film Reviews | Regular Feature
a certain degree of déjà vu for those who frequented the Cineplex.
In addition to the action movie types aforementioned, many vi-
sual elements look like those we have seen before. Jekyll/Hyde
reminds one of the Bruce Banner/Hulk dynamic, and Harker, at
film’s end, appears dressed very much like The Matrix’s Trinity.
That The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is often de-
rivative and that its characters are rather flat, does not constitute a
death knell for the film. Even the plot implausibilities, most no-
tably a car chase throughout the streets (?) of Venice, which have
prompted the ire of more than a few critics, are to some degree
excusable. All of these flaws are part and parcel of most summer
action movie fare. Certainly, the action movie genre has been
criticized for some time for its lack of character development and
its reliance on gratuitous violence. But, then, most viewers flock
to the theaters to see just this kind of film. And this is where The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ultimately disappoints. It
disappoints in the divide between the conception and the rather
pedestrian execution. Despite the literary pretensions of the
premise, and despite a few quick allusions to the rich world of
nineteenth-century fiction, it is simply, and little more than, an
action film. It could have been so much more.
Marc Oxoby
University of Nevada, Reno
moxoby@aol.com
Elizabeth
Polygram Films (1998).
The historical film genre is usually not one that modern
audiences race to the theaters for; in fact it can be somewhat of a
turn off in an age of short attention spans. Although there are
definitely some exceptions to this—for instance, Steven
Spielberg’s motion picture successes Amistad and Saving Private
Ryan—for the most part, viewers tend to assume that a histori-
cally based film will be too tedious to bother with. Furthermore,
replicating times long past is undoubtedly complicated and time-
consuming; accuracy is difficult to attain for those who were not
present to witness events firsthand. So, with all these obstacles to
overcome, how does a filmmaker approach such a project? More
specifically, how does one accomplish such a feat when drama-
tizing the life of one of England’s most beloved queens?
Queen Elizabeth I was born at Greenwich Palace on Sep-
tember 7, 1533 to King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne
Boleyn. As a child, Elizabeth was given an impressive education,
and from an early age it was clear that she was remarkably gifted,
especially in the study of languages (she could speak five fluently
by adulthood). After the death of her elder sister Queen Mary
Tudor, a devout Catholic, Elizabeth was crowned queen on Janu-
ary 15, 1559. Soon after, she brought the Protestant religion back
to the country with the Elizabethan “Settlement of Religion.” One
78 | Film & History
of the most notable facts about Elizabeth was that she never mar-
ried or had children. Instead, she used her single state to cleverly
manipulate her potential enemies, either by baiting them with the
prospect of marriage or frightening them with the suggestion that
she might marry one of their foes. Without any children in line to
succeed her, though, she was left more open to assassination at-
tempts from those who had some claim to the throne. Despite
that, she ruled for almost five decades, until her death in 1603.
All of these basic biographical details are present in the 1998 film
Elizabeth, but in it, a large span of time is compressed into a five-
year period in order to keep the running length down to two hours.
This is not the first time that Queen Elizabeth’s reign has
been depicted in a movie; in 1971 the BBC miniseries Elizabeth
R, starring Glenda Jackson, focused more on Elizabeth’s political
career than her personal life. The 1998 film, though, directed by
Shekhar Kapur and written by Michael Hirst, focuses more on
the romance between Elizabeth and long-time friend and advisor
Robert Dudley and the turmoil caused by the country’s contro-
versial switch from Catholicism to Protestantism. It is likely that
Kapur and Hirst made this choice in order to appeal to film audi-
ences that may normally have been discouraged by the historical
drama genre. Movies made with a historical basis do have a docu-
mentary quality. To spice up the story, filmmakers make use of
certain storytelling devices licensed to them under the broad jus-
tification of “dramatic effect.” Overall, the film definitely sticks
to an outline of what Elizabeth’s life entailed, but it does alter
some details and omits others for dramatic effect in order to draw
in viewers. The film is not, nor does it attempt to be, an exhaus-
tive historical biography. Plot changes, casting choices, setting,
and narrative techniques combine to make Elizabeth an entertain-
ing feature film, which engages its audience with an historical
era.
Probably the most obvious change made in this adaptation
is to the fate of Mary of Guise—one of the main challengers to
Queen Elizabeth’s throne and who frequently plotted her assassi-
nation. In the film, after Mary (Fanny Ardent) sends Elizabeth a
poisoned gown that fatedly takes the life of an all-too-curious
servant instead of the queen’s, Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey
Rush) visits Mary and convinces her that he will betray Eliza-
beth. The two spend the night together, and by sunrise, Mary is
dead. In reality, Mary’s defeat was nowhere near as clean cut as
this. She lived to be much older and to have a hand in many more
unsuccessful assassination attempts, and near the end of her life
she actually took refuge in Elizabeth’s kingdom after being ex-
iled from her own.
Kapur and Hirst’s simplification of religious matters does
take liberties with historical accuracy. In the film, young Lady
Elizabeth answers Catholic interrogators during her Tower im-
prisonment by saying, “I ask you why we must tear ourselves
apart for this small question of religion. Catholic? Protestant?
We all believe in God.” Although the filmmakers do not blatantly

misrepresent her beliefs with this statement, they drastically over-
simplify England’s controversy over religion with this scene.
While no one knows for sure what the queen and her persecutors
discussed behind closed doors, one can easily speculate that nei-
ther party would assert that the question of religion was a small
one. Her actions then and throughout her reign always expressed
just the opposite, in fact.
These two plot changes—whether or not one agrees with
them—were made for obvious reasons. If the filmmakers had not
simplified these undeniably complicated matters, their inclusion
in the plot would never have fit in a two-hour film. Details must
be whittled away in order to draw in viewers who do not have
much knowledge of 16th century England. A more succinct and
thematically-arranged version makes for better and easier to fol-
low entertainment.
Other small plot changes were made simply for
convenience’s sake. For example, Kapur utilizes one of Elizabeth’s
most famous lines, “I have the body of a weak and feeble woman;
but I have the heart and stomach of a king,” but switches its set-
ting. In the film she utters it sullenly to counselors within the
castle chambers, when in reality the line was shouted from horse-
back to assembled troops at Tillbury. Here, the line itself is more
important than the setting, so the switch did not detract from the
quality of the film. Filmmakers simply emphasize the queen’s
powerful command over words and public speaking through the
line’s inclusion despite its inaccurate location.
The casting choices in Elizabeth are fortunate. In fact, Cate
Blanchett was nominated for an Oscar in the “Best Actress” cat-
egory for her portrayal of the queen. As critic James Berardinelli
notes, “Not only does Blanchett look like Elizabeth (credit the
makeup and wardrobe departments), but she acts the part of a
fiery, determined young woman riddled by the uncertainty of a
precarious position.”1 Another critic, Elisa Francesca Roselli, finds
Blanchett’s acting impressive, writing, “She does not give us a
single, fixed interpretation of her role, but actually shows us an
Elizabeth in dynamic evolution, from uncertain young princess,
feeling her way through seas of vipers, to autonomous woman
confident of her own competence to rule.”2 Portraying Queen
Elizabeth I, who was especially renowned by her followers, poses
an enormous challenge. Thus, Blanchett’s Oscar nomination was
obviously warranted; most critics cannot find a single complaint
about her portrayal of Britain’s great Virgin Queen, even with
some compromises in historical accuracy.
Another notable character portrayal in Elizabeth is that of
Sir Francis Walsingham, played by Geoffrey Rush. Walsingham’s
role in Elizabeth’s rule was extremely complicated, and the film
makes this very evident. As James Kendrick writes, “Rush plays
him as a fiercely intelligent, loyal, patient, but ultimately murder-
ous man. And yet, his character retains sympathy and respect
simply because he is so single-minded in his purpose, while oth-
ers around him are weak and easily swayed.”3 One particular
Film Reviews | Regular Feature
scene that shows this official’s true character comes early on as
Walsingham explains to a young man that he has his entire life
ahead of him; then, as he directs the boy to look out an open
window at the possibilities the world offers, he proceeds to slice
his throat, quickly and without hesitation. His character’s inclu-
sion in the motion picture makes sense for a number of reasons—
obviously because he played such an active role in Queen
Elizabeth’s reign as one of her most trusted advisors, but even
more importantly because he adds elements of suspense and in-
trigue to the film. At times it seems almost contradictory that he
was so dark, ruthless, and enigmatic when really he played such a
positive role in her rule; but that is precisely why his character
works so well.
The portrayal of other, more minor characters is also no-
table. The film encourages viewers to side with Queen Elizabeth’s
Protestant crusade in rather subtle visual ways. Most Catholics
are reduced to rather two-dimensional characterizations, shown
to be physically unattractive and ruthlessly cruel in order to de-
pict the corrupt status of the Catholic Church during the 16th cen-
tury. For instance, the Duke of Norfolk is made out to be purely
evil with hardly any redeeming qualities, which is not the whole
truth.
Elizabeth’s setting provides a convincing backdrop for the
story. Each scene is thick with details, from the jewels encrusted
on Blanchett’s dress to the sounds of shoes clapping against a
castle’s stone floors. For every lavish ballroom scene, there is
another gory battlefield to contrast it. Scenes alternate “between
the magisterial grandeur of royal life and the dark, shadowy
netherworlds of violence and betrayal always seething beneath
that veneer of pomp and splendor [. . .] that captures both the
beauty and the ugliness of life in the late sixteenth century.”4
Narrative techniques throughout this mostly omniscient film
help to get points across that otherwise might not have been clear.
For example, one is able to peer a bit into Queen Elizabeth’s head
and experience the anxiousness she clearly felt as she prepared
her first speech to the nobles. The jump cuts that the filmmakers
used here emphasize the number of times she rehearsed her speech
and show just how intense her anxiety must have been. A similar
approach is taken at the end of the film as Elizabeth chops off her
long hair in order to officially declare herself a Virgin Queen;
filmmakers give viewers a sense of what she is thinking through a
series of flashbacks to her younger, more carefree days when she
danced in the sunny fields as a teenager. Overhearing a conversa-
tion about these longings for simpler times might have seemed
trite or forced, but witnessing these visual memories running
through her mind gets viewers inside her head, seeing these things
firsthand.
Interesting camera angles are another technique that helps
viewers feel like they are “in” on secret conversations. Private
meetings and quiet whisperings are shot at very close range, which
tells viewers that the conversation they are hearing was not meant
Vol. 33.2 (2003) | 79
Film Reviews | Regular Feature
to be overheard, thus adding a sense of danger that would not be
present had the scene been shot with a more conventional me-
dium close-up shot.
Lighting also helps to set the tone of clearly definable dark
or bright scenes as well as create contrast between them. For
example, the sunny, open field that young Elizabeth carelessly
dances through is in stark contrast to the shaded, prison-like castle
that her older sister Mary rules from at the start of the film. It is
notable, also, that all scenes where treacherous plans against the
queen are discussed take place at night and are lit by either dim
candlelight or another diegetic source. For example, several stra-
tegically placed candles on the table light the dinner at which
Walsingham convinces Mary of Guise to join with him in betray-
ing Elizabeth. These choices in lighting (or lack of, really) help
the viewer feel a sense of danger and suspense at key points.
Overall, Elizabeth is a successful film that gives as accu-
rate a glimpse as any two-hour film can into the life of a highly
influential historical figure. Kapur strikes a definite and obvious
balance between his commitment to accuracy and his drive to
entertain and ignite interest among the viewing public. Because
80 | Film & History
of this balance, the film works on multiple levels since it can please
both the educated history buff who knows a great deal about the
complicated workings of England’s Golden Age as well as the
less knowledgeable viewer who is open to experiencing a brief
glimpse into the inner-workings of an important time in Euro-
pean society and the woman who was responsible for much of its
impact.
Sarah Knowles
Drexel University
sknowles5@yahoo.com
Notes
1 Berardinelli, James. “Elizabeth.” Reel Views. <http://movie-
reviews.colossus.net/movies/e/elizabeth.html> 9 May 2003.
2 Roselli, Elisa Francesca. “Elizabeth.” Cozzi fan Tutti. <http://
www.cozzifantutti.com/movies/1998/elizabeth/elizabeth.htm> 9 May 2003.
3 Kendrick, James. “Elizabeth.” QNetwork.com Entertainment Portal.
< h t t p : / / w w w. q n e t w o r k . c o m / m o d u l e s . p h p ? n a m e =
Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=256> 9 May 2003.
4 Kendrick, James. “Elizabeth.”