Elizabeth

At first glance it looks like just another historical film--one that will try to bring to life its heroine and, with rich costuming and dramatic sets, capture the times in which she lived. But Elizabeth, director Shekhjar Kapur's movie about the early years of the rule of Queen Elizabeth I, does more than bring its heroine to life. The movie raises some deep and disturbing questions about the nature of power.

It is interesting that Shekhjar Kapur, born in 1945 at the end of British colonial rule in India, chose Queen Elizabeth I as a subject for a movie. Kapur previously directed The Bandit Queen, the story of Phoolan Devi, an Indian woman who became an outlaw leader in her attempt to take revenge against the upper-class men who raped her and exploited lower caste villagers. She became a folk hero in India, and is now a political leader and a Member of Parliament.

Queen Elizabeth I, on the other hand, was one of the most powerful monarchs in England's history. Under her rule, England transformed from a minor country on the edge of Europe to a major colonial power. She sent out explorers and pirates to challenge the Spanish, setting off the bloody wave of conquest that would create the British Empire.

One might expect then that Kapur would take a harsh view of Queen Elizabeth, but in fact the movie is surprisingly sympathetic. It shows us the struggles of a young woman (Elizabeth was 25 when she became Queen) thrust into a position of incredible power--one that a woman was not supposed to have and one that carried with it great costs.

The movie begins with a brutal and graphic portrayal of three Protestants being shaved of their hair, bound to a stake, and burned alive for heresy against the Catholic Church, under the reign of Queen Mary. From the beginning this movie asserts itself as one that will pull no punches, that will not gloss over the violence of these times. The young Princess Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett), a suspected Protestant, is imprisoned by Queen Mary (Kathy Burke) in the Tower of London. Mary's Catholic advisors urge Elizabeth's execution, but Mary, however much she despises Elizabeth, cannot bring herself to kill her own half-sister. When Queen Mary dies without an heir, Elizabeth is crowned Queen.

Elizabeth has inherited a weak and divided kingdom, and her supporters tell her that there is only one thing that she can do to save it: marry and produce an heir. She is presented with several options: the king of Spain, a prince from France--all political marriages that amount to little more than royal prostitution. She struggles to be taken seriously as a woman and a ruler, in the end asserting that she will marry no man and she will rule as Queen.

Meanwhile, her Catholic enemies within the kingdom conspire against her and seek to undermine her rule. Attempts are made against her life, and she discovers that the Pope is conspiring with members of her own council to have her assassinated and overthrown. She turns to Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), who eventually becomes her most important, most loyal, and most ruthless advisor.

So Elizabeth strikes against the conspirators, even though they include her former lover, Sir Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes), and others that she cares for and respects. "You must not be afraid to strike, ruthlessly and without mercy--even at those closest to you," Walsingham tells her. Elizabeth is opposed to the violence that he advocates, but to preserve her kingdom, her position of power, and her life, she must embrace that violence. In the end she is a slave to her position, imprisoned in the throne as much as she was imprisoned in the tower before.

This movie tells two stories. The one is a story of a woman who refuses to accept the position of a high-level prostitute and claims power in a world of men. The other, deeper story is about the corruption caused by that very power and the brutality that underlies it. The Elizabeth that we see in this movie is a genuinely good person, wishing what is right, opposed to the violence around her. As Queen Elizabeth these options are not available; the power of the throne unavoidably corrupts. Every King or Queen is a tyrant, not by nature of the person who sits in the throne, but by the power of the throne itself. The tragedy of Elizabeth is that she can defy the limitations of her role as a woman, but not as a queen. In the end we see a queen who seems more defeated than victorious. She has preserved her throne, but lost her soul.

Elizabeth is not a "people's" history. Those who want to know the peasants' view of Queen Elizabeth or her times will not find it in this movie. Many ETS! readers may be disappointed by this royal focus. Considering the plethora of movies about royalty and the shortage of movies from the other side, a part of me would agree. However, I think the movie makes a powerful and valuable point by looking at the brutality of power from within, rather then without. In a sense, it co-opts the tradition of royalty films to make its point, and I think it may be the stronger for it.

I also suspect that Kapur was as interested in the story of Elizabeth as a human being as he was in the politics of royalty. The movie is not about the role of a queen on the nation or its people, but about the impact of that role on the person who wields power.

If I was disappointed by anything in the movie, it is that Elizabeth's enemies are portrayed too strongly as villains. In particular, Mary Guise (Fanny Ardant), Elizabeth's major rival for the throne, is portrayed as power-hungry and vindictive. Yet history records that she was no worse than Elizabeth, merely on the other side. From a director who can capture the complexity of Elizabeth's corruption by the power of her throne, we should be able to expect a more complex view of her enemies.