the Dalaverse

Marissa and I, after wandering all around the damn city trying to find the cinema, saw "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" today. First I have a general statement about the subject matter:

Someday, somehow, somebody is going to write me a historical drama specifically about the Spanish Armada that is largely or wholly absent of propoganda and xenophobia. This is not that day, but the film isn't without its charms and merit. Like the first film, this one is an artfully-done historical AU. Cate Blanchett is again superb, although it's not quite as much of a pleasant surprise this time around, because of course her awesomeness has become common knowledge. Geoffrey Rusch is the perfect Walsingham. Abbie Cornish does quite a lovely job as Elizabeth Throckmorton; she has excellent chemistry with Cate Blanchett. Clive Owen is, I'm sorry to admit, the weak spot in the principal cast, but it's not entirely his fault - the character's underwritten, and suffers from being an amalgam of several men in addition to Raleigh. He's awfully pretty, though, and he manages to hold his own against Cate (well, as much as can be expected). I wish his romance with Bess had been more thoroughly developed, but still, it's a poly type of movie down to the last scene, and that was one of my favorite things about it.

The art direction/cinematography is, again, simply breathtaking. The costumes, the sets (although there should've been way more wood paneling everywhere), the colors, the imagery - it's all lush and shot with an eye for artistic detail. It's a beautiful film to watch. See the floor map in my icon for examples; I squeed every time Elizabeth walked across it.

The film's biggest flaw is an excess of plot and intrigue; it's as if the writers never decided which of several stories they wanted to write. There's the (contrived in a historical sense, but well done oncamera) love triangle between Elizabeth, Bess and Raleigh, with the first naturally getting the most individual focus; the goings on at the Spanish court; the Jesuit plot to assasinate the queen; Mary Stuart's imprisonment and execution; Walsingham's relationship with his brother...Tension keeps rising and breaking at an awkward pace. It's especially noticeable in the last half hour, where the actual invasion/Armada plot suddenly speeds up and feels tacked on, not given its proper due. It's funny, because with many historical movies you're left feeling that some elements/subplots were shoehorned in merely because they happened. Since this movie's already taking huge liberties with history, you'd think it wouldn't kill them to leave some of this stuff out. Too many trips outside the court drag the plot down (which is a shame, because Samantha Morton wore Mary's crown well and deserved to have something more to do with it, even if she should've had a French accent rather than Scottish). Or possibly too many trips inside the privy chamber cramp the style of the political intriue.

Another flaw - I mentioned the imagery as a good point, but some of it is way too heavy handed, and that is basically everything having to do with Spain and Catholicism. All of the Jesuit plotting scenes run red, literally - I can only assume that they're dyeing all the cardinals' robes that later show up to witness Philip's defeat. Philip himself is not quite as ridiculous as the Hitler Phillip in "The Sea Hawk," but I'm still having trouble understanding why they had him walk like a chicken. By the end with the Armada, I was actually giggling aloud - there were fucking icons painted on the Spanish gunports, lingering pornographic shots of rosaries slipping under the waves, and an entire ship's crew stopped in the middle of the storm/battle to kneel and listen to a creepily intoned Latin mass. This last was interesting and confusing at once - the carefully composed shots of the men kneeling and all facing the same direction - it seemed to be a visual evocation of a Muslim call to prayer. It was really not cool. I mean, come on, this is 2007, and also not Monty Python.

One more very specific disappointment, that possibly won't affect other viewers as much: I didn't get the one thing I wanted most from this film. That was Cate Blanchett uttering the words, "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a kind - and of a king of England, too! " Seriously. WTF, writers, did you seriously think you could write a better speech? What were you smoking when you decided to leave out your star's most famous, most brilliant words, the words that perfectly encapsulate the extraordinary paradox that was Elizabeth I? I was so let down at the moment. I don't even remember what she said, just that it wasn't the Tilbury speech. Also, I giggled because she was rallying her troops to take on Spain while mounted on a Spanish breed. One more nitpick: they totally stole the lighting of the beacons from RotK, and I mean, if you're going to crib from other (better) sources, at least try not to steal from one of the most stirring, affecting scenes in like twelve hours of movie, hmmkay?

That all sounds a bit negative - I did enjoy it and I would certainly recommend it to those who like the period, the actors, and/or the first film. It's entertaining, it's just not entirely satisfying. Oh! One more thing I did love - they put John Dee in it! I heart John Dee!

I'm also trying to figure out why historical inaccuracies bother me so much less in these two movies than they do in "The Tudors." I think it's because here, the changes and omissions are made to tell a story, and an accomplished one even if it isn't in line with history (or perfect). Whereas in that damned show, liberties with the text are taken for two reasons: a. laziness or b. titilation (or, in the spirit of Monty Pyton, three reasons - c. being 'both). I can respect one set of choices, but not the other.

We got the trailer for "The Golden Compass." Nothing I've seen so far has made me particularly anxious, aside from my continued mistrust of Nicole Kidman at the reins of Mrs. Coulter, but still - pleasedon'tsuckpleasedon'tsuckpleasedon'tsuckpleasedon'tsuck....

Ah, the promised whining. From time to time, I wake up to cramps in my legs (one at a time, anyway). It feels like phantom fingers reaching into the back of my calf, grabbing muscle and flesh, and twisting. I've never known if this is what people refer to as a charley horse, but that always seemed like a mild problem, and these cramps are really very painful even though they're brief. This morning I had the worst cramp I've ever had - my leg seized up from the knee down, and it seemed to last longer than usual. I whimpered as I fought my way out of sleep and tried to massage the knot out, but even after the cramp had passed it was still painful. I limped for a couple of hours, no joke, and when I took a nap I had to position my leg very carefully so it wouldn't seize up again. It's still sore now, obviously not helped by running to catch the bus after the movie. I'm not quite sure what to do about it. I don't have any kind of pain relief medication. I guess I'm going to try stretching and massaging it before bed. Wahhh, I don't like pain. My right foot is also prone to cramps while I sleep; for some reason it's way less flexible than my left, and it just locks up in bad positions. But that's never been as bad as this cramp either.