King of Hollywood

Chapter 448: Chapter 170: He Should Be a Director from the United Kingdom!

In short, the movie depicted Elizabeth’s naive, simple, and lively side too much, yet focused little on her resoluteness and determination, showing spirit only when she sarcastically mocked various nobles and bishops with her resolutions. Moreover, the transformation of Elizabeth lacked convincing elements, leading the pace to become increasingly loose toward the end, leaving many matters unresolved and hastily concluded, resulting in a very anticlimactic ending.

Of course, this is not to say that “Elizabeth” is entirely without merit; the film has many strengths. For instance, the costumes and sceneries were meticulously and rigorously done, matching the late Middle Ages setting well, while also not strictly adhering to it, and the use of colors was excellent, making it a fine picturesque viewing in itself when other factors are discounted; the portrayal of Elizabeth also matched the general British public’s view of her—from a naïve and lively girl to an initially hesitant but eventually firm and decisive Queen, growing stronger in the face of consecutive setbacks. These were all aspects that added to its credit.

Additionally, several key scenes were handled quite well. They effectively portrayed the debates and even the mockery of the nobles and bishops, not to mention the final scene where Elizabeth paints her face white and declares her marriage to England, which was quite powerful. Coupled with the fact that biopics are particularly popular among film critics, especially those about historically famous figures, these strengths were especially magnified, thus overshadowing the flaws and it’s no surprise that the movie was highly acclaimed—particularly by the British—and favored at the Oscars.

However, masking these flaws doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Covering up once with strengths doesn’t mean it can always be done, so when the original producer made a sequel to “Elizabeth” ten years later, the same issues persisted, resulting in the movie being a third-rate commercial production.

Whether it was to make the story more appealing or to protect his own reputation, Adrian was not going to let these issues persist, therefore the script of “Elizabeth” underwent more modifications than “Shakespeare in Love.” If “Shakespeare in Love” involved adding more appropriate details, then “Elizabeth” involved a complete overhaul of the details, a task that was no easy feat and severely taxed the top British screenwriters.

Initially, Adrian exchanged ideas with them occasionally, but as time passed, he largely left it to them, only checking in sporadically. He wasn’t worried they would ruin the script because the main plotline was off-limits, which had already proven popular. Thus, even if there were any issues with the details, it wouldn’t be worse than the original version. Adrian was very confident in his control.

Yet, apart from the reasons listed above, another very important factor for the film being highly praised was Blanchett’s performance. From the naïve young girl, to the newly-crowned yet enlightened young Queen, and finally the Elizabeth I who after profound disillusionment, sat resolutely on her throne. Blanchett exceptionally portrayed the three faces of the virgin queen, becoming the major highlight of the movie and causing many to feel she was unfairly snubbed by the Oscars for Best Actress.

In Adrian’s memory, before Blanchett officially starred in the movie, she had performed in stage plays for several years in Australia, especially Shakespearean dramas, which she was particularly familiar with. This not only honed her acting skills but also allowed her a relatively thorough understanding of the Elizabethan era, thus delivering an outstanding and atmospheric performance in the movie and becoming more widely known.