Archive for the ‘Elizabeth’ Category

Was Elizabeth a Virgin ? Guest column by Sugabone

The Question was Elizabeth A Virgin?

Or was Elizabeth “the illegitimate heretical whore” that is a great question. Her reign as Queen will always be remembered and not because she lived until nearly 100 but she walked in the ranks of males. Took her fathers position with great honor after suppression and illegitimacy and was named the Virgin Queen, unmarried. However, was she really alone or did she have her loves ripped away and womanhood censored.

Shekhar Kapur creates Cate Blanchett into this mythological Queen whom suitors loved but could not possess. After watching this rendition we know Elizabeth was loathed, loved and protected becoming the heir to the throne while advised to dissipate men immediately regardless of their love for her. Her power and ruling could not allow her to submit to emotion.

Kapur dresses her beautifully garnishes her hair sometimes draping down her back and then cutting it for a symbolic transfigure while slaughtering men literally, figuratively and metaphorically. A grand interpretation as men pray to touch the divine and Elizabeth becomes greater than Jesus. A wonderful, skin crawling interpretation that will chill a woman and thrill any man out of his penile erection as we witness the essence of Elizabeths beauty and enigma.

This movie is an amazing mythological depiction to watch Elizabeth submit to male energy and rule while remaining a virgin? One thing for sure it is film at its best. We travel into the Elizabethan Era and witness a queen who impacts us today and we wonder was Elizabeth a virgin or just a whore that ruled?

Sugabone

Elizabeth and Golden Age : Mythology and Melodrama

Question “‘you make a distinction in your audio commentary of “The Golden Age” between mysticism and melodrama (one being a product of the East and the other of the West). I wonder if you might elaborate on this for me’

Mythology are the stories that are buried deep inside ourselves, that struggle to connect our finite imagination to to that which seems or is infinite. Till science came along with logical reasons for lightening and clouds, they were part of our Myths (and often still are) with Gods letting forth a series of lightening strikes and roaring in anger. However all cultures in their struggle to comprehend infinite questions like the nature of the universe, the reason for our here, the miracles of birth , of death, of falling in love, betrayal and even possibilities of afterlife, have developed mythologies/stories to explain these. Often these migrate from Mythology into faith.

What differs between the West and the East is the openness of expression of such Mythic events. For example in the West you are taught to be silent and not to cry when someone dies, while in India we have ‘rudali’s’ that come to encourage to openly sob and express you grief. In this age of reason Western filmakers (for example) are often shy of expressing human reaction to such mythic events, calling it Melodrama – while films in the east tend to more expressive and accepting about ‘Mythic’ events and therefore the ‘Melodramatic’ nature of the presentation, the story and the performances. That sense of Myth then permeates all aspects of filmaking – the design, the costumes, the lighting and the shots. And of course the story telling.

In both Elizabeth and it’s sequel the Golden Age I realized that we were dealing with times before ‘the age of reason’ or the age of ’scientific temper’ had set into England. The Industrial revolution had yet to come, as had the proliferation of the British Empire. Arrogance of the mind and ego, led by conquest of the seas and manufacture had yet to set in. The tudor period therefore was to me what film critics call ‘melodramatic’ and I saw a culture largely in synch with it’s inherent mythic nature. After all Elizabeth herself was constantly relying on astrological predictions and had used ‘virginity’ as a mythic idea beyond the realms of the loss of the hymen.

So I brought my inherent Mythic sense to a film genre’ that was considered to be more much about Costumes, Royal and Court politics and (most of all) wit. And turned it around to look at it from it’s own melodramatic point of view. After all with intrigue and death always around the corner , and when life expectancy in the court was about 27, .how could you not be superstitious or mythic in your thinking ?

In Elizabeth it seemed to completely in synch with the writing performance etc. It was a woman moving from youth, love and childhood, to power, ruthlessness, monarchy but most importantly Divinity. Declaring yourself a virgin an then walking through the court, seperating yourself from the human form forever, and declaring your self Divine – in India she would have been called a Devi and still happens everyday. How mythic/melodramatic is that ?

The second one – The Golden Age – ran into difficulty. To my mind Elizabeth was now Divine,even if only in her own mid. How did she now comprehend herself falling n love ? being jealous ? Having sexual desire ? How does all of that affect your sense of Divinity ? Did she see her enemy Phillip as divine too ? All pretty mythic stuff – or you can call it melodramatic if you are a pure historian. And that’s where the film did not reach the expectations the first one had set up. There was an ongoing tussle between normalcy of a man/woman love story, as against the need to see it from a Divine perspective, Also between History and Mythology, which a lot of critics called Melodrama.

What I would say though is that any culture that is not in day to day touch with it’s own mythology, is a culture that will build tension and be open to exploitation – such as the rise of dangerous cults and creation of mythic evil figures to satisfy their need for connecting with their sense of mythology.

As I write this the news flashed that the next film in the Twilight series (Eclipse) has grossed an all time record of $ 30m in one night ! Now I would say a love story between a a young girl and a sexy vampire is pretty Melodramatic – or would you call it Mythic ?

Fim Design and narrative : Elizabeth

My last post sounds more complex than it is. Theory always does, and theory comes for me in hindsight often as I look back at my films and wonder ‘what was going in my mind when I made those decisions’. ?
The central focus in Elizabeth was Power. The PLOT conflict was between Elizabeth and her Catholic detractors, in their struggle for Power. The PSYCHOLOGICAL conflict was between Elizabeth’s desire be in love and therefore retain innocence, as against the need to have power to survive, and therefore to be ruthless. The MYTHIC conflict was about whether it was possible to be Divine and Human at the same time. Focusing on interpretations of Virginity as a fact, or as a political/mythic statement. Virginity was explored not only as a political need, but as a Mythic idea of Elizabeth’s desire to be (perhaps) a representation of the Virgin Mary.
The Design of the film is complex as it covers lighting, costumes, colors, camera choreography and the architectural design of the film.
The Architectural design of the film was telling another story, almost contradictory to Elizabeth’s rise to Power. By constantly showing Elizabeth as a tiny individual in relationship to the immense stone architecture, it contradicted her rise to Power, often through the very high angle shots of the stone arches in the places that I shot in. The attempt was to introduce the idea that their is greater Power operating beyond the human conflict going on in the plot. I called it Destiny but it could go by many other names. All the antagonists and the protagonists were ultimately equal in Death and subject to their Destiny.
The Costume design showed Elizabeth’s gradual denial of her sexuality through the elaborateness of her costumes – which became more and more ostentatious even as they covered more and more of her skin and body, while all the time she was struggling to stay the young princess in love.
The Make up design too. For example in the last shot of the film where Elizabeth had her face painted in white, was about the loss of individuality through merging into the mythic icon that Elizabeth had become/ turned herself into. But at the same time emerged as one of the most powerful individuals in History. What was she at the end then ? A Myth, an Individual ? an Icon ? Or all at the same time ?. And was this of her own volition, or was she, like everyone else, just a product of the forces of Destiny ?
Constant contradiction and search for possibilities in every aspect.

Trainspotting and Elizabeth

Here is the text of an sticle that appeared today in the Daily Telegraph in London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/06/28/bftrainspotting128.xml
Shekhar Kapur, director of Badit Queen, Elizabeth and Four Feathers, explains to Marc Lee why he could never have made Elizabeth had it not been for Trainspotting Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting and Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth are two of the most memorable British films of the Nineties, both shot with eye-catching verve, both featuring a riveting central performance. Yet, as cinematic experiences, they could hardly be more different: one drags us through the sordid lives of a bunch of drug-addled losers, the other sweeps us into the court of the Virgin Queen. Nevertheless, Kapur insists he could never have made his film had it not been for Trainspotting…….

(more…)