In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
All Hail The Queen and Helen Mirren!
The Queen courtesy Miramax Films
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
See Maitland McDonagh and Ken Fox review this week's new flicks in Movie Talk!
Helen Mirren richly deserved the Oscar she received for starring in this week's DVD Tuesday pick, The Queen, but I was disappointed that her costar Michael Sheen wasn't even nominated. For my money, the only thing better than Peter Morgan's subtle, witty screenplay (which earned him an Oscar nomination; Morgan also scripted The Last King of Scotland, which earned Forest Whitaker his Oscar) was the sheer virtuosity with which Mirren and Sheen brought it to life. The Queen is a four-hander, and they're both brilliant.
Just in case you managed to sequester yourself in a mountain cave during awards season, the queen in question is HRH Elizabeth II, and the film is set in 1997. Specifically, Stephen Frears' restrained comedy of manners unfolds in the days following the death of "People's Princess" Diana Spencer, and carefully dissects the pas de deux between the queen, who embodies such traditional English virtues as rectitude, propriety and stoicism, and the country's brash new prime minister Tony Blair (Sheen), a media-savvy product of the post-WWII generation, married to an outspoken anti-royalist. As the British public and the world mourn the young, pretty former royal-by-marriage who brought a touch of American-style celebrity and emotional openness to the resolutely staid house of Windsor, the queen's stubborn refusal to join the public grief or make any official gesture on behalf of the royal family seems increasingly cold and arrogant. The gap between the grieving public and the poker-faced royals becomes so pronounced that tongues start wagging: Could this be the beginning of the end for the British monarchy?
I know how it sounds: I dragged my feet all the way to the screening. But the film is enthralling from start to finish, by turns biting, funny and poignant. The relationship between Mirren's coolly correct queen and Sheen's slick, opportunistic prime minister is a tour de force: Neither is a villain, neither a saint; They're both products of their upbringings and both true to their own perfectly reasonable ideals.
Things to consider:
Why are so many Americans fascinated by the British royal family? We are, after all, a nation that fought a bloody war to be free of English rule.
What's behind the conspicuous current fascination with princesses? It's not just the little girls badgering their parents for Disney princess movies and accessories — it's also grown women, who eagerly purchase chick-lit and chick flicks with Cinderella themes? Do you see a connection between that genre and the cult of Lady Diana?
What people speak of as traditional English values — keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of hardship, not airing personal problems in public — were once common in the U.S. as well. When and how did the "let it all hang out" ethos take over?
Previous DVD Tuesday blogs:
Expresso Bongo
I'm Not Scared
Shocking Grindhouse Double Bill! — Scanners and The Candy Snatchers
Don't Look Now
Re-Animator
Casino Royale
http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800073953#comments">Pi
The Prestige
13 Tzameti
The Departed
Suspiria
Kiss and Make Up
Kiss Me Deadly
The Long Good Friday
What Alice Found
The Devil's Backbone
The Descent
The Devil Wears Prada
Pandora's Box
The Thief and the Cobbler
Nashville
Panic in the Streets/Jack Palance Interview
The Pusher Trilogy
Scarface
Slither
Sunset Blvd.
In Cold Blood
Brick
Also: This week's new DVD releases
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2007 6:48 PM
|
I'm almost afraid to share my feelings about Diana. Her admirers are legion and fervent in their devotion. But I am not one of them. For one thing, as you mention, we did fight a war to rid ourselves of royal rule. Our Revolutionary leaders risked all to establish a country that would not be subject to a monarchy. We were fortunate to have a leader like George Washington who refused the offer of a kingship.
We tend to forget that according to those societies with royalty that Kings and Queens are supposed to be where they are not just by the grace of God but by divine design. I'm just too much of an American to accept such a thing.
As for Diana herself, I was never able to feel more at her demise than the simple human sorrow at a life cut so tragically short. The growth of her cult before and after her death mystifies me. Yes, she did some charitable deeds but her actions hardly rival those of the woman who died the same day she did-Mother Theresa the reports of whose death were little more than a footnote on that weekends news. In my opinion Diana didn't do much more-not that she wasn't sincere-than most well-known wealthy people with some obligation toward public service do.
As for her being the victim of a tragic marriage I would like to remind folks that due to the British laws and traditions governing marriage of the Royal heir Charles was forced to pass on marriage to the love of his life and
choose an "acceptible" bride from a fairly limited pool of qualified "applicants".
Charles may have had his transgressions but it was Diana who admitted to more than one affair during their marriage and who, in a questionably sincere suicide attempt, threw herself down a flight of stairs while pregnant.
If Charles did have an affair it was with the woman he had loved all of his life. And, and I am mystified as to why this fact doesn't seem more romantic to more peoople, Camilla who was neither young nor traditionally beautiful. But he loved and loves her and familial disapproval and the unchecked ridicule he received at the hands of the out of control British press could make him pass up a second chance at happiness with the love of his life.
In this country I think little girls are still-despite the best efforts of parents and educators-sold the Princess fantasy from birth-"Princess" is probably the most common nickname fathers bestow on their daughters. While we boys have a plethora of heroes and fantasies-from cowboys to athletes to spies to space travellers-to choose from the Princess fantasy continues to be in the forefront for girls. "Princess-hood" is the goal for everyone from Cinderella to Mia Thermopolis with Leah and Mulan in-between. What was the fate of Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman but a variation of the same?
Diana,though technically qualified to be the Royal consort was the real life embodiment of that fantasy.
I hope someone who remembers the Anglo craze that followed Beatlemania in the 1960's will confirm this, but as I recall there was a time when anyone English was almost automatically a pop star (witness the "career" of Noel Harrison)Prince Charles included. When Charles and Diana married I heard more than one woman of my generation express the same kind of resentment toward her as they did as Beatles fans toward the women who "stole" Paul or George from them. Knowing the impossibility of their being "chosen" for the position did not discourage their fantasy and resentment any more than the unlikelihood of becoming the next Elvis or John Lennon discouraged millions of American boys from buying guitars and forming bands. Illustartive of the unbalance of it all is the fact that there were at least some definite and defines steps one could take toward that goal. Even with the advent of some very popular female pop stars in recent years the popularity of "Princessy" acts like Madonna and Britney seems to outstrip that of more down to earth-and to my mind more talented-people like Chrissie Hynde or Tracy Chapman. Even Jewell traded in her jeans for strapless gowns.
I have plans to see The Queen this weekened. I had the same kind of reluctance you mentioned Maitland but the combination of the great reviews and the fact that Helen Mirren-who was great in Elizabeth-will have me giving it a shot.
|
|
Apr 24, 2007 3:55 AM
|
DaMess,
I think I understand the difference between reactions to the deaths of Diana and Mother Theresa. In the case of the latter, this was something expected. She seemed to have lived a long life and the world was prepared for her eventual loss (I won't even get into any of her detractors, but she had plenty of them just like Di).
In Diana's case, it was sudden and unexpected. Combined with the salacious aspects of the death and the London tabloid system, it was easy for the media to whip the public up into a fury. And in this case, the public was a willing participant because they had bought into the ideal fairy tale that she represented.
Also, in the marriage, she was seen as more of a victim than Charles. She was plucked from obscurity and was, seemingly, the underdog. She could be cast aside at a moment's notice (hell, Ireland still feels the effects of British royals' unpredictable temperament) while Charles had the support system of the entire monarchy behind him. So their, and my, sympathies lay with her.
Not that I was a bawling mess or anything. But I felt kinda bad for her.
|
|
Apr 24, 2007 12:15 PM
|
Well of course I felt bad for her Achy-I said that-BUT I don't think she was a worthy object of the intense idol worship that attended her life or her death. She was worshipped pretty much for her position in life and for her looks. Not that that's unusual or even un-understandable (is that a word?) but unlike even pop or movie stars she never really did anything. I don't disagree with you about what happened or even why. I just have problems with the fact that it did happen that way. And the press is certainly to blame for the hype surrounding her before and after her death.
And my comparison with Mother Theresa is to point out how sad it is that we (and I don't exclude myself) revere a relatively undistinguished person who happens to be a "princess" more than we do one who sacrifices herself to help someof the most poorly off people in the world.
The story of Charles and Camilla is much more romantic than that of Charles and Diana or Diana and Dodi or Diana and any of the men she had affairs with. The difference in the way the world sees the two relationships is simply because of the fact that Diana was "beautiful" and Camilla is not. But what person wouldn't want a spouse or lover who sees them the way Charles sees Camilla? Thank God I'm just flat out lucky enough to have one who does.
Yes, Diana was seen as a victim of the marriage and she was in a way but she didn't have to marry Charles. Antiquated as the monarchy may be we are still a long way off from the days when a woman could be compelled-or even pressured-into marrying a British Royal. True there was no real way of knowing what she was getting into but she darn well knew whether or not she was in love with Charles. Frankly, I think the only difference between Diana and Heather Mills is the number of legs she brought to the marriage.
|
|
Apr 25, 2007 3:22 AM
|
I didn't mean to imply you didn't feel for Di in some way. If I did, I apologize.
I don't find anything romantic in the Charles/Camilla relationship. Sorry, but his spineless refusal to give up his birthright for the woman he loves is not the Capra-esque ending I was hoping for.
And I doubt that Frank would have included "the phone call"...!
But it's not like I find Chuck + Di all that romantic either... so it's kind of a wash...
|
|
Apr 25, 2007 12:29 PM
|
|
Okay. I'll meet you halfway. But I must say that despite my contempt for the whole concept of royalty giving up the throne is a big deal. As you know-"It's good to be the King".
|
|
Apr 26, 2007 3:39 AM
|
To me, Charles & Camilla is a great romance and maybe the difference in point of view about it, illustrates something of the difference between the new and old "values" that are explored in the movie.
Considering that Charles put his duty to his country & family above his personal feelings and sacrificed himself as his heritage had taught him to do and then, years later, managed to marry his true love after all, makes it a fairly epic romance in my eyes.
Diana managed to get the media on her side by appealing to their sympathy, something that I feel the Royals found pathetic and humiliating. The Royal family didn't realize that these days, it doesn't matter what kind of attention you get as long as you get enough of it.
|
|
Apr 26, 2007 1:35 PM
|
But while putting "his duty to his country & family above his personal feelings", he also carried on an extramarital affair that was dangerous not only to his family but to his country. This is not the case for ordinary mortals such as you an I. His trangressions have a much more far-reaching impact.
What is so romantic about his selfishness and desire to have it all? Where is the sacrifice? He got everything and gave up nothing!
|
|
Apr 26, 2007 1:39 PM
|
I dunno Ahcy. I don't condone adultery but I don't see how his affair with Camilla was "dangerous " to his country. And I would be willing to bet that the list of politicians and royals who don't have their extra marital dalliances is a whole lot shorter than the list of those who do.
In Britain the King's Mistresses have long held a definite and special place at Court and according to Duke Lloyd Douglas, Duke of Maxalla "...history does record British Kings granting titles to their illegitimate offspring, both female and male, and the descendents have kept the titles". It is a reality that most royal families in many countries have acknowledged and dealt with for centuries.
William the Conqueror was "illegitimate" and was alternately known as "William the Bastard" and not because he wasn't a nice guy. According to Peter Beauclerk-Dewar and Roger Powell's book "Right Royal Bastards: The Fruits Of Passion"-"English and Scottish kings have sired at least 150 children out of wedlock. Many were acknowledged at court and founded dynasties of their own - several of today's dukedoms are descended from them".
So although it may not have been the most admirable thing for Charles to have an affair-and let's not forget that Diana had more than one, none of which seem to have been grounded in an enduring love like that of Charles and Camilla-it was, as Hank Williams Jr. says "a family tradition".
|
|
Apr 27, 2007 3:29 AM
|
It would not seem dangerous if you are opposed to their royalty, which I think you seem to be. But their government works best and is at its strongest when it is not divided or is not fractured with scandal.
The history you speak of predates Victorian times. I don't think the populace is as accepting of the reality of mistresses as they once were.
And I am still going to side with the young girl who was plucked from obscurity and manipulated into this marriage (yes, I said it... yes she has culpability... but she was also pressured from many directions) who found it far from the fantasy society had promised then found her husband pining for another woman and tried multiple times to find a real relationship of her own.
She did not have the luxury of already being in love like Charles was before their marriage. And since he was and already had his "soul mate" (yick), he should have stood his ground. He had all the power before the marriage. Di really had none. They did both have control over their destiny. And they both screwed it up... royally!
|
|
Apr 27, 2007 11:37 AM
|
It's not their "royalty" I oppose. They can be as royal as they want. It's monarchies I am against. How can a real American not be? And I still don't see how it was "dangerous"? You say it works best when it is not divided or fractured with scandal. What's unique about that?
And Victorian times were litlle more thana hundred years ago. Hardly ancient history. There were plenty of people who were alive during Victoria's reign up until the last couple of decades.
And what does the populace's acceptance of things have anything to do with what I said? I didn't cite the people's feelings. And whether they are accepting or not does not mean it doesn't and hasn't happened.
There are plenty of rumors of extra-marital activity surrounding the four monarchs who preceded Elizabeht II. Edward VIII who left the throne to marry Wallis Simpson is the subject of many and there is speculation that his actions were not just known to his wife but that she approved and even participated in them.
While these are rumors it's a good bet that some of them have substance. The British royal family lives in a pretty transparent fishbowl. It would be hard if not impossible to keep an affair secret when someone alwats knows where you are. You'd need someone to know even if just to help facilitate the affair.
There have long been rumors of Prince Phillip having extra-marital affairs and even children outside of his marriage. He has been linked with Princess Alexandra of Kent, Merle Oberon, and Fergie's mom. He was even said to have had a gay affair with Valery Giscard d'Estaing the former President of France.
At least one of Elizabeth's sister Margaret's affairs has been confirmed. The revelation of her affair with Roddy Llewellen was what led to her divorce in 1976. She was also linked romantically with her daughter's godfather,Anthony Barton,in 1966 and had a confirmed affair with Robin Douglas-Hume who killed himself upon their breakup.
Those are the verified affairs. There were rumors of liasons with Peter Sellers, Mick Jagger, cricket player Keith Miller and in 1966 with her daughter's godfather Anthony Barton and later with Sharman Douglas the daughter of an American Ambassador.
I'm not putting these people down for this. While I don't condone adultery-as I have previously said-to think that these people are above common human failings and temptations is naieve even ridiculous. When one's daily life is filled with people who are compelled to do almost everything one asks the fall into boredom and decadence is a short one. Look at the tabloid lives of Monaco's royals.
If I were a famous pop star or prince I can't say that I wouldn't succumb to some temptations. We are all subject to temptation. But one of the reasons that the marriages of rich poweful or famous people can be so fragile is because the temptations that they encounter are so frequent and so intense. I have often wondered if JFK explained one of his affairs by saying to his wife "But Jackie..it was Marilyn Monroe!"
|
|
Apr 30, 2007 4:20 AM
|
|
|
