Saw the movie last night and greatly enjoyed it. Mirren doesn’t look all that much like Queen, but with makeup and the proper bearing, she makes a very convincing Elizabeth II. The guy who plays Tony Blair absolutely nails the part, too. The movie shows the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death in 1997 and how Blair tried, as tactfully as he could, to help the Queen understand the depth of the public’s mourning, and how she needed to be more responsive and less stiff-upper-lip. The delicate constitutional minuet between Sovereign and Prime Minister is masterfully shown. It’s a generally-admiring portrait of both.
For any Anglophile or those interested in the British monarchy, it’s a great behind-the-scenes look at life at Buckingham Palace and Balmoral. The Queen and her corgis, being awakened by a bagpiper, tooling about in Land Rovers, Prince Philip’s crustiness, Prince Charles’s diffidence, etc.
Two thumbs up, although I thought the title was a little boring. Why not “H.M.” or “E II R” or “After Diana” or even “Buck House”?
I haven’t seen the movie, but I did hear about it, in particular the focus on the controversy over Diana’s funeral. (The Queen felt that since Diana was no longer a royal, a state funeral was inappropriate, while the public wanted and needed the public mourning and, I believe the movie suggests, the controversy threatened the monarchy itself.) I never heard anything about this controversy. Was it known in the UK at the time that this debate was occurring? Would the monarchy have really been threatened if they didn’t have a public funeral?
It was a very, very strange week. I doubt that the monarchy was seriously in trouble but there was much clamour for a big funeral, and a public statement. I was :dubious: about the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the run up to the funeral, but the day itself was surprisingly moving. The gun carriage, the single tolling bell, the Princes. Most remarkably, the scenes of the enormous crowds as the coffin was taken to the burial ground, throwing flowers onto and in the path of the hearse. Most un-British!
It wasn’t so much a debate as a furore kicked up by the media to divert attention from the way they had hounded Diana and contributed directly to her death. (Imagine the general public had been allowed to empathise with celebs trying to evade the paparazzi ? Think of the loss in circulation of magazines like “Hello” etc.) When she died I had just come back from a few years in Eastern Europe and couldn’t fathom what was happening at all.
Essentially it went like this :
Annoying media person to not overly switched on member of the public “Don’t you think that the flag should be flying at half mast over Buckingham Palace ?” “Um yes.” “As you have heard the general public are demanding that …” etc. etc. etc.
Complete maddness - the royals were playing by their rules, the public were being manipulated and whipped up into a frenzy. People were canceling all sorts of events the day of her funeral … Collective hysteria.
To answer your question the popularity of the monarchy suffered a big dip but I don’t think it was actually “threatened”. I’ve seen the film, enjoyed it despite the documentary like feel. I’m glad they didn’t try to portay the young princes (maybe not allowed?).
How much of this film is based on fact, rather than speculation? Surely Her Majesty and Mr. Blair were not interviewed. Do we even know that Blair in fact offered her any advice on the matter? I agree that it at least seems very likely, but I don’t think the film can be called a look behind the scenes if it’s mainly imagined.
I don’t mean any of this to be disparaging – I’m looking forward to seeing this film.
After this movie, should Helen Mirren expect no invitations to state dinners? In other words, does the queen object to being portrayed on film (even if it’s a positive portrayal)?
I’m an Anglophile, and I’m looking forward to seeing it; loved Mirren in Elizabeth I. And I DO recall the controversy about the funeral, and remember hearing that Blair was advising the Queen. As for the movie, I’m sure there is speculation involved, but I think it’s more a case of extrapolating from first-hand sources close to the royal family, or sources in a position to hear about such things. Just as in America, it’s hard for the rich and famous to keep secrets – they have to have so many people around them. And I’m not so sure the media is to blame for all the hoo-ha. I truly think the “common people” thought of Diana as the people’s princess. Here I’m an American, and I thought of her that way. I admire and respect the Queen, but Diana got out there and made headlines, and crusaded for causes that affect us commoners (being beautiful and stylish didn’t hurt either ). Maybe the Queen did too, in her own way; because of that “stiff upper lip” and aversion to publicity, we may never know just how much influence she wielded in world affairs.
Maybe I’m misremembering, but I thought that the Queen and Prince Philip went to wherever Harry and William were, presumably to console them as grandchildren who had lost their mother. There was no immediate press statement or what have you because they were with the boys.
Do I have that completely screwed up? Weren’t the boys with Charles when Diana died, and then the Queen and Prince Philip went to where they were?
I watched the funeral, and I was okay until I saw that plate of white flowers with a card that said “Mummy” on it. Then I lost it.
It was a very strange week to be British, that’s for sure. I mean I realised straight away that it was going to be a big news story for a few days, but I wasn’t prepared for the national televised grieving contest that ensued. I went into town the following Saturday, the day of the funeral, thinking that I would take advantage of the thin crowds to do a bit of stress-free shopping. But all the shops were shut! It was fucking National Diana Day or something. It just felt like the whole country had gone mad.
I’ve already seen it (rather accidentally; I actually went to see something else but showed up too late.), and I was first confused by it. Blair was presented, in my opinion, as a pleasant enough character, if not particularly well developed. Acceptable because the movie is, in fact, The Queen, and not The Prime Minister.
But every other character just felt…vacant, to me. Completely foreign.
After a bit of rumination, I realized that it’s highly possible that that was the whole point of the movie. The queen and co. are all, through no fault of their own, very, very bizarre people. You can’t relate to them because you’re not the queen, nor are you any manner of royalty, therefore, it’s going to seem just bizarre. So, I suppose it actually was an excellent performance by Mirren: she was at once incredibly dignified and incredibly bizarre.
That, in turn, made me wonder why bother having a queen at all, once she becomes someone that no one else in the world can understand, let alone relate to. But that, I believe, is for a different thread.
US Mirren fans can also see her as Jane Tennison in the final series of Prime Suspect on Masterpiece Theater on PBS. It’s on Sunday evenings here in Boston starting tomorrow, November 12. Elsewhere, check your local listings.
We saw the film this week (quite a good crowd for mid-week, early showing!) and we liked it very much! Helen should get her Oscar speech ready…she is at least a lock for a nomination.
As for the real events, I do remember in the US press there was a little bit of discussion about how quiet the Royal Family was at first, but most Americans wrote it off as shock and typical British reserve. “Stiff upper lip” and all. Thus, I don’t think it was quite as noticeable here as in Britain that things were even slightly out of character during the first few days.
Now, having seen the film, I can fully understand the quandary that the Queen and some of the Royal Family might have found themselves in…but in American we do things differently. I mean, whenever a President dies, all living Presidents and members of both parties quickly find something nice to say, even though we all know it is bullshit from some of those speaking. I guess we have insincerity down to a fine art here.
However, I also give the film, The Queen, a raving, two thumbs up! (And that really is sincere.)
No word in the Brit newspapers as to whether the Queen has seen The Queen. Although it’s been reported that she wasn’t pleased by Jeanette Charles’s burlesque of her in that Naked Gun movie. “We are not amused” about covered it.
Mirren doesn’t have to worry about not being asked to dinner. She’s already a dame, which is as high an honor as any actor is likely to get. (Although Olivier was created a baron, the only actor to acheive that rank.) They can’t take Mirren’s damehood away from her unless she commits treason. IIRC, the only person to have been stripped of a knighthood (knight is the same rank as dame) in recent years was the Queen’s curator of paintings, Anthony Blunt, who was discovered to have been a spy for the Russians for several decades.
Yes, the Prince of Wales and his sons were at Balmoral when Diana died in Paris. He went to Paris without them to retrieve her body, then returned to Britain.
From what I’ve read in many sources, the movie is generally factually accurate, and both Charles and Blair had to do some gentle nudging behind the scenes to make the Queen understand how many in the country were yearning for more of a show of empathy and public mourning by the Royal Family (and I will certainly concede that those flames were fanned by the tabloid media).
Mirren was interviewed on NPR a few weeks back. She said that the Queen had not yet seen the movie, as far as she knew. Friends in Buckingham Palace told her that the Sovereign was likely to see it eventually, however. Mirren imagined that the Queen would watch it in silence, then say, “Well, I suppose that could have been worse” and then call for a stiff gin and tonic.
Two things: it really hit me–the massiveness of the mourning–when I saw the street outside Kensington Palace (is that where Diana lived? Don’t remember) so filled with flowers that they needed to bring in a back hoe to clean them up. There were tons (tonns?) of flowers there.
2nd thing: I do want to see this movie (if it comes out here), but I have a question-in it, do they show the hooks that her Majesty has had installed on all the desks etc, for a place to hang her handbag? That struck me as bizarre when I read that in a mag several years ago.
eleanorrigby: with that screen name, I’d assume you’re female, but if you were female, I should think you’d know why (if true) the Queen wants hooks for her handbags. Remember: the Queen resides, and vacations in, castles. She wants to have her handbag with her when she moves from room-to-room (and in a castle, moving from one room to another can be a trip). I don’t want my handbag sitting on my office desk – it just gives the wrong impression besides being too accessible. But I put my handbag in a drawer. If my desk had a hook under it, that’s where I’d put my bag. So the Queen wants her handbag handy, to go where she goes, but not in the way, and not visible and accessible.
). Maybe the Queen did too, in her own way; because of that “stiff upper lip” and aversion to publicity, we may never know just how much influence she wielded in world affairs.