Movie Review-"The Queen"
"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say" Sir Paul McCartney
And another Beatles quote might be appropriate here, as well. George Harrison's horrified appraisal of Beatlemania: "We gave them an excuse to go mad." Surely that's how the Royals must have felt seeing the outpouring of grief generated by the death of former Princess Diana over the week that this smart bitchy little film covers. The tone and volume of the crowds that surrounded Buckingham Palace, fueled by the predatory tabloids, approached hysteria and went well past the accepted levels of decorum practiced by its inhabitants. Flying the flag at half-mast for Diana? They hadn't even done it for the death of the King! The idea! There's a telling line QEII says in bewilderment: "But she isn't even an H.R.H.!"--a lovely combination of formality and informality within the Royal Family. But the film has its own opening quote, from Shakespeare--the one half-mocked by Jack Nicholson in "The Departed"--"Uneasy lies the head...etc, etc." But, in this day and age it can be asked, "Who wears the crown?"
Is it the Queen, cosseted in formal procedure and pomp, restricted in her powers and budgeted by the government (the first scene of the movie has an arch little discussion between her and a portrait artist regarding democracy and the in-coming Labor party of Tony Blair. "You might not be allowed to vote, ma'am,* but it is your government." "Yes...it is," she replies, smiling at the constancy)? Is it the fledgling Prime Minister Tony Blair who must bow and scrape to the Queen, but who uses whatever power he has to influence her actions? Is it Blair's eager-beaver, though cynical, staff, micro-managing and creating press-releases and agendas that sometimes frustrate, while bolstering the image of, the new PM? The Queen's consort, Prince Phillip, blusters about what is proper and how he'd do things (assuming he was in charge), and son Charles, dithering and defferential (there's a lovely moment as Charles enters a room where James Cromwell, playing Phillip--pointedly crosses his arms without even acknowledging that he knows his son is in the room), tries to sway the Queen emotionally and by proxies. Or is it the rabble with their devastated faces and the endless supply of flowers that becomes a memorial and a substitute for any public display from official sources?
Then there is the late Princess herself, seen only in vintage news footage, at times clowning, at times vulnerable...and at times, with a look like she's viewing the proceeding with a knowing satisfaction.
One wonders how the Royals themseleves would see this film**...no doubt, as an affront to be taken in stoic, stony silence. Yet, one can understand their actions, and even have some sympathy for their dilemma, while also wanting to shake some sense into them.
"The Queen" is a fine, gossipy movie, with a literate script***(whether any of the things depicted behind closed draw-bridges is anyone's guess) by Peter Morgan--he also wrote last year's "The Last King of Scotland.", top-of-the-line performances led by Helen Mirren (who has the canny knowledge to know she's playing two roles: Elizabeth and an eerie "Elizabeth-as-Monarch," and, yes, she'll win the Oscar for Best Actress) and a direction by Stephen Frears that's smart and canny. The last shot is the most telling. Frears leaves us with an image of the Queen walking in her immaculate formal garden--her unruly Pomeranian dogs jumping and bouncing and using the facilities while Elizabeth pays no mind to the chaos.
Long Live the Queen.
"The Queen" is a fine, blue-haired matinee movie.
* And make sure you pronounce that correctly. We're told that it is "Ma'am" as in "ham," not as in "harm." One of the conceits of the film is to show the "accepted" ways to present oneself to the Queen--always a prescribed way, no more and no less--surely a main reason for the atrophy the Windsors displayed in not responding to the public's reaction.
**I read somewhere in the Golden Globes coverage this morning that the Queen told Mirren "someone finally got (playing her) right."
***There's a funny scene where Blair, flush with his efforts to influence the situation starts to push for his own agenda. Elizabeth will have none of it, and warns her PM not to be too complacent for his crisis will come when he least expects it. It took every ounce of restraint to keep from yelling "Yo, Blair!" at the screen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of a barrel of oil today is $51.33--still dropping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-script 02/07/07: Slate has quite an informative interview with director Stephen Frears
2 comments:
"Then there is the late princess herself...displayed only in vintage news footage..."
In the film, Prince Charles tells his mother, "The Diana we knew was very different than the Diana idolized by the public", but this truth is never developed in the film.
While the "people's princess" remains the icon of superficial popular culture, the Royals knew a very different, darker character behind the facades of glamour and pseudo-compassion.
Both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder caused by their mother's abandoning them as young children. A google search reveals that Diana is considered a case study in BPD by mental health professionals.
For Charles Spencer, BPD meant insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana's death). For Diana, BPD meant intense insecurity and insatiable need for attention and affection which even the best husband could never fulfill.
Clinically, it's clear that the Royal family did not cause her "problems". Rather, Diana brought her multiple issues into the marriage, and the Royal family was hapless to deal with them.
Her illness, untreated, sowed the seeds of her fast and unstable lifestyle, and sadly, her tragic fate.
The tabloid-fueled hysterical masses never knew the sick Diana upclose; the Royals did. How humiliating it must have been for H.M. to give honours (which even Churchill did not receive) to such pathos.
Yes. I, too, have remained silent about tributes to some that might not have been given if 'the truth" were known. It's called "charity."
It's called "better instincts."
"but this truth is never developed in the film."
Nor does it need to be, really. It would be a separate movie. It is mentioned, but is largely irrelevant to this particular movie. What "The Queen" is about is the examination of power behind closed (and seemingly unfeeling) doors and how it is disseminated to an impressionable public.
But it is readily apparent in the film (and it's the film that is being discussed) is that, like it or not, Diana's public persona was what the public was fixated on...as well as the Queen's (hasn't it always been thus?). Frears also makes it abundantly clear that the Queen is tied to protocol, which the public at large is not privy to, and feels no allegiance to, especially in moments of...oh, let's call it "high dudgeon."
The movie does a fine job in pleading The Queen's case, I thought.
As far as the Spencers, it's conjecture and second-hand diagnosis. I guess I don't see the point in going there, and to tie it to her death, I think, is wrong. Her death appears to be a result of the combination of a slightly inebriated driver in a bad section of Paris pursued at too high a rate of speed by a venal, sociopathic press out for a good pay-day.
They got it.
Post a Comment