"The Queen": a film about Elizabeth II and the death of Diana.

[ysbel]

Helen Mirren has this habit of taking roles outside of her character. She took on the lead role of Detective Sargeant Jane Tennant even though she said she had been a cultural and intellectual snob who had previously thought that police officers were not too bright.

She did mention that she was quite surprised to find herself playing the Queen because she was brought up to think that the royals were totally superfluous and the sentiment around her family when she was growing up was republican.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, to be fair to Dame Helen, she did a cracking job despite the script she was given and that's all an actress can do. In this profession, you get a script and you take it because not doing it means not eating and even when you've made a fortune like Helen, you don't break the habit of a lifetime as a jobbing actor/actress. Now, I hated the film and thought it was dribble snot but Helen Mirren did the best she could. I'd also take umbridge with you saying it was an uninspiring part - it was a VERY inspiring part because the woman she was playing is inspiring but the script wasn't there to make that inspiring part an inspiring reality on the screen and what we saw, was one of our best actresses trying to make s**t look like sugar. It also isn't just Hollywood, it's everywhere and when was it ever different?

Look at the 1956 movie with Ingrid Bergman and Helen Hayes, 'Anastasia'. Now that movie has stunning costumes, the music is fabulous and the cast is gold. I mean, we're talking the cream of the crop from the well knowns such as Yul Brynner to the ones who should have been well knowns such as Martita Hunt. It won awards but the script was dire. That movie actually makes me flinch with embarrasment not because the actors are bad but because the script is and all too often in this profession, you see fabulous actors really let down by the script writers. But 'Anastasia' wasn't off limits. She'd been dead for quite a while but Anna Anderson wasn't and quite a few Romanovs were milling about - was it right to make the film and make money off of it? Well, that's the role of theatre and cinema - to entertain and to inform. Movies are not like 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?' or 'African Queen' where we watch, enjoy but there's no reality in it at all. Movies have to be informative and when we say, "Well, this is off limits and so is that", then we're buying into censorship to spare blushes and I don't agree with that. At the same time, not every biographical film needs to be an axe in the back. 'The Nun's Story' was done exceptionally well, 'Evita' was a musical that was amazing with an equal measure of affection and criticism - these people existed and their stories have to be told.

Now, we don't know how true 'The Queen' was but I hope it inspired people to look into the reaction more than we were doing. I loathed the film but I was pleased that it made people think twice. It made people question the response and it showed the press for what they were. I think the problem is, we tend to think once history is over it's over and it isn't. It has to be constantly reviewed and re-evaluated so that we can pick up on what we've missed and learn from it. I thought the movie was sheep crap but I suppose it did encourage people to think twice and thats what that whole era in British history needed - a review. It was always being painted as the Queen bending to the public whereas in reality, it was the Queen doing what her Prime Minister advised which to me is much more significant when the roles should be reversed in that relationship if that's the system we have. I don't want that but I'm saying, if that's what we've got then it should work properly. Bear in mind that this is one of 3 films that Frears has made/is making about Tony Blair and in which Michael Sheen has played the former PM. I think if anything these films are a much needed look at the Blair premiership of which Di's death was unquestionably a big part.

[COUNTESS]

I agree with you almost totally. The movies are there to make money, some times social commentary, such as films like Gentlemen's Agreement, but that really dates me. I cannot see the queen as inspiring, she is just a nice lady doing her job. She is hardly dramatic or a charasmatic speaker. She is not a Ghandi or a John Kennedy. But, right or wrong, and I certainly don't know what was fabricated or what was real, it showed the vagaries of the public and the difficult position the queen can be in, how and why she did what she did will never truly be know. In the end, we know the result, how they got there no longer remains important. I thought the film was dull.

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is, would JFK be inspiring or dramatic had he not been shot? After all, he was only reading what his speech writers gave him, the same as the Queen only reads what she's given by her speech writers. I think there's alot to be said for keeping a steady throne over the most volatile period in history when it could have gone down the swannee several times. Remember, it's been during her reign that Britain has changed beyond all recognition and for her to stay as a constant force I think she has to have some inspiring quality. But maybe thats being over sentimental about a woman who's just always been there. It's rather like the Queen Mother. Didn't say anything since 1947 but we all loved her. It's a funny thing popularity. I agree though, the film was dull. Potentially it could have been the great film they're lauding it as.

[COUNTESS]

Kennedy had charisma and when he spoke you listened. He did not just read a speech, he was part of it. Unfortunately, and maybe not, the queen reads her speeches quite flat. He also made and worked for the policy he spoke of, his death, of course, set him apart. The queen hasn't made policy, she is just what you said, a constant. Neither good nor bad, just is.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, to be fair to Dame Helen, she did a cracking job despite the script she was given and that's all an actress can do.

I had no problem with her acting, just the, (IMO), inaccurate story being passed off as fact. Yes it made some people 'look' at how they reacted, but to me it is worrying that some people seem to quote this film as being a factual account of what happened.

[BeatrixFan]

Oh I agree. There should have been a disclaimer at the beginning saying that it was based on fact which would at least have let intelligent viewers know that it was drivel. But then again, intelligent viewers should have known that already. I agree with you that the quoting of it as a historical source is ridiculous and has been happening but I think that'd happen with any film!

[ysbel]

I can't believe people are talking about the movie still. It was good, interesting point of view, I think it got a lot right and a lot wrong but it was not outstanding.

My only beef was that it made Charles appear nicer than I think he really was but much more of a nincompoop and it definitely made Tony Blair out to be nicer than he really was so the story was more about the heroism of Tony Blair.

The one comment that struck me as fitting was when the Queen told Prince Philip that "We have to remember that the adoring public did not see the side of Diana that we saw"

Whether the Queen actually said those words, I think it encapsulated the differerences in the Royal Family's reactions to Diana's death and the public. The public and the Royal Family saw two different sides of Diana and their reactions were perfectly reasonable given the side of Diana they saw.

But neither the public nor the Royal Family saw the whole picture.

[BeatrixFan]

Well (and I loathed Blair) it was Blair's finest hour. It was definately his highlight. I don't think the film made Charles look nice, it actually made him look very creepy and backstabbing which I found slightly unsettling.

[TheTruth]

Don't know if this has its place here but I've made a drawing of the movie some time ago and I've filmed myself doing it. Here's the video :

Part 1

[Elsa M.]

I think the film somehow softens the character of the Queen... like the scenes of her with the moose, etc. Sometimes, Elisabeth II even appears as a movable or too sensible person, which I don't see as correcponding to the reality.

[iowabelle]

Elsa, was it a moose or a deer? I thought a deer.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elsa M.

I think the film somehow softens the character of the Queen... like the scenes of her with the moose, etc. Sometimes, Elisabeth II even appears as a movable or too sensible person, which I don't see as correcponding to the reality.

Elsa, do you mean sensible or sensitive. Sensible in English means that one is very clear headed and has a lot of common sense. Sensitive means that one's emotions are easily touched.

[Elsa M.]

Yes, ladies... I meant "deer" and "sensitive"... that's what happens when you try to speak English and you don't master the language

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elsa M.

Yes, ladies... I meant "deer" and "sensitive"... that's what happens when you try to speak English and you don't master the language

Ah, thanks for explaining Elsa. I was a bit confused; while the Queen strikes me as not very sensitive sometimes, she has always struck me as someone who is very sensible.

I agree the deer scene was a bit too melodramatic but in other scenes the Queen appeared more of a stickler for strict protocol than the Queen Mother and I had always imagined that the Queen was more flexible in matters of protocol whereas the Queen Mother was more strict.

[susan alicia]

Queen's screen corgis up for a Fido - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[GlitteringTiaras]

A lose sequel to The Queen is underway according to the BBC

The writer of award-winning film The Queen has started work on the sequel.
Director Peter Morgan will examine...

Anyone hear more about this?