"The Queen" (2006) - Film about Elizabeth II and the Death of Diana

[BeatrixFan]

Surely Her Majesty's intelligence is undoubted seeing as how she's reigned over the people of Great Britain for over 50 years? Did we need Helen Mirren to show us this side to the great lady?

 

[bbb]

i enjoyed the movie, helen mirren was wonderful, the look on her face when she was reading the cards on the flowers was right on, you could read the pain and shock in her eyes. it made me love and respect the queen even more.
one question my friend and i are arguing about. i think the stag was a metaphor of diana, a beautiful creature, cruelly hunted down, he thinks it's supposed to show the queen cared more about an animals death than dianas. does anybody have an opinion about it. thanks

 

[ysbel]

No I think it made her look clever

I'm curious. How do you think the movie made her out to be clever?

I must have missed that part. I thought it made Tony Blair look really clever.

 

[Tzu An]

i enjoyed the movie, helen mirren was wonderful, the look on her face when she was reading the cards on the flowers was right on, you could read the pain and shock in her eyes. it made me love and respect the queen even more.
one question my friend and i are arguing about. i think the stag was a metaphor of diana, a beautiful creature, cruelly hunted down, he thinks it's supposed to show the queen cared more about an animals death than dianas. does anybody have an opinion about it. thanks

I think the Queen saw the stag as a symbol of what Diana went through. If that stag had escaped and not been killed I think that the Queen felt like Diana in a way hadn't really died somehow. However, once the stag was killed I think that for her Diana was finally dead. I also think she wanted to believe that there was hope despite all that had happened.

 

[ysbel]

i enjoyed the movie, helen mirren was wonderful, the look on her face when she was reading the cards on the flowers was right on, you could read the pain and shock in her eyes. it made me love and respect the queen even more.
one question my friend and i are arguing about. i think the stag was a metaphor of diana, a beautiful creature, cruelly hunted down, he thinks it's supposed to show the queen cared more about an animals death than dianas. does anybody have an opinion about it. thanks

I think the filmmakers could well have had both meanings in mind. That scene didn't work for me. I liked it up to the point right before the hunters came and shot the deer but after that it was a bit too melodramatic for my tastes. Like skydragon said earlier, the Queen is an experienced hunter so it didn't ring true that she would think the stag's death was tragic and unfair.

 

[Tzu An]

I think the filmmakers could well have had both meanings in mind. That scene didn't work for me. I liked it up to the point right before the hunters came and shot the deer but after that it was a bit too melodramatic for my tastes. Like skydragon said earlier, the Queen is an experienced hunter so it didn't ring true that she would think the stag's death was tragic and unfair.

Certainly, but at the time it was a fairly traumatic time and I'm sure she wasn't looking at things so clinically and humdrum.

 

[ysbel]

Certainly, but at the time it was a fairly traumatic time and I'm sure she wasn't looking at things so clinically and humdrum.

That's true. I think though the scene was stretching it a bit to suggest the not-very-literary-minded Queen would have made the connection between the stag and Diana. The stag was a literary reference to Diana, the huntress goddess who often took the shape of a deer.

The Queen played by Helen Mirren appeared incredibly pragmatic rather than fanciful minded which is how I see the Queen in real life.

 

[Tzu An]

Oh, I didn't think of it in terms of the mythical figure of "Diana." The Queen saw a stag and thought of him as beautiful and at the time didn't want something that was also beautiful to die. She was, right before she saw the stag, crying a bit.

 

[Frothy]

I just finally saw and loved the film, and I tell you what, it made me think a little better of Tony Blair (and reminded me how much I dislike Alastair Campbell!).

The best bit was when the crowds at the front of the barriers curtsied to the Queen.

What a wonderful woman she is.

And you know, I always rated Mirren as an actress but this is astonishing. The first time she opened her mouth I was in shock, the imitation of the voice, accent, speech patterns, was just uncanny.

Certain things were in there for drama, like the totally fake, I'm sure, conflict between the Queen and Charles, but I loved it. A real ex-equerry said that that is exactly what life is like in the royal Household and that is the closest I'll come to seeing the Queen in her daily life. Fascinating stuff.

 

[MARG]

Surely Her Majesty's intelligence is undoubted seeing as how she's reigned over the people of Great Britain for over 50 years? Did we need Helen Mirren to show us this side to the great lady?

No we did not. However, maybe we could all do with an occassional reminder that she has a pulse! There is a tendency for the media to portray the Qeen as 'The Queen', graven in stone, unchangeable and inflexible, not a living breathing 'person' in her own right.
She may be the Queen, but she is also Elizabeth, Lillibet, Aunty, Grandma, etc.

 

[selrahc4]

I finally was able to see this movie three weeks ago. I was both looking forward to it and also fearing seeing it because Elizabeth II has been my lodestar since 1957. I was very relieved that Helen Mirren's portrayal pretty much matched what I would have wanted. It was honest and sympathetic and as true to life as we can know, being in a position only to guess. (She was brilliant as an actress in this; I agree with everyone who says she deserves all the recognition she gets).


To me Alastair Campbell was the villain of the piece. He was so ridiculously awful that I dind't know whether to laugh or boo!


I saw the scene with the stag as representing "beleaguered Monarch meets beleaguered Monarch of the Glen ".

Helen Mirren was quoted in Time magazine as saying in regard to how she developed her interpretation of the Queen for this role: "As I watched her, I saw that although she has an extremely composed exterior, there's an incredible beat of energy within,"
and "To her, it would simply be rude to impose your emotions on others."

Luckily, I never fell far enough into the story to forget that it was fiction, although based on real people and events. And I could see that, although the story was told via this particular event and these particular people, the real underlying theme of the film was the "modernization" of Britain; that is, the study of the interrelationship of tradition and change.

 

[bbb]

DAME HELEN TO TAKE TEA WITH THE QUEEN
quote from article * in Hello
*Helen, Queen director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan are, according to the Daily Mail, all due to receive the regal invitation after the Academy Awards on February 25
*Originally the invitation was to be issued only if the film won, but now it seems the monarch will meet them either way. Apparently the Queen has not yet seen the movie,
*Despite the fact she was brought up a staunch anti-royalist, Helen admits making the film changed the way she views the Establishment. "I fell in love with her and never thought that would happen," she says.

 

[fandesacs2003]

I'm curious. How do you think the movie made her out to be clever?

I must have missed that part. I thought it made Tony Blair look really clever.

Because, despite that she had a completely different opinion in the beginning, she has been able to "think" and to hear others opinion. This is a sign on intelligence.
Prince Philip has been shown stupid and egoist, from the beginning to the end. He had an old fashioned opinion, and during the whole story, he was fully stubborn.
The Queen tried to understand others opinion, and also, she behaviored in a way to satisfy her people's wishes, despite that she had another position. She is a Queen of a people, she has to try to "hear" people's wishes.
Considering the fossilized and for centuries old fashion mentality according to it she has been grown up, it looked impossible to behavior like this, but she managed.
For me this is an intelligent modern Monarch.
As for Tony Blair, he was clever and he saved the Monarchy this moment, but THIS was not the main point of the story...

 

[Skydragon]

......Luckily, I never fell far enough into the story to forget that it was fiction, although based on real people and events.

You are it seems, one of the few, who is able to realise this was a work of fiction.

It is Morgan and Frears interpretation of what they thought might have happened.

 

[fandesacs2003]

You are it seems, one of the few, who is able to realise this was a work of fiction.

It is Morgan and Frears interpretation of what they thought might have happened.

Sorry, but ALL this has been told and known before. Since the real events we ALL knew that it happened like this.

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry, but ALL this has been told and known before. Since the real events we ALL knew that it happened like this.

No you don't, unless you were at Balmoral and with the royal family when all this happened. Neither the writer nor the director have had any contact with any members of the royal family, or afaik, any of their friends or servants that would have 1st hand knowledge.

This whole film is a work of fiction based on the writers thoughts on how things might have happened or what might have been said.

 

[fandesacs2003]

No you don't, unless you were at Balmoral and with the royal family when all this happened. Neither the writer nor the director have had any contact with any members of the royal family, or afaik, any of their friends or servants that would have 1st hand knowledge.

This whole film is a work of fiction based on the writers thoughts on how things might have happened or what might have been said.

Of course I have not bee there. But the whole way thinks happened confirms the film. The Royal family was fully absent for the first days, and people's rection was growing and growing.
And finakl the family changed her behavior.
These ARE THE FACTS.
Of course we do not know the discussions, be the events are known. And do not forget that among Tony Blair's environment, things should have been discused.

 

[ysbel]

Because, despite that she had a completely different opinion in the beginning, she has been able to "think" and to hear others opinion. This is a sign on intelligence.
Prince Philip has been shown stupid and egoist, from the beginning to the end. He had an old fashioned opinion, and during the whole story, he was fully stubborn.
The Queen tried to understand others opinion, and also, she behaviored in a way to satisfy her people's wishes, despite that she had another position. She is a Queen of a people, she has to try to "hear" people's wishes.
Considering the fossilized and for centuries old fashion mentality according to it she has been grown up, it looked impossible to behavior like this, but she managed.
For me this is an intelligent modern Monarch.
As for Tony Blair, he was clever and he saved the Monarchy this moment, but THIS was not the main point of the story...

Ah, thanks for explaining your point of view, fandescas. I must say I didn't see the Queen change her fundamental values and opinions in this movie that much. It reminded me of Cate Blanchett's version of Elizabeth I, a movie that showed the education of a young Queen in the lessons of poltical manoevering for survival.

I thought of Tony Blair was the central character because on the contrary his internal values and opinion about the Queen seemed to change the most. At first he appears as a flippant, very smooth politician who says the right things and shows emotion but who can be lying. At the end, he really starts to see the Queen as a human being with a sense of dignity and feeling despite the fact that the Queen's manner hasn't changed a lot.

 

[Elspeth]

I haven't seen it yet but I've read the screenplay. I don't know how it is in the flesh, but on the written page Cherie Blair comes across as a real shrew.

 

[ysbel]

Oh indeed she does.

In fact, she and Prince Philip appear as polar opposites in politics but totally alike in personality-very contemptous of the other side.

 

[Skydragon]

Of course I have not bee there. But the whole way thinks happened confirms the film. The Royal family was fully absent for the first days, and people's rection was growing and growing.
And finakl the family changed her behavior.
These ARE THE FACTS.
Of course we do not know the discussions, be the events are known. And do not forget that among Tony Blair's environment, things should have been discused.

All we do know for certain about these events is that Diana died in a car crash, that the Queen and the rest of the close family chose to try to protect the boys and allow all of them some time to grieve, in private.
We know about the mob that was waiting for them in London, that in their grief they had to 'parade' in front of and they (including the children) had to read some rather nasty messages left by some people.

We know nothing about what the Queen or any of the family did at Balmoral, before or after the death. We know nothing about what was said by the Queen, the rest of the family or Blair at this time, except the statements made on tv by HM or Blair.

That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

 

[MARG]

All we do know for certain about these events is that Diana died in a car crash, that the Queen and the rest of the close family chose to try to protect the boys and allow all of them some time to grieve, in private.
That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

Well said Skydragon. I have to admit that I watched that on TV with a morbid sense of fascination.

My common sense told me that none of them should be there, especially the children, but if we're honest we will admit that it was the very first piece of 'Realty Television', as compulsive as watching a train wreck. Perhaps that's why I loathe and never watch reality shows.

As to the movie? In some ways it's like the film community looked back on the whole episode with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and tried to say to say a collective I'm sorry! Gee, Helen Mirren has said she now admires the Queen! As for the public? Many will watch the movie as some sort of guilty penance, and find through through the power of the screen, that the Queen is worthy!

Shame indeed Skydragon.

 

[ysbel]

I admit I didn't like to watch William and Harry forced out to greet the crowds so soon after the death of their mother, especially with William so shy and private. I would have preferred they be given private space to grieve.

I don't know if Her Majesty ever really read any notes on the flowers left in front of Buckingham Palace after Diana's death that said "They have your blood on their hands" (as was shown in the movie) but I can well imagine that some misguided fan wrote words like that and left them with flowers at the gates.

Even if Her Majesty didn't read such notes herself, I'm sure that she was informed of what was going on including some of the contents of the notes.

I thought it was an unpleasant scene. Others may feel differently.

 

[Skydragon]

I think I said right at the beginning , that my cause for concern with this film, is that people will believe it is a factual account, of what happened and who said or did what.

What was said or done at this time will never be known.

As a work of fiction, it is worthy of merit, being seen as a docu drama is misguided.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't know if Her Majesty ever really read any notes on the flowers left in front of Buckingham Palace after Diana's death that said "They have your blood on their hands" (as was shown in the movie) but I can well imagine that some misguided fan wrote words like that and left them with flowers at the gates.

I am certain that HM saw some of the television coverage of the scenes at BP. "They have your blood on their hands", was only one of many nasty messages left.

 

[fandesacs2003]

We know about the mob that was waiting for them in London, that in their grief they had to 'parade' in front of and they (including the children) had to read some rather nasty messages left by some people.

That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

I'm sorry but you can not be private when it is suitable and public when it also suitable. Any royal family lives from their people and for their people, and they have to hear their people's wishes, even it sometimes is very difficult.
And do not mix the boys in this story. Nobody claimed the boy's presence, and no one of the british people would have reacted if a 11 years and a 15 years boy would have been crying alone.
People reacted to claim The Queen and Prince Philip, and also Charles, but not in any case the boys.
Look the difference with the Spanish family. Letizia lost her sister, and Queen Sofia immediately interrupted her trip to be back. Erica is not directly involved with the RF, but ALL the SRF is there.
IN UK the mother of the future King died, and the family stays on their holiday's place. I do not say that they were dancing in Balmoral, of course they were sad, but they were absent, and this is not a Monarch's place.
In another register, remember when the submarin KURSK disappeared under the sea. Vladimir Putin did not interrupt his holidays. Of course he was following the events, BUT HE WAS ABSENT, and this was extremely badly taken by the Russian people.

 

[Warren]

And do not mix the boys in this story. Nobody claimed the boy's presence, and no one of the british people would have reacted if a 11 years and a 15 years boy would have been crying alone.
People reacted to claim The Queen and Prince Philip, and also Charles, but not in any case the boys.

That's an interesting scenario. Imagine the headlines: "Heartless Royals return to London; grieving boys abandoned and alone at Balmoral."

 

[fandesacs2003]

That's an interesting scenario. Imagine the headlines: "Heartless Royals return to London; grieving boys abandoned and alone at Balmoral."

Good point That's true that press can say all the versions for the same event.

By they could have been back WITH the boys.

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Someone has his opinion, thst is the good point.

Ciao

 

[Skydragon]

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Love the film or hate it, agree or disagree with the writers interpretation of the few facts known, that's fine as long as viewers remember that it is apocryphal.

 

[ysbel]

Good point That's true that press can say all the versions for the same event.

By they could have been back WITH the boys.

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Someone has his opinion, thst is the good point.

Ciao

I think you're oversimplifying. Not every one in this discussion actually admires everything the Queen does.

I also think we have a different idea of what being human means. I remember some people in the press reflecting with pride that the Royal Family were like puppets on a string and the people could make them do what they wanted when they wanted. I thought that attitude was inhuman and did not want to see a Queen be just a marionette on a string that public opinion can pull whenever it wants. I prefer a monarch to be as true as they can to their feelings in a public situation. It makes them more real.

For Queen Sofia, it was easy to express affection for the dead sister of Letizia because the Queen Sofia adores Letizia, they have a good relationship and Queen Sofia knows that Letizia and her sister were close. I'm not sure if Sofia wanted to prove anything to her people by showing up at the funeral of Erika but she definitely wanted to show support for Letizia, a young girl she loved very much and she had had no unpleasant dealings with Erika herself to turn her off the girl.

In contrast Queen Elizabeth had liked Diana as a young girl but Diana had declared a public war in the press against the Royal Family and the Queen herself. Also the Queen was very concerned for her grandsons growing up in this environment, especially William, who was very shy and scared of the press. The Queen showed her humanness by paying attention to her grandson's needs first. I believe that anything else would have been inhuman.

Could she have made a public statement and tried to approach the public before? Yes, and I think she would have if Diana hadn't done that last Panorama interview where she criticized the monarchy and Charles' ability to inherit the throne. That one interview put the monarchy in a precarious position and so I find it perfectly understandable that the Queen was at a loss of words to express her thoughts at Diana's passing.

Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos have never been put in this position by their own immediate family and so you cannot compare the reactions of the two families. If Letizia had died after giving Jaime Penafiel a critical interview against Felipe, Juan Carlos, and Sofia, do you think Sofia would have rushed out to greet the public in mourning for Letizia's death?