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

[GlitteringTiaras]

Yes, but we need more. I'm kidding, BeatrixFan. I agree with you, there is no need for a sequel even though the movie will follow Blair, mainly, and his dealings with something that I cannot think of at the moment. I don't believe the writer will re-hash the whole Diana aftermath thing.

[BeatrixFan]

I heard that the sequel would complete a three-fold trilogy about the premiership of Tony Blair but I should think they'll wait for the memoirs before they go ahead with it.

I'm glad you agree with me about the sequel - for a moment I thought you'd gone quite peculiar.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I heard that the sequel would complete a three-fold trilogy about the premiership of Tony Blair but I should think they'll wait for the memoirs before they go ahead with it.

I'm glad you agree with me about the sequel - for a moment I thought you'd gone quite peculiar.

I was joking. Though I do believe the whole thing should be buried under heavy sand, at least for awhile.

[Elspeth]

"The Queen" wasn't really meant to be about the Queen, it was part of his series of plays about Tony Blair, which I assume is why Blair came across so much more favourably than any of the royals. This sequel is another of the Tony Blair plays and won't be anything to do with the Queen if the first one in the series is any guide. If people are trying to claim that this one is also going to be about the Queen, they're in for a disappointment.

[Polly]

Unlike the rest of you, I really enjoyed 'The Queen'. I thought it an elegant, sympathetic, and, yes, realistic portrayal of what might well have happened.

Like everyone else, I don't know how true the film was, but I do know that London was consumed by grief at the time (I was there) and that drastic events were mooted, albeit in rumbled and subdued tones.

I think, as well, that as myth and legend subverts much of our current thinking, and will always impose itself on the future consciousness, this film doesn't do too badly by Her Majesty. As for the others, well, boo-sucks to them, in my view. HM is the only consideration: well, the only one whom I care about in this particular instance.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

"... it was part of his series of plays about Tony Blair...

Interesting, I wish I knew that prior to seeing the film.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Polly

I think, as well, that as myth and legend subverts much of our current thinking, and will always impose itself on the future consciousness, this film doesn't do too badly by Her Majesty. As for the others, well, boo-sucks to them, in my view. HM is the only consideration: well, the only one whom I care about in this particular instance.

Well I would say that it is not quite so unimportant as to how Charles is played so I can't quite boo-suck an unfair portrayal of him. HM the Queen may be the present of the monarchy but Charles is the future.

[Thomas Parkman]

Yes, good people, the movie had its purple patches and yes Charles and Philip do not come across well at all in the movie and I thought the interpretation of the Queen Mum totally outrageous as everything I know about her, which is not admittedly much, is that underneath all the sweetness and charm there was a brain and will of stainlesss steel. I hope she was not that out of it in real life as she was in the movie. Same for Charles, whom I have always thought has gotten the worst press, and for Philip.

As for a series about Blair, Good Lord, Deliver us!!!! Why not a series about Bill Clinton or Boris Yelsin???

One must understand that protocol and the rules of how things are done is at the very essence of monarchy. You simply must have form and order and without that the whole scene just collapses into mush. So I clearly understand why the Queen stuck to her guns and did what she did. When you have rules, tradition and how you should behave, life really is so much easier. On a superficial level it is called manners. Cheers.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well I would say that it is not quite so unimportant as to how Charles is played so I can't quite boo-suck an unfair portrayal of him. HM the Queen may be the present of the monarchy but Charles is the future.

I also feel that it is important how everybody is portrayed. Even the portrayal of HM left a lot to be desired and this film should have carried the warning that it was how the writer 'imagined' the RF might have behaved, very little of the regime at Balmoral or any shooting estate was, IMO, correct!

but I do know that London was consumed by grief at the time (I was there)

As were quite a few and yes, many appeared to follow the path the media set them on, of the ever popular recreational grieving.

[COUNTESS]

This was a basically unimportant movie and, if not for the Helen Mirren Hoo Ha, would have gone unoticed. There was nothing remarkable about it and most of us do not care how anyone was portrayed, because to some extent that is artistic license. Unless, it was written or told by the people involved how would we know?

[susan alicia]

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Suffolk | Canines success on silver screen

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

This was a basically unimportant movie and, if not for the Helen Mirren Hoo Ha, would have gone unoticed.

Even without Helen Mirren, a movie about the death of Diana coming close to the 10th anniversary would have attracted notice even if it were filled with B-actors and had been a bad movie.

History will tell if it is an unimportant movie, however, it may fall the wayside like Marie Antoinette, the 1938 version with Norma Schearer, that was supposed to be so groundbreaking for its time and is now regarded as a costume period pied.

[COUNTESS]

Time will tell. As time passes memories dim. Not that there were any Marie Antoinette contemporaries in 1938, but in a few years the children who are 10 or below will be the teenagers and young adults and they will never have know who the living person was. Diana is an icon today, but know of tomorrow. The movie itself was unremarkable, but, as you say, caught attention just by virtue of the time.