"King Charles III" (2017) - BBC Two Future History Film on Reign of Prince Charles

[Osipi]

Another thing is the creative aspect of the play as an art form. Some people may see one thing while another sees something else. I saw something completely different from what most people saw and that's OK as I got my own meaning and synopsis out of the work.

Perhaps too we've become so used to what we see presented on TV as being made to be as true to real life as possible (disregarding of course reality TV) that its very easy to overlook the hidden messages what the playwright was trying to portray in his work.

The whole show to me was too surreal to even begin to think that it was meant to be an "what if" scenario that could be based in reality. The characters portrayed in the show, although based on real, actual living persons, were totally portrayed as having totally different character makeups than they actually do in real life. Charles as a simpering spineless creature and at times made one wonder if his character was based on George III, Harry as a mindless wimp that blindly does what he's told and William as the proverbial henpecked husband with Kate as the pushy wife using William as her robot to do her bidding

One unreal scene was when Charles greets Kate and gushes about just how beautiful she is and how much she's brought to the family as if Kate was the anchor that kept the boat stable. Totally unreal.

It definitely was interesting.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I wish IMDb still had their discussion boards. This is an example of where some good informative conversation would take place. There are 11 reviews about 50/50 pro/con - but there are about 4 solid reviews worth reading

Off topic, but moviechat.org is trying to fill the void but not too many have found it.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Off topic, but moviechat.org is trying to fill the void but not too many have found it.

Thank you. I'll take a look.

LATER: I see what you mean: not many have found it.

 

[duchessrachel]

Check your local PBS station. They're the ones that carry Masterpiece Theater and where I've been able to find "King Charles III" air times.

Thanks. I found a King Charles III movie. Is that it or is it a series?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Thanks. I found a King Charles III movie. Is that it or is it a series?

It is a TV Movie. Also, in the US the DVD version may be released the end of June.

 

[loonytick]

The whole show to me was too surreal to even begin to think that it was meant to be an "what if" scenario that could be based in reality. The characters portrayed in the show, although based on real, actual living persons, were totally portrayed as having totally different character makeups than they actually do in real life.

OK, I've watched it now. Wow. I really enjoyed that, as unreal as it was.

I agree that the characters were mostly fairly different from what they are in real life, although I do think it tapped in quite adeptly to some of the media portrayals of each of these people, almost showing through exaggeration how silly those portrayals have been:

-an extrapolation of Kate the "Wisteria Sister," always climbing, always striving, always scheming

-Harry the lost soul - he's not been portrayed that way in a while, but I remember that briefly being the tabloid line around the time this play was written

- Camilla's loyalty to Charles as being blind and almost stupid, something that was certainly thrown about during the War of the Windsors days

- Charles as not interested in keeping the custom of royals keeping their opinions to themselves, no matter the consequences. This is the one that perhaps hits closest to the truth...see: Charles on architecture, on organic agriculture, on alternative medicine

Mostly, though, I saw it as using Charles' track record of pushing the limits of royal meddling as an jumping off point for explore how tenuous it could potentially be for any constitutional monarchy to limit the sovreign through custom and expectation more than by actual, written constitution.

 

[Lady Nimue]

OK, I've watched it now. Wow. I really enjoyed that, as unreal as it was.

I agree that the characters were mostly fairly different from what they are in real life, although I do think it tapped in quite adeptly to some of the media portrayals of each of these people, almost showing through exaggeration how silly those portrayals have been.

Yes, I agree. One lens through which to see it, especially the ending. Would one really be happy with such an event occurring in the end? If anything the ending (like a reviewer stated) would make anyone a republican! Ha!

Mostly, though, I saw it as using Charles' track record of pushing the limits of royal meddling as an jumping off point for explore how tenuous it could potentially be for any constitutional monarchy to limit the sovreign through custom and expectation more than by actual, written constitution.

But Charles is a man of integrity, and I think it is an interesting question: if someone like Charles (as monarch) discovered he was being asked to put his name to something he could not in good conscience support (in this case having to do with curtailing the freedom of the press) what does that monarch do?