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

[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]

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
Part 2 (end) (much more interesting than the first part)

And there, the final state :
'The Queen' by ~SensibleRose on deviantART

 

[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]

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]

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?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Another one? "The Queen 2 : Return of the Dodgy Wig" or "The Queen Strikes Back...and this time she's wearing tartan"? "Q2 : Revenge of the Queen" or "Miss Congenitality 3 : Lizzie in Heels". Honestly, talk about milking it.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

They do need to milk it more, Beatrixfan. So much was left out of the film and many moviegoers left the moviehouse feeling empty. So now is a great time to make a sequel!

 

[BeatrixFan]

What can they include though? 10 years worth of Daily Express headlines? The film went thus; Di dead. Queen miserable. Charles creepy. Blair hero. Di buried. People get over it. Queen happy. What more is there to say?

 

[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]

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]

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

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

 

[ysbel]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Warren]

Did the Queen and Tony Blair make a secret pact NOT to watch Helen Mirren's portrayal of the monarch?

Mail online 2 June 2009

The Queen and Tony Blair made a pact not to watch the Oscar-winning film The Queen, actor Michael Sheen claimed as he collected an OBE today.
The star, who played the former Prime Minister in the 2006 movie, said the pair came to an 'agreement' not to watch it.

Mr Sheen, 40, let slip the news after receiving an OBE from Her Majesty for services to Drama earlier today. The actor said: 'I heard through a fairly reliable source that there was an agreement she was not going to watch the film and Mr Blair wasn't going to watch the film either.'

He added: 'There were only two people in the room when that happened and one of them told me, I'm not going to say any more than that.'
.