THE QUEEN
I don’t like British royalty much. The Monarchy is something that I feel is outdated and which serves no greater purpose other than to prevent British citizens from getting bored. Frankly, their obsession with the Royal family – which I realise is also one that exists worldwide – is a bit strange.
The figurehead of this organisation, Queen Elizabeth II, has always come across, to me, as a zombie of sorts. The deadpan scowl, the glazed look across her eyes, possibly hinting at the realisation that she has resigned herself to the fact that she is forever trapped in her role as the ceremonial ruler of a country obsessed with football and beer. Whenever one sees her on screen or in pictures she is always the same; static and frozen in time – much like the institution that produced her. She doesn’t look like much fun.
This conclusion, of course, is completely unjustified – being based entirely on the representation put forward by the media. With The Queen, the latest film from Stephen Frears (Mrs Henderson Presents, High Fidelity), I found my preconceived notions being challenged and my opinions being swayed … even if only slightly.
Focusing on the events that took place in 1997, after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, The Queen examines the tug of war between recently elected Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) and Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) concerning an adequate response and reaction to Diana’s passing. With Diana being somewhat of a sore point for the Royals – having separated from and divorced Prince Charles – the Queen wishes to treat her death in an entirely private manner. Blair (bolstered by public outcry) insists that her life be celebrated publicly. As the uproar around the Queen’s non-response builds, and Blair urges her to change her stance, Elizabeth is forced to re-examine her role and relationship with her people.
The Queen could best be described as a behind the scenes look at the events mentioned above and as such it did a lot to open my eyes – and mind – in response to British royalty. The film humanised Queen Elizabeth II and this, for me, is its greatest achievement. Much like United 93 forced me to do, I was put in a position where I had to re-adjust my thinking and pre-conceived notions in relation to a specific set of events and people.
Helen Mirren (best known to me for her work in TV’s Prime Suspect) does an amazing job of bringing the Queen to life. Her performance exposes the private life and workings of the Queen in an intimate and personal manner and in doing so we are presented with a portrayal of a woman who is steadfast in her role as a ruler – apparently ordained by God – and one who is also painfully aware that her time may be up. Far from being a zombie, she comes across as an incredibly driven woman, alive and ready to fight for what she believes in. Mirren employs the sour face often exhibited by the real Queen to full effect and I agree with the majority consensus that her performance is worthy of awards.
The film itself, however, is not quite as worthy. Stephen Frears has definitely constructed a fascinating watch that engages but, as I was watching The Queen, I couldn’t help but feel that the whole thing smacked of a television mini-series. You know, that whole BBC drama feel. This may be a result of the fact that Frears and scriptwriter Peter Morgan have worked together previously on a made for television film dealing with Prime Minister Blair (played again by Michael Sheen), entitled The Deal. Frears directs adequately enough and Sheen and Mirren battle it out enjoyably but the whole experience is a tad pedestrian. Having a TV feel is not necessarily a bad thing but The Queen never exhibits the epic qualities I feel are needed to justify the award nominations the film has been receiving.
That said, those people whom I find a bit strange, the Royal fanatics, will delight in this glimpse into the events after Diana’s death. I will admit to being more sympathetic to the plight of the Royals as a result of watching The Queen, it must be tough living in a world where your purpose in life is constantly brought into question and challenged. (However, I am still of the opinion that the British Monarchy is an institution that can be done away with.)
The Queen is an enjoyable 103 minutes that is simply a good film – rather than the award vehicle you may be lead to believe it is – driven by an exceptional performance from its lead.
golden globes. It should perhaps be noted that “The Queen” has been nominated for the Golden Globes as follows:
1. Best Performance by Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama – (Hellen Mirren)
2. Best Motion Picture – Drama
3. Best Director – Motion Picture – (Stephen Frears)
4. Best Screenplay – Motion Picture – (Peter Morgan)
A good example of a pedestrian movie elevated by a powerful lead performance would probably be last year’s “Transamerica”. The above nominations seem to indicate that according to the majority opinion this is not the case with “The Queen”.
fuck Duckie. nominated is one thing….winning is another….i think duckie needs a good fukkie
Another view. In my opinion, Christo Oberholzer’s review of the movie provided a fascinating view of how SOME people view royalty and their role, more than the reality of the events portrayed in the film.
I was taken aback I suppose, by the fact that this ‘little’ movie (my description, not his) opened his eyes, which in my opinion revealed very little factual information that hadn’t already been in the media in some form or another since ’97!
Like Christo, I found myself wondering, but at (and not about – there was a very real difference for me) the role of royalty in the UK, and the protocol that surrounds it, as a result of the film.
Royalty watchers will easily tell us to what extent ‘duty’ is paramount in the Queen’s life and possibly, the extent to which she fulfills a role of a leader in that regard.
The film certainly highlights the role and values (even weaknesses) of a family, driven not only by their own impetus and status, but also clearly by that imposed by the nation they represent, during a very difficult national and personal tragedy.
Drama lovers expecting to see majestic pomp and ceremony will be disappointed. If however the film makes the viewer think about the points mentioned above, I believe it succeeds very well.
Sadly, a portrayal of the various royal personalities in a film such as this is too often seen as being ‘absolute’ by those who rely only on film media for instruction or information. Too many will actually end up believing every interpretation the director imparts.. and that would be the pity.
Charles comes across as being a simpering, weak but also an almost sympathetic man – and acceptance of that interpretation is moot enough!
A docudrama? A subjective, glimpsed interpretation of events? The viewer might decide, but if the viewer feels the movie opens their eyes to ‘reality’, then I suspect the viewer knew very little indeed about the monarchy after all!
My view of The Queen. I really don’t think that The Queen is an expose about the monarchy or its scandals – as many seem to feel it is. Rather, it’s about a relationship: the relationship between the Queen and Tony Blair who in turn represent two different social classes, two different generations and two very different set of values. It is a film about the clash of these values and worlds – not about what the Queen eats for breakfast or what she really thought of Diana… It’s this about the film that sets it apart from a “TV mini-series” as Christo puts it… It’s rather brilliant actually…
Know-it-all. I wish mamba will get another film critic, or add another one next to his’, to portrait a more subjective opinion on matters.
Subjective?. Perhaps you mean objective? Guys, the purpose of a film crtitic is to be subjective!
Christo on Critic. The Critic – Christo Oberholzer, is great and his take on the movie “The Queen” is quite objective and I think quite apt. Its a bit harsh to suggest that he be replaced with somenone a bit more “subjective”.
TO: to christo. portrait a more subjective opinion?????
Why, would you like him to paint something??
I take it you prefer pictures dearheart!!!!
Sort of. Well, it won Best Actress/Drama and Best Screenplay – not for best movie, which actually fits in with the review’s take on it.
Nope. Come now, it’s not fair to say that if a movie was ONLY nominated for Best Movie and didn’t win it, that this supports an allegation that the movie is pedestrian.
That’s kinda like telling a kid that he’s useless cos he ONLY came second in an national or international competition. It’s nasty and illogical.