Here are some thoughts about The Queen, which I saw on Monday night with a group of U-Hall students at the Angelika. What I liked about it was the way in which it seemed to play off the genre of the novel of manners -- think Jane Austen -- which uses the marriage plot to dramatize class conflicts and explore the dynamics of social customs, and often allows its readers to be privy to social settings to which they might not otherwise have entry: the lives of the rich and famous, or even just the very well-to-do. The Queen certainly allows its viewers entry into the most rarified of social settings -- the Royal Family's Scottish estate, for example -- and clearly delineates the difference between the "royal" and the "common," particularly through its delineation of the characters of the Queen and Tony Blair. (A little touch I loved: the contrasting kitchens -- the Blairs' kitchen is nicely put together, but relatively small and they eat in it after preparing their own meals; the Queen enters her kitchen at Balmoral only to take a phone call from Blair, and the rather surprised staff clears the room.)
The typical novel of manners uses marriage as its central, climactic act, because a marriage is a ritual of belonging: if you get to marry in a society, it means you get to reproduce. The Queen, however, explores the aftermath of a failed marriage, and it portrays Diana as an outsider who never managed to belong despite her marriage. It's like an inverted marriage comedy: perhaps, a tragedy, of manners.
Ultimately, though, I don't think it's really a tragic narrative, because it chooses not to focus on Diana. It's not really about her. What it seems to me, finally, to be about is the relationship between the Queen and Blair: the Queen, disappointed in her son, finds a younger and more dynamic substitute in Blair; Blair's wife suggests that Blair sees in the Queen a version of his own mother. Ultimately this isn't so much a historical narrative as a family drama. Its strength is its ability to depict small moments and gestures, rather than historical sweep.
Helen Mirren's performance is understated and compelling. I loved James Cromwell's wonderfully obtuse King Philip, completely hidebound, more concerned with the temperature of the Queen's tea than matters of state (he complains when a call from Blair causes her tea to get cold).
Stephen Frears's direction is marvelous yet again. If you don't know his other films, you should investigate them, particularly The Grifters, The Snapper, and The Van.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
UHall Residents: Post comments to this site to win prizes! Each comment earns you a raffle entry in the Oscarfest contest and in the COMMON ROOM contest!
3 comments:
I thought the film was great. Reminded me a bit of "13 Days" just in the day by day style. But I still really can't tell if the film was or wasn't sympathizing with the Queen. I loved the portrayals of the Queen and Blair.
One of the things I found most interesting about the film was the many times the two children are referenced, but not once do we ever see them close enough to see what they look like. The most we see of them are during the hunting scenes, the news of the death, and outside the palace. Each time we see nothing more than glimpses of them. No lines. Nothing from them. Interesting considering so much concern was drawn to them as an "excuse" from Elisabeth.
Yes, the camera angles framed the narrative nicely with the boys and also with the Queen herself. For example, by only showing her back when she cries instead of a close up, the persona of the stoic and put-together queen is not broken even in a moment of weakness. Also it makes the moment much more private, as if we the audience are intruding on something incredibly forbidden. The use of real footage in the film also helped provide an interesting narrative perspective because while showing the characters' biases on what was happening, the viewer could also see what the real public's response was and remember from the footage what their own response was to the death of Diana. All in all I found the movie well made, but I do not think it should win best picture as I was not in awe... I just respected it.
There were two things about this film that I found absolutely amazing:
The first was Michael Sheen. Helen Mirren is getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, but Michael Sheen WAS Tony Blair. He was so comfortable in the character, he had no need to perform; he could just BE.
This from an actor whose only other visible role, as far as I know, was Lucian, the bad-guy in the unbelievably awful Underworld movies.
The second amazing thing was a moment: Helen Mirren crying alone on the hunting grounds, her Range Rover stuck in the river.
Post a Comment