November 28, 2006

• Not having seen it, I think it's an excellent film. I'll report back when I see it
• I had a similar idea after seeing the film, just on a smaller scale; I asked one Brit what he thought. He said blah, blah, blah, something something, I forget really. Something about feeling superior. Anyway, I'll let him clarify in this thread. Loved the film, by the way. The idea of The Queen watching TV in her fuzzy bathrobe, or stalling her SUV in the river, or bringing food in Tupperware to a picnic sent my mind a-reelin'!
• I saw it not too long ago, and indeed, it was a remarkable performance. All the performances were quite excellent, I thought, not just Mirren's. That being said, I thought the film wasn't all that great -- terrific acting, but we've all know the story, and have already seen it shot for shot, pretty much. I enjoyed seeing the little details of royal procedure, but as for the story, I was a bit bored. As for it affecting this subject's perceptions of the Queen of Canada, both as a person and an institution, it didn't really do that much. It all seems, well, foreign and remote, and not at all relevant for us in the Great White North. So irrelevant, I think, that a move for a Republic seems unlikely, as there's no antagonising drive to motivate it. The more our population diversifies, and the traditional anglo power base eroded by multiculturalism, there will probably be a move to drop the monarchy, but that's a long way off.
• Blah blah blah. Who bloody cares? And Canada is the great white south, from up here.
• Blah blah blah. Who bloody cares? Nice. Please do inform us what topics are worthy of our attention.
• The Queen is famous for her Tupperware.
• Who bloody cares about the film, the queen, the monarchy in general. I'm British, and I was answering the question posed.
• And Canada is the great white south, from up here. You're British, so then, living in Britain? Might I point you to a map, to note that Canada goes "up" North past Greenland? And hence way-the-frick past the whole of the UK.
• Not that I want to defend Skrik when he's a little grumpypants like this, but he's a Brit living somewhere in Scandinavia. So there's some merit to his claim to northerlinessnicity. Some.
• Okay, I suppose that's more legit. Although I'm still pretty sure (northern) Canada is north of most of Scandinavia too, but then you start getting into the issue of whether the claim on all that uninhabitedness is legit, etc., etc., so I'll just fade quietly away..
• *orders one of those artificial sunlight visors for Skrik*
• [I'm not British or even any sort of Commonwealthian, so you can go ahead and ignore my words here.] Who bloody cares about the film, the queen, the monarchy in general. In a strange way, the Windsors depicted here wouldn't completely disagree. The footage showing the enormous crowds and memorial offerings in London showed how many people have this huge attachment to the monarchy so much more than they had expected or believed. Insofar as that is an accurate depiction, it seemed to me that it would be a very long time before the royals would be eliminated. I thought it was interesting to hear in an interview that Helen Mirren grew up in a vehemently anti-monarchist family.
• /me can't be bothered to argue with the Canadians.
• I do think it is revealing how the U.S. and U.K. versions of the movie trailers differ. The U.S. one includes clips that are much less deferential to the royals (like the Queen's hubby saying in an exasperated tone "What's she done now?" when the messenger with news of her death comes saying "It's about Princess Diana").
• MonkeyFilter: can't be bothered to argue with the Canadians.
• I couldn't care less about the monarchy, but I'd hate the idea of a politician as head of state. We'd end up with the American model where some people equate criticizing the president with treason. But then, I heven't seen the film, so what do I know?
• Aaaand still just the one Briton-like entity with a strong opinion in the thread. I sawr the film and liked it a lot, but being a mere Canadian have not a clear impression of how those rascally Windsors reacted at the time. It would be nice to hear from someone in Blighty as to how much it reflects the actual events and mood of the time.
• Haven't seen the film yet ... but as a Brit living in Lahndahn lemme add my tuppeny h'apenny worth me old china I was a reporter when Diana died and was awoken at 3.30 am on the morning in question by my news editor phoning and asking me to go to Paris as Diana had just died ... So I can confirm first hand that it wasn't just Brits who were deeply affected by the incident ... From what I've read about the film it seems to be a pretty accurate depiction of how the royal family did behave. The perception was that they had absolutely no idea what to do ... and yes, it did seem to matter to an awful lot of people how they behaved, whether we like it or not ... then again the Queen is still head of state so it probably does matter ...
• I'm curious to hear from any Americans: Why did you go see this? I've next to no interest in royalty and I'm just curious why someone from the USA would. Conversely, I'm curious if anyone not from the USA would see Bobby (ok, I'm also curious why anyone under 40 would want to see Bobby, but that's another issue...)
• Pfft, I'm just a lowly colonist and I was surprised at how stunned and saddened I was by Diana's death. It was sufficiently shocking that I can tell you where I was: on a shuttle between Christchurch and Blenheim, I think on my way home from a trip to #2's parents when he was working summers there. We were near a small town called Parnassus and the news came over the radio. From what I saw in the States, royalty was appreciated as a quaint novelty form of celebrity, not too different to how Steve Irwin was treated. Diana made a trip to the US near her death and I remember the huge deal it seemed to be that an English royal was spending time in American Society. I imagine (without having seen it) that a movie like this is made for Brits because Americans would be more inclined to romanticise the Windsors while the British maybe would be more inclined to see them as people -- and that's how the movie portrays them.
• not too different to how Steve Irwin was treated Stabbed in the heart? Oh poor King Crikey.
• Also not seen the film, but might try for a torrent as Ms Mirren is a superb actor and I'd watch her read the phone book. Never really got the royal thing at home and wasn't a big part of my life at all. I remember street parties for Liz's Silver Jubilee when I was a kid, and getting a free commemorative coin. I was on a flight to Japan when Diana died (honest, officer) and first news I saw of it was in Japanese, which added to the bizarro feel, and I missed the bout of madness that apparently gripped the nation. A friend's dad is a gruff, no-nonsense type Army major. He apparently travelled down from Yorkshire to stand silently on the Mall with tears rolling down his cheeks day of her funeral. That's an England that's as foreign to me as it is to you.
• I have no interest in the royalty, but I have a great interest in seeing good movies. This is supposed to be an excellent movie. As such, I will probably see it.
• Why would anyone watch a movie about the royal family? Why would anyone watch a movie about - drug addicts - crazy people - a taxi driver - a shark - billiards players - a kid whose hobby is going to funerals - a small town in Texas in the 1950s - a pagan cult in a small island community - a San Francisco surveillance expert - a neo-Nazi skinhead - a spelling bee - a graduate - hobbits - any of a host of cartoon characters - &cetera, &cetera, &cetera
• I haven't seen the film. It seems slightly offensive to portray the relatively recent private life of someone still living like this (royal or non-). I don't think you need to be British to understand the appeal of the monarchy, and Diana demonstrated that, like it or not, it is still strong (who would have been interested in her but for her marriage? How much do you know about her sister?) My immediate feelings on hearing of her death were, to be honest, more or less as if a long-running and rather annoying soap opera had been unexpectedly cancelled - though of course you couldn't help being affected by the tragedy. The ensuing circus was largely incomprehensible to me, and at times quite unpleasant. The belligerent attitude of the mob, and its insistence on having its ignorant whims catered to in matters like the flying of the Union Jack at half mast, were repellent. It was as though the Queen (who is, after all, basically just an old lady trying to do her best under considerable pressures) had been dragged out of her daughter-in-law's funeral by a gang of skinheads insisting that she give them a public display of grief.
• I haven't seen it, and probably never will, but as for the whole Dead Di thing, Pleggy is right: it was an embarrassing display of onanistic faux-grief by a nation that should know fucking better. We're not Johnny Foreigner. I was ashamed to be British. Whereas the rest of the time it's great because you get to lord it over those Canadalandadians, who we own and who must bow their Queen and rightful rulers (us). Suck it up, moose-messers!
• Actually, I think it was for the most part onanistic real grief. That's what made it so damn disturbing.
• *dumps tea in the harbor*
• Let's just call it mass hysteria and be done with it. *Dispatches troops with biscuits to sort out that harbour business*
• Because I'm from Boston, you see, and not ...never mind ...
• Enjoy yer salty tea, redcoat!
• I agree with Plegmund.
• I should add, that I only comment because I grew up in England, so .. got exposed to all that. Etc.
• That chy - he's good people. Everyone else, well...
• Answering jccalhoun: I went to see this film because 1. I am frustrated by the vapid product being churned out of Hollywood currently and rarely can find anything worth seeing anymore, and 2. I agree, "Ms Mirren is a superb actor and I'd watch her read the phone book." The film received excellent reviews. Beyond that, I do have a feeling somewhere between fascination and dread regarding the transmutation, by the mass media, of political figures into celebrities and vice versa. Diana was a quite vivid example of this, the very concept of which seemed to take the royals, so steeped in tradition, completely off-guard. The very manner in which they spoke the word, "celebrities," suggested a distaste held over from pre-Victorian times for the performing class. I also think there is that attachment some of us (by no means all) over here feel for "the mother country". I studied medieval English literature and have a fascination with things that endure, and temporally the British royals represent something a bit awe-inspiring by the ephemeral nature of today's culture. That alone evokes considerable interest and curiosity on my part.
• I thought the Brits reserved most of their ire and scorn fer us Yanks. This Canuck-hate is new to me. Yes I'm aware everyone's taking the piss and taking friendly jabs, I guess it's now made me somewhat curious about the whole thing. On topic, I'm with Abiezer_Coppe and bernockle; I could give two shits about the Queen and Princess Di but Helen Mirren+good film=time well spent.
• I don't hate the canucks. They're sweet. I'd like to keep them in my coat pocket and get them out to entertain me during quite moments. "Dance, Louis, dance!", that sort of thing...
• It seems slightly offensive to portray the relatively recent private life of someone still living like this (royal or non-). Living like this or portray like this? (I couldn't say if anyone but royalty lives like royalty - I walk in very different circles.) I think you mean the former, so I'll carry on regardless. You've got movies like Blow, Hurricane, Ali, Shine, My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father etc. which get personal (whether accurate or not) but emphasize empathy for these living people (Monster even! Her corpse was still warm when they started filming) and, on the other hand, movies like Kurt and Courtney, Farenheit 911, Comedian, et al which portray these living people in a bad light (whether accurate or not) yet make it difficult for you to empathize with any of them. As we all know storytelling is about creatively engaging an audience, is the offensive factor something in the treatment or just the release of personal information? Seems like people just love to gossip, so is it the way we talk about each other what makes the difference between a good tribute or a terrible screed or just that we're talking behind someone's back rather than on a dead someone's grave?
• *grumbles, puts on Capezios yet again*
• *sneaks 'shocker' into jazz-hands*
• I'm starting to hate the Canucks, they've been mis-managed for years; they lack a real leader in the captain's seat and just can't cut it in terms of home defense - even with Luongo in net.
• More personal family stuff leaked into celluloid metonymy.
• It's not really behind her back, though, IC. When the film was first out it must have been impossible for the Queen to open a paper or watch television or even travel around without seeing pictures and reviews of someone dressed up as her during one of the most emotionally stressful and unpleasant periods of her life. That doesn't seem very nice. I'm not calling for a privacy law or anything.
• Well behind your back doesn't imply that you don't find out about it, it just suggests that people don't have the nerve to say it to your face for "whatever" reason. Still, you have to admit, all of this tabloid shit was already there. Not that I've seen the movie, but who gives a fuck how Nicole Richie and the Queen of England's porter weigh comparably? Why do we buy into this feeding of screenwriters and water coolers with a steady diet of nothing but random blood and stool? Still, I have no clue about the movie, I was just commenting on the biographing of the living public whether condoned or not by the subject. And I wasn't thinking you were being extreme in your views, Pleg, I was and am still curious about where and how the traditions of storytelling mould and overstep the boundaries of social norms and what other people think about it.
• all of this tabloid shit was already there. Oh, indeed.
• If she doesn't like it, she could always abolish the monarchy.
• What, and then no-one would be interested in her any more? Like the Duke of Windsor?
• "It seems slightly offensive to portray the relatively recent private life of someone still living like this (royal or non-)." I took this to mean that it's offensive to make a movie like this about someone who is still alive.
• I certainly make more sense if you interpret it that way.:)
• I think the royal family comes off pretty well in the film. It's a refreshingly balanced view of both sides.
• ...next on Fox Royals, can the useless and pointless Queenie deal with Princely's obvious lack of a realistic view of the world? Fair and balanced in the coverage of kicks to the royal jewels - only on Fox and the Weekly World News. Uh, not to sound like I didn't even bother to figure out what I was talking about, but what's this movie called? (I'm only responding to comments here; please, feed the troll?)
• Seriously?
• Don't feed me, please.
• BANINATE!!! Wait...what are we talking about again?
• The surprising thing was that I think the moviemakers portrayed the Prince of Wales as a sort of hero. I didn't see that coming, or even think that it would be possible. Don't know why his brother and his auntie didn't put in any face time, though.
• Nobody wants a 35 sq. m portrait of the Queen.
• The painting went for restoration — including repair of the marks left behind by hockey players who used to try to hit the Queen's mouth with the puck 5 minutes for Queen plonking!