The Queen, Her People, and Her Corgis

November 26th, 2006

When I read the Entertainment Weekly review of The Queen a couple of months ago, I of course noticed the high grade of A-, but first I had to squeal about the small pile of Pembroke Welsh Corgis visible over Queen Elizabeth II’s (Helen Mirren’s) shoulder. Who wouldn’t love a queen who loves corgis?

Like at least one other great British royalty film (Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown), The Queen focuses on one small slice of Elizabeth’s life. Most of the film, in fact, occurs within one week, the week surrounding the death of Princess Diana in August 1997. The Queen and her family (and the corgis!) are in residence at Balmoral Castle in Scotland when they hear the news, and, like a good, tea-drinking, tweed-wearing Briton of old, Elizabeth assumes the most natural course is to stay in place and allow the family to mourn quietly and privately. Moreover, Diana is of course by this time no longer a member of the royal family, having divorced Prince Charles the previous year.

However, “the people” disagree, having embraced Diana as their own. Tony Blair, who has just been elected Prime Minister a few months before the accident in Paris, and who prides himself on being a “modernizer,” has a better feel for the people’s love of—or at least obsession with—Diana. Though he of course manages to use the situation to his own advantage, solidifying his victory when he dubs Diana “the people’s princess,” he also sympathizes with the Queen and acts as a sort of intermediary to advise her about the people’s wishes.

I have to admit that I’m as puzzled as the Queen about the public outpouring of grief for Diana. Of course, I’m not British, so I couldn’t really understand. But even in the three visits I’ve made to Britain over the past ten years, I’ve seen the two Britains that come into conflict within the movie. To some extent, it’s certainly a generational thing: the older British still behave generally as our stereotypes have led us to believe (tea and tweed and all that—and dogs! As one Welsh woman I met said, “We’re just crackers about our dogs!”). But there’s also the younger Britain of David and Victoria (a.k.a Posh Spice) Beckham, full of tabloids and celebrities in sequined Union Jack T-shirts. Maybe it’s a class thing, too, but I don’t know.

During one particular scene, it actually struck me as kind of ironic that Diana has been hailed as the “people’s princess.” Elizabeth, out driving alone, gets her Land Rover stuck in the middle of a river. She sploshes out of the car in her boots and checks underneath to see what’s broken. Having served as a mechanic during World War II, she immediately knows what the problem is. I can’t imagine Diana doing the same, in her designer shoes and dresses (no offense to Diana, who accomplished good things in spite of having a pretty miserable personal life). In some ways, Elizabeth seems a lot closer to the people. But they want a celebrity who’s far above them, not one who strides around purposefully and fixes cars.

Anyway, as an introvert and a dog fan, I’m pre-programmed to sympathize more with the Queen. The movie leans towards her side, certainly, but it doesn’t present her as perfect, either. Writer Peter Morgan (who also co-wrote this year’s The Last King of Scotland—which is not about Scotland, but rather Idi Amin) is more concerned with portraying her quandary of how best to serve her people while still honoring the values with which she was brought up. Most of the characters in the film are admirably complex (except possibly Cherie Blair, whose anti-monarchist feelings just come off as rude and cranky).

The most affecting scenes in the movie involve Elizabeth and a wild stag in Scotland. I won’t go into details for fear of spoiling the effect, but trust me—it’s powerful. More than openly shed tears, more than speeches about duty, these scenes reveal the heart of the internal conflict Elizabeth faces.

But my favorite, though less important, moment in The Queen is when Elizabeth looks back at the dogs in the back seat of the car (black labs this time, not the corgis), and invites them enthusiastically, “Walkies?” Oh, and also the bit at the end where one of the corgis jumps up on Tony Blair’s leg and seems to be searching in his pocket for a treat.

Even without the corgis, though, I think The Queen is the best movie I’ve seen this year. May it win lots of Oscars! (Corgis on the red carpet . . . ?)

Oh, and by the way, the Christianity Today review of The Queen is insightful and well-written–I recommend it.

Entry Filed under: Movies

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. K  |  December 14th, 2006 at 11:00 pm

    So, I finally got to see “The Queen,” after a short walk along Michigan Ave. to see all the Christmas lights =)

    I enjoyed it; your comments had piqued my interest and you picked out some of the best parts (the puppies def. play an endearing, tumbling-over-one-another and tug on the heartstrings role). The queen was wonderfully portrayed.

    I would have appreciated more overall texture to the royal family life; I wasn’t sure why we see little/nothing of the two boys (esp. when Elizabeth as ‘grandmother’ is emphasized). Charles got to have some significant conversations with his mother and w/ Blair. But we don’t see Tony Blair interacting much w/ his household either…

    After reading the review in Christianity Today, I can concede that the film was trying not to over-expose the royal family as cited so often in references to the press in the movie itself. But it seems like these were impt. aspects of the story that are missing; the overall plot is weakened by focusing only on the dialogue and growth of relationship between HRM and prime minister.

  • 2. theotter  |  December 15th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    I actually kind of liked that we never really saw the young actors playing William and Harry head-on. You’re absolutely right that it causes a jarring feeling when combined with the Queen’s repeated insistence that she is staying out of the public for her grandsons’ sake. The jarring, for one thing, helps to keep us from siding too unequivocally with the Queen. Plus, I fear that the movie would have become too sentimental if there had been much focus on two little boys who have just lost their mother.

    But, then, sentimentality is usually a cardinal sin in my book (with notable, inconsistent exceptions), and I tend to be ridiculously grateful for its absence!

    Plus, there’s the whole press issue that Christianity Today mentioned . . .

Leave a Comment

hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

November 2006
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Recent Posts