
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Queen, Her People, and Her Corgis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/</link>
	<description>"If an otter can't have fun doing something, it just simply won't do it."</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:55:04 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: theotter</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/comment-page-1/#comment-274</link>
		<dc:creator>theotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/#comment-274</guid>
		<description>I actually kind of liked that we never really saw the young actors playing William and Harry head-on. You&#039;re absolutely right that it causes a jarring feeling when combined with the Queen&#039;s repeated insistence that she is staying out of the public for her grandsons&#039; 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&#039;s the whole press issue that Christianity Today mentioned . . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually kind of liked that we never really saw the young actors playing William and Harry head-on. You&#8217;re absolutely right that it causes a jarring feeling when combined with the Queen&#8217;s repeated insistence that she is staying out of the public for her grandsons&#8217; 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. </p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>Plus, there&#8217;s the whole press issue that Christianity Today mentioned . . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/comment-page-1/#comment-273</link>
		<dc:creator>K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/11/the-queen-her-people-and-her-corgis/#comment-273</guid>
		<description>So, I finally got to see &quot;The Queen,&quot; 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&#039;t sure why we see little/nothing of the two boys (esp. when Elizabeth as &#039;grandmother&#039; is emphasized).  Charles got to have some significant conversations with his mother and w/ Blair.  But we don&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I finally got to see &#8220;The Queen,&#8221; after a short walk along Michigan Ave. to see all the Christmas lights =)</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>I would have appreciated more overall texture to the royal family life; I wasn&#8217;t sure why we see little/nothing of the two boys (esp. when Elizabeth as &#8216;grandmother&#8217; is emphasized).  Charles got to have some significant conversations with his mother and w/ Blair.  But we don&#8217;t see Tony Blair interacting much w/ his household either&#8230;  </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

