The Queen's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:The Queen

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:00:58 GMT

Title: The Queen
Year: 2006
Director: Stephen Frears
Plot: The British prime minister and the Royal Family find themselves quietly at odds in the wake of a national tragedy in this drama from director Stephen Frears. On August 31, 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales died in an auto accident in Paris; despite the controversial breakup of her marriage to Prince Charles, she was still one of the most famous and best-loved women in the world, and the public outpouring of emotion over her passing was immediate and intense. However, given the messy circumstances of Diana's breakup with Charles, official spokespeople for the Royal Family were uncertain about how to publicly address her passing. It didn't take long for the media to pick up on the hesitation of Buckingham Palace to pay homage to Diana, and many saw this as a sign of the cool emotional distance so often attributed to the royals, which in this case was widely seen as an insult against Diana and the many people who loved her. Prime Minister Tony Blair (played by Michael Sheen) saw a potential public-relations disaster in the making, and took it upon himself to persuade Queen Elizabeth II (played by Helen Mirren) to make a statement in tribute to the fallen Diana -- an action that went against the taciturn queen's usual nature. The Queen was released the same year that Helen Mirren played Queen Elizabeth I in an acclaimed miniseries for British television; The Queen also gave Michael Sheen his second opportunity to play Tony Blair after portraying the prime minister in the television film The Deal. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide

Paul Reviews "The Queen"

Times Tagged: 34
Number of Lists: 36
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3

Spout Post: Sex Scenes: 5 Golden Girls

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:00:58 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/28/2009 3:00:58 PM
Body: Recently, at age 50, Emma Thompson became a first-time blogger –– a term which, according to her, “as a computer illiterate, I get confused with ‘snog’ (British slang for kissing) and ‘shog’ (Shakespearian word used by Pistol in Henry V meaning ‘leave’) neither of which – I realize – is the correct interpretation.” The email missive posted by Melissa Silverstein was part of Thompson’s promotion for Last Chance Harvey, an older-woman-meets-even-older-man romance co-starring Dustin Hoffman (ah, but for the days of Mrs. Robinson!) The still-radiant Thompson expresses relief that maturity has given her the freedom to let it all hang out rather than nip and tuck it all back in, but she ain’t got nothing on a few women a decade and more older whose sex appeal (plastic surgery aside) is decidedly more French Riviera than Fort Lauderdale. So to welcome this seasoned British actress/ blogging novice to the wild wild world of cyberspace, here are my picks for an international GGILF club. Sigourney Weaver, b. 1949, U.S. I once saw the stunning, six-foot-tall Sigourney Weaver up close at a film festival, and though she tried to downplay her looks with sensible glasses and blue jeans, she could still make the young – and old – Dustin Hoffman squirm. With those killer legs that could both lure and kick ass equally Weaver battled terrifying extraterrestrials and silly spirits in the Alien and Ghostbusters franchises, respectively, took torturous revenge in Roman Polanski’s Death and the Maiden, and became buddies with King Kong’s little cousins in Michael Apted’s Gorillas in the Mist. Indeed, Johnny Depp notwithstanding, Weaver just may be the big screen’s sexiest swashbuckler of all time. Helen Mirren, b. 1945, England Mirren was once known in the U.K. as the actress who could be counted on to “get her kit off” (and if you don’t know what that means ask Emma Thompson). More recently she went the prim and proper route with Stephen Frears’ The Queen, which was an acting triumph for Mirren not so much for her impersonation of Her Royal Highness, but for the steamy sixty-something’s ability to place a firm lid on her sexuality, to keep that metaphorical kit on. Remember, this is the same woman who played a part-time hooker in Matthew Chapman’s Hussy – not to mention her stint in Tinto Brass’ X-rated Caligula! Heck, even Mirren’s Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison of the Prime Suspect series still looks to be a better lay than any in the cast of CSI. Sophia Loren, b. 1934, Italy Obviously. If not for her loyal love of hubby Carlo Ponti, Loren’s road to the top could just as easily have been paved with the bodies of one-night-stands. This is a lady who caused no-slouch stars from Cary Grant to Peter Sellers to swoon madly in her presence; even today her adult son Carlo Jr. claims it’s like being seen with The Beatles when he’s out in public with his seventy-four-year-old Italian mama. So if you’re a red-blooded hetero male or homo female and you’d kick Loren out of bed tonight you need to re-examine your sexuality, not any ageism. Ditto for… Catherine Deneuve, b. 1943, France Brangelina ain’t got nothing on what was once the sexiest couple of all time, the dazzling Deneuve and the equally jaw-dropping Marcello Mastroianni. From Bunuel to Polanski, it was Deneuve’s magnetism that allowed her to work with some of the greatest filmmakers of all time. After all, what male director is going to turn down the chance to spend months on end with a blonde aphrodisiac? Pam Grier, b. 1949, U.S. And lastly there’s Foxy Brown herself, Pam Grier. What, you thought Tarantino wasn’t thinking with his dick when he came up with the idea for Jackie Brown? Not to mention Roger Ebert in his review of Jack Hill’s Coffy over three decades ago. Like her fellow American, soon-to-be-sixty sex goddess Sigourney Weaver, Grier always perfectly embodied tough and tender heroines who could whip the baddies like a dominatrix and leave the audience breathlessly begging for more. No doubt both golden sirens will be celebrating the big six-o this year with an emphasis on the “o.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: 10 Most Convincing Portrayals of World Leaders

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:00:52 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/3/2008 3:00:52 PM
Body: It’s more difficult to be convincing as a real person when acting on film than on the stage. The camera can get closer and your image ends up projected many times larger than life size. So, despite giving a Tony Award-winning performance as Richard Nixon in the theater version of Frost/Nixon, Frank Langella was not initially thought of as worthy to reprise the role in Ron Howard’s movie adaptation of the play. Part of it was that he’s not a big name, but another reason was that he looks nothing like Tricky Dick. Ultimately, Langella did get the part, and while he doesn’t resemble the former president, he apparently does a bang up job in the role. But the transition could easily have been as awkward as Ralph Bellamy’s reprisal of his Tony-winning portrayal of Franklin Roosevelt in Sunrise at Campobello. In the film version of that play, Bellamy’s vocal impersonation comes off more like a Scottish brogue (he sounds exactly like Sean Connery, in fact) than FDR’s signature “Locust Valley lockjaw.” Instead, Langella is on track for an Oscar nomination, and is sure to join the following actors who also gave convincing performances as world leaders. As a handicap, SpoutBlog has limited the selections to modern era leaders whose real persona exists on film/tape and are therefore more easily comparable to actors’ representations. 10. Anthony Hopkins as President Richard Nixon in Nixon (1995) The performance is exaggerated almost to the point of out-doing Dan Hedaya’s comedic portrayal in Dick, but Hopkins’ Nixon isn’t the failure that many reviews criticized it as. The art of a convincing portrait is not so much about presenting an exact likeness as it is about expressing a perspective, and Oliver Stone’s employment of Hannibal Lecter as the (then) most hated president brought the viewpoint across right away. It may not be Hopkins’ best Oscar-nominated presidential performance (that would be his John Quincy Adams in Amistad), but it is one of his most spectacular accomplishments. 9. Josh Brolin as President George W. Bush in W. (2008) Stone surprisingly went a different way with his latest presidential biopic (which was not, as has been claimed, the first film about a sitting president; see #6). Brolin is much less a caricature than was expected, and the actor even welcomes sympathy from Bush-haters. It’s not necessarily an exact impersonation; it’s better. Brolin makes the role his own while also doing some requisite aping, and it’s a performance that should garner him an Oscar nomination next month. 8. James Brolin as President Ronald Reagan in The Reagans (2003) Like son, like father, though instead of appropriately portraying the elder Bush (he might have done as well as James Cromwell in W.), Josh Brolin’s father plays that president’s predecessor in this made-for-TV biopic. He looks a little silly in the role, but James Brolin does an excellent job with the voice and the overall execution of the actor-turned-leader’s public persona. The conservatives may have hated the movie, but the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences were convinced enough to nominate Brolin for an Emmy Award. 7. Jerry Haleva as Saddam Hussein in The Big Lebowski (1998) Sometimes professional impersonators are the most perfect people to play figures on the big screen. Unfortunately, people like Queen Elizabeth look-alike Jeannette Charles (The Naked Gun; European Vacation, Austin Powers in Goldmember) aren’t famous enough or talented enough actors to carry a whole film like The Queen. The late Haleva made a career out of portraying the Iraqi dictator, appearing prominently in such comedies as Hot Shots!, Hot Shots! Part Deux and Jane Austen’s Mafia! But it’s his silent performance in The Big Lebowski that works best (though his lisped Hussein in the Hot Shots! sequel is hilarious). Even Hussein’s own sons could have made the mistake of thinking it was the real dictator up there on the screen. 6. Bruce Greenwood as President John F. Kennedy in Thirteen Days (2000) Back in the 1960s, President Kennedy got to be part of the casting process for Warner Bros.’ depiction of him in the WWII drama PT 109. His selection of Cliff Robertson was fine, but if he’d been alive long enough to also assist the production of Thirteen Days, he would have surely agreed with the casting of Bruce Greenwood. The actor doesn’t look much like JFK in this non-biopic about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but to agree with Kevin Costner, Greenwood is Kennedy in the film, only bettered by Steven Culp as RFK. Too bad Costner has to be in there at all. As usual his talent for accents is atrocious, but at least he didn’t bother attempting to play the president. Greenwood was definitely deserving of an Oscar nod for his portrayal, but apparently only one presidential role (Jeff Bridges in The Contender) was enough for the 2001 Supporting Actor race. 5. Gary Sinise as President Harry S. Truman in Truman (1995) The problem with famous actors portraying well-known real-life figures is that the audience more than likely sees the actor first. It’s a problem with most of the portrayals on this list, and it’s certainly true for Gary Sinise in the role of Truman. He looks just like Gary Sinise with some necessary prosthetics. And his voice is distinctly his own, too, despite an attempt at the accent. Yet the performance is engaging enough to make the viewer forget all that and become adequately convinced enough to accept Sinise as the president with the difficult task of ending World War II through drastic measures. 4. Bruno Ganz as Adolph Hitler in Downfall (2004) It’s easy to play Hitler; just don the signature mustache and you’re good to go. Ganz went above and beyond, though, to not just convincingly represent the Nazi dictator but also to capture his thought-non-existent humanity. His voice is perfection and his overall performance is astounding. Had the three-dimensionality of the portrayal not been so controversial, Ganz could have garnered an Academy Award nomination. 3. Edward Hermann as President Franklin Roosevelt in Annie (1982) A lot of actors have attempted FDR, from Bellamy in Sunrise at Campobello to Kenneth Branagh in Warm Springs (and let’s not forget Jon Voight’s laughable turn in Pearl Harbor), but nobody else is as good as Hermann, who played the four-term president in two TV movies prior to reprising the role in this screen version of the lovable Broadway musical. The only reason he deserves more credit here than for his two Emmy-nominated portrayals is because in Annie he joins in to sing “Tomorrow” with the li’l titular orphan, and that’s believably something the real FDR would have taken much pleasure in. 2. Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair in The Queen (2006) Langella and his Frost/Nixon costar, Michael Sheen, are equally being recognized for their performances in that film. But a couple of years ago, Sheen was upstaged by the Oscar-winning Helen Mirren in The Queen. Still, despite his lack of a deserved nod from the Academy, he was highly acclaimed for his portrayal of Tony Blair, a role he’d already perfected in the British TV movie The Deal (from the same writer-director pair as The Queen). And the performance rushed him to the top ranks of acting talent, allowing him to be unquestionably worthy of reprising his stage role as David Frost and easily thought of as a front-runner for the Oscars this time around. 1. Martin Sheen as President John F. Kennedy in Kennedy (1983) Sheen was so good as JFK in this TV miniseries that in The Goonies “Mouth” (Corey Feldman) confuses the president for the actor on a 50-cent piece. And well, Mouth, as Cyndi Lauper sings on the soundtrack, “What’s good enough for you is good enough for me. It’s good enough. It’s good enough for me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Josh Brolin’s Oscar Chances: Are the Hurdles Too High?

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:01:13 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/10/2008 4:01:13 PM
Body: It happened last year for Cate Blanchett. The actress starred in a biopic that critics ripped to shreds, a film that basically bombed at the (American) box office, and yet she managed to score a Best Actress nomination for her reprised performance as the titular monarch of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Additionally, Blanchett earned another nomination for Best Supporting Actress the same year, for her portrayal of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. Now Josh Brolin could achieve a similar feat this year, not just by earning separate nominations for playing the titular president of W. and portraying politician-turned-assassin Dan White in Milk, but also by overcoming the difficulty of earning recognition in a lead category for a film that otherwise is not very well regarded. Are Brolin’s hurdles higher than Blanchett’s, though? With all the praise he’s received for W., he’s still far from being considered a sure thing candidate, regardless of his worthiness or the Academy’s history of oftentimes ignoring the critics and the grosses when nominating dependable, standout actors. And boy, does Brolin stand out. Despite giving a strong, surprisingly grounded performance in W., the actor is almost in a world of his own in the film. The supporting players mostly miss their marks, whether through overshot caricature (Thandie Newton’s stroke-faced, alien-voiced Condoleeza Rice) or an apparent lack of effort (Scott Glenn looks bored and unrecognizable as Rumsfeld, while Toby Jones for some reason offers a Karl Rove who’s more huggable than slimy). Both problems may have been due to an unclear decision on the film’s intended tone, but regardless, the script is way too simpleminded, as if adapted from the sitting president’s Wikipedia page. Brolin is the only person who keeps the film interesting and engrossing by making the character his own rather than going for total impersonation. Some of his movements and inflections consist of outright aping, but his personalization allows for unpredictability in much of his execution. Certainly it’s a performance as good as Joaquin Phoenix’s in Walk the Line and Jamie Foxx’s in Ray. Perhaps if W. were about a musician-turned-president, with Brolin offering his own singing voice, his nomination would be more assured? So far it seems he’s hardly being considered. Sites ranking the actor’s chances in chart form include And the Winner Is…, which places him tenth in the running, Entertainment Weekly, which puts him alphabetically somewhere between ninth and thirteenth while calling him a long shot, Movie City News, which lists him seventh with a comment that he deserves the nom “111%”, and In Contention, which also puts him at seventh place. Hollywood Elsewhere’s Jeff Wells merely includes him as one of eight contenders for the lead actor category, which is at least more of an approval than the others. So what are those hurdles that are keeping him out of the fortunate five? As of this past weekend, W. is down to 17th place in its fourth weekend at the box office, and it hasn’t yet even passed the $25 million mark domestically. Not that a film needs to be a hit with moviegoers to make a difference with the Academy, though, right? This time last year, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was similarly fading from the interests of ticket buyers in its fifth week, having made a meager $16 million. And of the ten Best Actor nominees of the last two years, half came from films that grossed less than W. Then there are the film’s poor reviews, which have earned W. a Metacritic score of 56. Compared to Elizabeth: The Golden Age’s score of 45, that’s not actually too much of a drawback. And if the Academy can nominate Sean Penn for I Am Sam in spite of that movie’s reception (Metacritic score of 28!), it shouldn’t have any problem with a performance from a picture that at least somewhat pleased more than 50% of critics. Of course, Penn was and is an Oscar vet. So was Blanchett, who had already been nominated for the same role in the first Elizabeth. It wouldn’t be surprising if some Academy members voted for her Elizabeth: The Golden Age performance without even having seen the movie. Meanwhile, Brolin’s greatest film honor as of yet is being one-seventh of the SAG Award-winning ensemble cast of No Country for Old Men. Last year he may have deserved a double nomination for his lead performance in that film and his supporting bit in American Gangster, but he failed to garner the Academy’s notice. Though some people see Brolin garnering two nominations this year as a way of making up for his prior snubs, the actor’s lack of past favor shall also be a disadvantage for him. The best way for him to be locked for a nomination is to receive some tremendous love from the early determining critics circle awards. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen, because actors like Penn and Mickey Rourke are bound to fill the hearts of those awards’ voters. Another hurdle seems to be the role Brolin plays, though not necessarily due to the focal figure being so contemporary. The portrait of President Bush is indeed one of the most present-minded biopics in years. However, with a retrospective window of only five years in its most recent setting, W. is hardly any different than The Queen, a not-quite-biopic film that presents an Oscar-winning portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II set only nine years in the past. W. deals with a more touchy subject for Academy members, though, it being about a more disliked and derided leader who has actually been the president of most voters for the past eight years. And the same factors that are keeping audiences away from the film in theaters, regardless of what their politics may be, will probably similarly affect Academy voters’ hesitance to put on that screener DVD. If Academy voters aren’t willing to watch the performance now, though, perhaps they can give it the same twenty years they had between Nixon’s presidency and Oliver Stone’s biopic of that other unlikable president. Maybe in 2028 W. could be the innaugural film nominated in a much-needed future category that retroactively honors should-have-been-awarded performances? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: The Queen (2006)

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:05:17 GMT

Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:05:17 PM
Body: "The Queen", director Stephen Frears' Oscar nominated film, details the days after Princess Diana's death as billed, but it does something else: it showcases the perpetual tug-of-war between the office of the Prime Minister and the largely figurehead position of the monarchy. The titular character, Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren), is said to be in a state of shock after Diana's death. More shocking, though, to her son, the prime minister and the British people is the callous disregard toward the death. She battles different figures within her country at every turn to try and keep Diana from looming over the royal family any longer. She initially forbids Prince Charles from taking the royal plane to retrieve the body; she and Prince Philip adamantly refuse to fly a flag at half-mast at the palaces; and for the life of her, Elizabeth can't understand why the British people mourn Diana as they do. In her eyes, the people have always been strong, dating back to World War II. The royal family, with the exception of Charles, believes the grieving process will take roughly two days, at which point the people will go back to their lives. After nearly a week of mourning and mounting pressure from all sides, a stag on the estate grounds changes her mind. Initially, I couldn't understand the praise being heaped upon this film. Sure, Helen Mirren is as close to Hollywood royalty as you can get, but the story of Elizabeth versus Tony Blair? It sounded, honestly, boring. But something happened within the very first scene of "The Queen": I became entranced with the story on the screen. The way Mirren doesn't allow a hint of emotion to escape from any pore. She is the very definition of calm and collected, especially in the face of great adversity. Blair, initially, as well as the British people, see this emotionless monarch as being unfeeling and out of touch. That's not the case and it's terribly cruel to think Elizabeth is an emotionless being, based on this story. According to the research done by screenwriter Peter Morgan, the queen deeply believes in what she preaches: a period of solitary, dignified grieving followed by a return to normal. In her eyes, that's what the British people want from her and, in turn, what she expects from them. So it's a revelation to her about the outpouring of grief. And in her transformation lies the very heart of the film. Not in the fact that Diana died nor in the fact that a human being was lost, but in the idea that this strong woman's convictions were changed. As a counterpoint, Blair charts the exact opposite course. He starts by trying to change the queen's mind and, as he slowly begins to understand her, he becomes her biggest fan within the government. Notice the fire with which he defends her near the end. That would have been unimaginable during their first meeting, yet they've both come part way to meet each other in the middle. It's as much as can be expected, I believe, especially considering the thinly disguised venom spewed in Diana's direction by members of the royal family. (Philip is arguably the worst, slandering the people who would be attending Diana's funeral: homosexuals and pop stars.) Prince Charles, Diana's ex-husband, comes off in the film as being a man who still loves this woman, despite both of their new relationships. He fights his mother, the queen, as much as he can to secure the proper burial rights for her. There's also a sadness in his eyes, as if he realizes he hasn't only lost this special woman, but the world has lost a champion. If there is one part of the Diana tragedy the movie does overlook, it's the things that she did. Seen only in brief flashes of newsreel footage, we see Diana engaged in the charity work she was known for; it is all but lost on the royal family. They don't understand why she meant so much to so many people from all walks of life. They don't understand why Blair called her the People's Princess. They simply don't understand. The audience, drawing on their knowledge of the princess, can fill in the blanks, though they shouldn't have to. There is no reason why the script can't lay out the necessary information. That is a minor nitpick, to be sure, in a film filled with exquisite production design and remarkable performances. "The Queen" doesn't carry the political punch of "Catch a Fire" nor does it make the audience roll with laughter like "Little Miss Sunshine". What it does, though, is give us the chance to see a woman shrouded in secrecy at a vulnerable time. The first glimpse the public had of the queen after Diana's death was on national (and international) television. Some called her stiff and unfeeling; it would be impossible to do so after learning the reasons why she maintained her veil of seriousness. One piece of the Diana story that is missing from the film-which I expected to come into play somewhere-was Elton John's "Candle in the Wind". He is featured, along with other celebrities, at the funeral in news clips. I can't imagine why-outside of royalties-his tribute song to the princess was left out. Even a few bars would have sufficed. "The Queen", on the scale of 1 to 10, rates an 8. This is a family friendly film with the exception of one scene, which may be too graphic for some age groups. However, they should be fast asleep by the time it comes on screen. Definitely and wholeheartedly recommended.

Spout Post: VIDEO: What the Obama-Clinton Meeting Looked Like

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:00:59 GMT

Post By: lopezdash
Post To: The Movie Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 1:00:59 PM
Body: Courtesy of The Queen (2006): Originally posted on:Cerebral Politics

Spout Post: The Queen (2006, Great Britain, Stephen Frears) ****

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:59:38 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 3:59:38 AM
Body: Despite my love of British culture I had only thought about their monarchial government enough to decide that I didn't like it. Why do you need Queens and Princes in the modern age, when they are clearly no better than anyone else? A French person once told me that she found it odd that the Brits are among the most cynical of all Western people to their leaders- often holding up their MP's and Prime Ministers up to public ridicule, but will respond with patriotic fervor whenever the Queen, who has little real power, is attacked. As I understand, insulting the Queen is to the average Brit like someone burning an American flag to us. Stephen Frears' wonderful new film is about a short period in 1997 when the Royal Family had suddenly gone from being the nation's mascots to being despised as being what, frankly, people from most other countries seeing them as- cold and elitist. Almost everyone can remember the surprising media fervor and worldwide grief when Princess Diana, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and drunken chauffer were killed in a car accident in Paris, while speeding to escape paparazzi (only her bodyguard survived). What I didn't care about at the time (I was in eighth grade) was the political backdrop to that tragity- Diana had recently been divorced from Prince Charles and had reported to the media that her ex-husband had several affairs, behavior certainly unbecoming of a Royal. The Labor Party had been swept into power only a month earlier, and the new Prime Minister, Tony Blair was seen as a brave man with a lot of new ideas. At the heart of Frear's film is the conflict between Blair and Queen Elizabeth II over the public reaction to Diana's death. It is possible that only a non-Briton could have made this movie (Frears is Irish), as it has a very British feeling without loosing its objectivity about the country and the events. The Queen (here played in an Oscar frontrunner performance by Helen Mirren) is correct in pointing out that after the divorce, Diana was no longer a Royal and thus not qualified for a state treatment. The film acknowledges that Elizabeth almost certainly hated Diana- the Princess was supposed to be a pretty face who would get out of her husbands way, but instead lived the high life and made friends with what the Queen considered to be garish celebrities- such as Elton John and Tom Cruise. Blair (who is channeled by Michael Sheen in an amazingly accurate representation) understands Royal procedure, but he also knows that a lot of people really, really like the Princess, or at least, who they thought she was. The movie is not really concerned about the real Diana at all, but by what people thought of her. This is not a tawdry TV movie about Royal gossip, but a serious examination of what exactly a Queen's place is in the 20th century. There is no doubt that Queen Elizabeth may have sacrificed much for the British people, but were those sacrifices worth anything? The film is also tasteful, giving Diana's sons some privacy by keeping them mostly off screen, and presents a surprisingly positive view of Prince Charles (Alex Jennings), who is not portrayed as dunderheaded idiot as usual. Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) on the other hand, comes off as even more of jerk than he is considered by most to be, although Frears gives him credit as a good husband. Obviously a movie about British politics is going to appeal to me, but this is one of the most thought provoking and restrained political films in a long time. By the end of the film, I had new respect for Queen Elizabeth for what she has tried to do in her reign, but less for what she has actually achieved, as the office becomes less and less relevant. As an American, I probably have no right to say this, but it seems to me that the British are too grown-up a people to waste time with expensive formalities in honor of a family that is no better than yours or mine. The Queen (2006)

Spout Post: This Queen Rules With Conscience

Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:10:50 GMT

Post By: erico_77375
Post To: erico_77375 Blog
Post Date: 7/22/2007 5:10:50 AM
Body: I was 16 when Princess Diana was killed in Paris. I remember how I felt that that the whole matter had been distorted, and that by doing so it had killed the real tragedy; that the underbelly of people's wanton curiosity had killed its own quarry. But I didn't know that the outcome of her death would ultimately show the changing face of a nation. Stephen Frears did when he made The Queen, one of the most superb films I've seen this year.The film starts off with the election of Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen). On Election Day, Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) doesn't seem too concerned about this new politician and his labor party. When they meet after his victory, she sizes him up by mentioning her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. These scenes are quietly funny, as Blair feels unprepared to deal with royalty, which will ultimately one of his important tasks. The Queen believes that modernization is a fad that will quickly go away. Blair understands better that the world is now connected completely with universal telecommunication, including a never-ending news media that seems to never lose their taste for blood.How interesting to see that only months after Blair takes office, these two opinions are put on trial in the court of public opinion when former Princess of Wales is killed. As Blair reads it, she's a symbol to the British people. But to the monarchy, she's the woman who divorced Charles and became a headache to them over the last few years. And on the news all over world, the grief of the people is shown as flowers are left in front of Buckingham Palace in ever-growing numbers. It becomes clear to all that Diana's life had meant more to people than could have been expected. And they wanted to hear from their queen about the tragedy.As Elizabeth sees it, why should she? She's no longer royalty and it didn't help that the two of them weren't very friendly to each other. Blair does talk though, coining the phase "People's Princess", and making him an instant celebrity. But it's not him that the people want to hear. Blair tries to advise her of the grave mistake of not talking about it. This brings out the differences in these two forms of power; Blair is a politician who requires to read the will of the people to get elected to power. Elizabeth was born into her job and sees events in the long run. To her, the death of one woman, however famous, will eventually be yesterday's news. Her mistake isn't just in underestimating her subjects' grief but in also underestimating the new sensationalist media, now 24 hours and seen all over the world. The world is changing around her, something that has always been happening outside of her world. And for the first time, it is now coming in.Since history already tells us what happens, the film finds it more important to understand the people involved. We see characters wrestle with decisions before our very eyes, especially the queen herself and Blair. A wonderful metaphor is used in a large 17-point Buck that becomes a kind of kindred spirit to Elizabeth. The metaphor suggests majestic pride in the face of terminal danger. What happens to the Buck eventually allows the queen to understand her decisions better. For Blair, his choices are much more strained. Elected on the platform to reign in entitlements to the upper-classes and surrounded by people who would love nothing more than to abolish the monarchy (including his wife), he finds himself trying to advise her away from her stubborn refusal to address the matter. This matter actually brings full circle their relationship as both begin to understand and eventually respect the other. Near the end she warns Blair about the fickle love/hate relationship they have with the people and how it can turn on a dime, which in fact does happen to him six years later.One thing about the film that amazes me is how even-handed it is to everybody involved. It never says that one person is right and one person is wrong. In fact, you can understand where everybody comes from. I agree that the queen shouldn't need to address her people when every celebrity dies, especially one that has done everything she could to punish her husband's family. But then they did treat her very badly while she was there, something that the film doesn't shy away from. The film tastefully puts her two boys in the background and doesn't allow their grief to be exploited. And then there's Blair. What I also love about this film is how it doesn't really answer our questions, just allowing us enough to understand what's going on. The film's central strength comes from its incredible cast. Even its smallest players perform with sharp clarity. One of the best performances I've seen all year comes from Helen Mirren. Throughout the film, I didn't see Helen Mirren, I saw The Queen. Her performance is introverted, involved more in what she doesn't show than what she does. It takes skill to show us what's going on in your mind, but it takes pure talent to NOT show us and still let us see. But my favorite performance this year is Michael Sheen's Tony Blair. He doesn't exactly underplay his part, but dulls the constant agitation that comes with his position on the tip of a knife's edge. I love how he can appear boyish and silly at times and world-weary at others.For director Stephen Frears, The Queen is a perfect match for his taste in films. He loves to allow characters to act out and allow the scenes to feel alive. This is difficult in a drama based on recent events, but with this film, I don't feel I'm watching a reenactment, but that these decisions are being made in the moment. This is trademark of Frears, whose other films include High Fidelity (which I love) and The Grifters (which I didn't love).All in all, this is a high drama with powerful performances and central questions that will leave you talking about it. Something of a curiosity about the film is the title, The Queen. It really represents probably the most important aspect of the film, the delicate balance of the job it describes and the woman who claims the title. All I know is who I'm going to be kneeling for on Oscar Night.

Spout Post: The Queen

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:27:00 GMT

Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 6/5/2007 2:27:00 AM
Body: The Queen (2006) is not a historical recreation of the week following Princess Di’s death. It has it’s own plot and it’s own theme. If you miss these, you’ll think the film nothing more than a news reel. One of my favourite film critics, James Berardinelli, unfortunate writes, “There’s not much plot to speak of, but it gives actors an opportunity to shine.” Well, “plot” usually means action, but if the story is one of character development, then the plot becomes the change in the character(s). The plot here is how the Queen painfully shifts from her traditional approach to Di’s death and funeral to a modern approach. The theme of the movie is to ask whether this is a good thing. Technically, the Queen is absolutely right in her original position. Diana was no longer a member of the royal family; consequently, the funeral was a private matter, not a public event. The flag was not flying over the palace because the flag was the royal family’s signal that they were at home, and they were not at home but rather in Scotland mourning. Yet the public declared the lack of a flag an insult. Not incidentally, the Queen and the rest of the royal family knew Diana quite well, while almost none of the thousands of grief-stricken mourners had even met her—except through the distorted lens of the press. Yet as pressure mounted, the Queen slowly agreed to take Prime Minister Blair’s advice and come down to London, be seen as empathetic, and give a eulogistic speech. If you are, say, a young person in the greatest popular democracy on earth, you probably think the answer to the movie’s thematic question is such a no brainer that it’s not worth asking: Of course the Queen should respond to the wishes of the people, thousands of people crying their eyes out, showering the palace gates with bouquets, and calling for kind words about “the people’s princess.” On the other hand, if you are an older person in a more traditional country, you will find it deeply regrettable that an honourable person can be completely in the right and yet be forced by the press and a mob mentality to admit that she is wrong. The film gains added depth because the new prime minister, Tony Blair, learns from the Queen as she learns from him. He empathizes with her, and through his eyes we are guided to empathize as well. His increasing understanding contrasts with his communications officer who sees everything in terms of scoring points and also contrasts with his wife’s more doctrinaire left-wing views. The movie deserved its Academy Award nominations for Original Screenplay (40-year old Peter Morgan), Best Director (65-year old Stephen Frears), and overall Best Picture, as well as Helen Mirren’s win for Best Actress. But the nomination for Best Costumes seems misplaced. The costumes, which should have been dead easy to do, were too blatant, saying, “Look at me! I’m symbolic of . . .” Some of the Queen’s outfits cried out, “I’m dowdy.” When you see her in public or see pictures of her, she does not appear this way, so the movie is making a point of using the costumes to enhance the characterization and the theme. This is well and good except that we already know from the Queen’s rigid face, clipped speech, frosty relations, sense of duty, and stiff upper lip, what kind of a person she is. We know that the royal family is out-of-touch with the ordinary folks when the lads get over their grief by stalking a stag to kill it. We don’t need to see them in neatly pressed kilts. In contrast to the dubious costumes, Alexandre Desplat’s musical score is superb—varying widely in style but always enhancing the scene and sometimes making the scene.

Spout Post: Changing of the Guard

Sun, 27 May 2007 20:55:00 GMT

Post By: slipofthetongue
Post To: SlipOfTheTongue Blog
Post Date: 5/27/2007 4:55:00 PM
Body: THE QUEEN brings so many relevant issues to the table. The growing pains of the British Monarchy can be seen as a metaphor for larger struggles that all governments face to remain relevant in a world increasingly driven by the media and the insurmountable tidal wave of of public opinion that it can create.Among the questions raised (or implied) in this movie are...What balance can a Monarchy maintain in tandem with the people's government and how do both institutions serve the public good? What is the importance of tradition in modern society when such tradition may not be in step with sensibilities of the present? To what degree is compromise a necessity in such modern relationships? Finally, to what degree does the media control and perhaps create all public perception throughout the world today? (Does it serve the public or control it by forcing all parties to acknowledge the media rather than follow their own hearts and minds?)THE QUEEN is a character drama and rather simple in construct. Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II (in a tight and disciplined performance) and the story follows her actions (and reactions) following the death of Princess Diana. The script paints her as a proud and dignified leader who is out of touch with the present. Though her actions seem callous, there is an old school logic to the way she responds to Diana's death. Cleverly, the script paints Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) as a sympathetic character who seems to understand both sides of the issue. It is through Elizabeth's personal secretary that he begins to understand the Queen's proud belief that the British people wanted a strong leader who would mourn with dignity in private following Diana's death. The story tracks Blair's attempts to balance the needs of the country against those of the Monarchy. We see how he is the one to finally confront Elizabeth with the notion that her approach is not working. The story then follows Elizabeth as she begins to accept that to suffer compromise (or "humiliation" as she puts it to Blair) is the only way ultimately to regain the affection of the public. This would in turn be good for England. The lovely thing is that when Elizabeth finally capitulates all is well again with her people. We see that they do truly love her. Despite their nature to be critical of the British Monarchy it is a long standing relationship filled with positive affection and respect.The story is deceptively simple. The narrative technique (of using video clips of Diana's funeral, and keeping many characters off screen in favor of more screen time for Mirren) is ultimately a smart one. However, it does feel at times like you are watching something that would work better as a play, the focus falls so squarely on Elizabeth and Blair. The amazing thing to see is how the Queen finally gives in and how she and Blair both learn from one another. It seems there is hope for both tradition and human emotion in the relationships between the ruling classes of the future. The irony is that as the debacle of the Iraq war continues the public is giving Blair the same kind of thumping that they gave Elizabeth in this film. it seems that no one is ever fully beyond reproach in this world. The public seems to have the need to both destroy and forgive its public figures simultaneously. We all have days and weeks that we must necessarily lose our battles and look the fool. To paraphrase Blair's statement to Elizabeth concerning her loss of face with the public, this was only one small incident in an otherwise lengthy and grand career. It seems we all have chance for a reprieve in life if we keep plugging away and wait for the wheel to turn.

Spout Post: Royal Pains

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:53:00 GMT

Post By: HairyLime
Post To: HairyLime Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2007 9:53:00 PM
Body: Last night watched a 'British Royalty' double feature. We had just received 'The Queen' the other day in the mail from Netflix, and I noticed that 'The Madness of King George' was also available on our 'in demand' listing from our local cable company, so sat down with both Monarchs yesterday evening. Both films were similar in the way they both touched on the idea of the 'Monarchy in decline', and both handled their subjects in less of an Awestruck manner, instead touching on the more down to earth humanity of these poor clowns trapped in a positions of power (well, sort of) simply by the accident of their birth.Nigel Hawthorne gives a marvelous performance, truly moving at times, of a man who has just enough grasp on his sanity to be aware of how it is slipping away, and just enough presence of mind to pull off a reasonable semblance of normality in order to reclaim his throne when it was in danger of being snatched from under him. Helen Mirren also appears in this film as his wife, and while she gives a fair performance, I felt her (German?) accent had a habit of appearing and disappearing from scene to scene. From time to time the film slipped dangerously close to parody, but usually was able to pull back from crossing the line. Both an intriguing political intrigue drama, and a fascinating look at the 'medical profession' of 230 years ago. (I love the doctor who is obsessed with 'the king's copious well formed stools')Jump forward a couple hundred years to Elizabeth II, and the farce that surrounded the (former) Princess Di's funeral and the Queen's seeming reluctance to properly show the due respect. Despite the fact that I have nothing but contempt for the whole 'Royal Farce' and the pointlessness of continuing the Monarchy well past its expiration date, you really come away from this movie with a newfound respect for Queen Elizabeth, and a equally newfound contempt for modern society and the madness of public spectacle, where any bozo who's 'In the Public Eye' is treated like royalty, and the sheep-like public is whipped into a frenzy by the wankers of the press and little whippersnappers like Tony Blair. I didn't really pay that much attention to the whole 'Di' funeral, but I do remember having to suppress the gag reflex when Elton John reworked 'Candle in the Wind' and sang it at her funeral. At least there are a few people, regardless of whether they are over-priviledged leeches like the Royal Family, who still have a scrap of dignity, and a touch of backbone.Was thinking about these two films, and one I watched a month or so ago about Henry VIII, and was wondering how many British Monarchs there have been movies made about, and with the help of the internet, I found a useful listing, which I have edited down for a 'Royalty Festival of Film'. I have not bothered with movies in which Royalty make an appearance (such as Judi Dench's supporting oscar role of Queen Elizabeth I in 'Shakespeare In Love), and mostly concentrated on films in which the King or Queen is the main thrust of the film.King Arthur: You have a choice between Richard Harris singing (?) in 'Camelot', Nigel Terry in John Boorman's 'Excalibur', or my personal favorite, Graham Chapman in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'Alfred the Great - in the movie of the same name starring David HemmingsHenry II - The wonderful Peter O'Toole in 'Lion in Winter' (reviewed recently here in this filmblog)Richard I & King John - Adventures of Robin Hood (well, broke my own rule for this one, but I just like the good old hokey fun of this Errol Flynn classic)Edward I & II - Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart'Henry V - you have a choice between Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare adaptation, I prefer the more action packed latter version.Richard III - a little unorthodox, but Ian McKellen's fascist retelling of the Shakespeare play is fun to watchHenry VIII - a whole bunch to choose from, Robert Shaw in 'A Man For All Seasons', Richard Burton in 'Anne of the Thousand Days' (recently reviewed in this filmblog), or Charles Laughton's 'The Private Life of Henry VIII'Lady Jane Grey - Helena Bonham Carter in 'Lady Jane'Mary I & Elizabeth - The recent 'Elizabeth' with Cate Blanchett, or if you prefer Bette Davis, she's appeared in a couple different movies as this monarch. And Glenda Jackson in a BBC miniseries 'Elizabeth R'Charles I - Alec Guinness in 'Cromwell'George III - 'The Madness of King George'Victoria - "Mrs. Brown" - Judi Dench Elizabeth II - 'The Queen'Haven't seen all of them, and the list isn't complete by any means (look them all up yourself if you are more obsessive than me), but these would make for an interesting film series, I'll be bound.

Spout Tag:family

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

Spout Tag:death

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT

death
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

Spout Tag:drama

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT

drama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

Spout Tag:british

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:53:04 GMT

british
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 75

Number of times used: 264

Spout Tag:politics

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT

politics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

Spout Tag:power

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT

power
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

Spout Tag:princess

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:53:48 GMT

princess
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 72

Spout Tag:investigation

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:19:25 GMT

investigation
Number of films tagged: 5883

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 125

Spout Tag:class

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:49:58 GMT

class
Number of films tagged: 37

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 39

Spout Tag:hunting

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT

hunting
Number of films tagged: 756

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 31

Spout Tag:royalty

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:58:48 GMT

royalty
Number of films tagged: 453

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

Spout Tag:britain

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:05:23 GMT

britain
Number of films tagged: 1387

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 42

Spout Tag:insightful

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:55:15 GMT

insightful
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 32

Spout Tag:carcrash

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT

carcrash
Number of films tagged: 262

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

Spout Tag:throne

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:01:59 GMT

throne
Number of films tagged: 147

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 9