The Queen (2006)
- Thread starter 1001001
- Start date
*shrugs* I think it's debatable. But what's not debatable is what that scene refers to in terms of Blair's arc. Remember, Blair was the founder of the so-called "New Labour" movement. New Labour was all about moving the Labour Party away from its traditional leftist beliefs, moving it closer to Big Business, Thatcherism, and generally more conservative. It was about making the Labour Party more like the Tories (aka the Conservative Party). When she's criticizing Blair for "going ga-ga for the Queen," she's not just criticizing him for having undo fondness for Her Majesty. She's implicitly criticizing him for giving up his prior republican convictions, for being too Tory.
What relationship? In the film, prior to the Diana crisis, they'd barely spent any time together at all. They met very briefly for him to Kiss Hands, he was intimidated by her, she was unimpressed, and that was that. There wasn't really any relationship before then.
Now, I do think that Blair, in the film, likes the Queen. I do think he empathizes with her -- he rightfully points out to others that she's lived a life of absolute duty, doing a job that killed her father even while under near constant attack from Diana. But that's ultimately not what motivates him to order the Queen to fly the Union Jack at half mast and to come back down to London to give her speech.
After all, if he merely empathized with her, he would probably have more vigorously and more publicly defended her. He would have defended the Royals' right to deal with Diana's death in private, without any sort of public display. He would have said to the angry public all the things he said to his staff. But he did not. That would have been behavior born of empathy.
Instead, he ordered her to acquiesce to the very people he believed were being unfair to her. And he did this because, as the Queen noted at the end, he recognized that a threat to her position was, in the long-term, a threat to his.
I think you're confusing betraying one's egalitarian principles in favor of systems of privilege and hierarchy with "maturing and softening." Blair does not act because of his affection for the Queen, however affectionately he may feel towards her. He acts in a manner that preserves his own power. Remember, had he more vigorously defended the Queen, his approval ratings would have shot down.
I don't mean this as an insult, but I would suggest that that is a function of not knowing enough about the U.K.'s political culture. It's important to understand Blair's role in moving the Labour Party further to the right, to understand the move from republican roots to monarchist sympathies, and to understand the importance of his temper tantrum when his staff talks about getting rid of hereditary privilege. And it's important to understand that when the Queen gives her final analysis of why Blair gave her the orders he did, she was speaking the absolute truth -- which is why he never contradicts her.
The only person who's depicted in Blair's entourage as unlikeable and unsympathetic is Alastair Campbell. He's certainly portrayed as unlikeable and unsympathetic, but he's also the only Blair-ite who gets any screen time. His wife is not depicted as unlikeable or unsympathetic -- she's portrayed as a true republican who objects to hereditary privilege and rightly points out the complete disdain Her Majesty has for the democratically-elected leaders of her country. It's fair to say that Cherie is depicted as lacking empathy for the Queen's personal issues because of her objection to the monarchy, but I don't think Cherie Blair comes across as seeming like a truly unlikeable person; she comes across as someone who resents someone else because of their elitism.
Meanwhile, being unlikeable and unsympathetic actually has nothing to do with whether or not you hold on to your egalitarian convictions. Part of the point of The Queen, after all, is that outward charm is not the same thing as real character. The Queen and her family, after all, spend much of the film grappling with very real issues, in private, even though the British people want a public display; the Royals rightly complain amongst themselves that a public display of emotion is not the same thing as having it, and vice versa.
Blair is certainly a very likeable guy who gives outward displays of emotion at Diana's death, but remember how he and his wife speak of her while she's still alive? He has no real sympathy for Diana. Which is not to say that he disliked her -- but his displays at her death have much more to do with PR than with any real affection for her upon her death.
Except that he's being just as cynical there. His denunciation is not motivated merely by empathy for another human being; it's motivated by empathy for another powerful person who may lose power. The Queen says as much to his face, and he never contradicts her. You can't overstate the importance of his temper tantrum after his aides draft a speech where he would in theory denounce hereditary privilege and call for a metaphorical revolution to create greater egalitarianism in Britain. That scene is the key to understanding his later behavior: He has abandoned his leftist beliefs and embraced hierarchy. He is no longer motivated by egalitarianism anymore, and this flatly surprises his aides.
I don't take it as an insult. I admit to my limited understanding of British politics.
If I may ask, though...where are you from? Did you grow up there? Given your avatar and description, I'd very much like to know what context your persepctive comes from.
Frankly, your interpretation of the events in the movie seem to hint at a political axe to grind. If I'm misreading that, I apologize.
Several of the scenes you describe, I had a completely different interpretation than yours. Again, that may be my naivete limiting my vision. I just didn't see anything in the movie that led me to the conclusion Blair was worried about preserving his privilege or power. Yes, the Queen made that remark at the end, but before that, there was never even a hint of that motive. I thought his outburst at his staff was genuine concern about how crazy things had gotten, and how vicious everyone had become. I thought his exposure to the Queen had given him a better understanding of her predicament.
I think Blair was portrayed in this film as an admirable and genuine guy. Whether or not that's how he really was is another matter entirely.
Yeah, I don't see that, personally. The Queen's troubles just elevate Blair's profile throughout the film (which is what his staff is trying to do); at no point is his privilege/power under threat. The Queen's statement at the end comes something of a surprise/wakeup call to Blair, if anything.
I'm a huge Anglophile of an American who is originally from Ohio. I've read extensively on British political culture. My perspective on The Queen also comes from having seen Peter Morgan's and Michael Sheen's other two films about Tony Blair, 2003's The Deal and 2010's The Special Relationship. Sheen plays Blair in all three, and Morgan wrote all three. Blair in The Deal is portrayed as a man who double-crosses his friend Gordon Brown in order to gain the leadership post for the Labour Party, and in The Special Relationship as a man who abandons a man he'd openly regarded as his hero, Bill Clinton, in order to gain influence with the next U.S. President, George W. Bush.
Ironically, of all three films, The Queen is probably the easiest on Blair; it's the only time Morgan doesn't write Blair as having betrayed someone for political gain!
*shrugs* I'm not a Blair fan in real life, but I'd be inclined to go quite a bit easier on the real Blair for his conduct during the Diana crisis than I am on the fictional Blair. To me, in real life, he basically protected the Royals from themselves, and I doubt that the real Blair was ever much of a republican. By contrast, the fictional Blair seems to have held republican sentiments in his youth. I see the two as distinct characters and I evaluate the events of the movie and the events of real life differently.
I think there was. If you don't think that Movie!Blair was out to preserve his power, then there are two basic questions that need to be answered, as otherwise we're left with some dangling questions about his behavior that don't make sense:
1. Why was he upset at the egalitarian language his staffers were putting together for his big speech before the crisis hit? There was nothing particularly out of the ordinary for Labour thought there, yet he reacted like a Tory.
2. Why didn't he more publicly defend the Queen rather than force her to acquiesce to the people he thought were treating her badly -- why didn't he say the same things to the public that he'd said to his staff when his staff were criticizing her?
It's not so much that his power was under threat as that he recognized that one day it would be -- and realizing this made him more sympathetic to another powerful person facing the threat of losing power, and made him realize that his position depended, in the long term, upon hers.
Those are fair questions. I can only guess at his motives.
1. I imagine the term "revolution" is a pretty loaded one in British politics. I don't know how many citizens, and to what degree, openly call for "revolution" in England. He seemed to be genuinely concerned about "piling on" unfairly, a sentiment he addressed very directly later in the film. He didn't say "hey you idiots, this could be us someday!" He said something to the effect of "everyone is unfairly savaging this good and decent woman who has had a great reign" (I know that's a lot of paraphrasing, but I think the general idea is there). I think in general candidates speak differently than office holders. The generous interpretation is that when they actually become leaders, they gain insight into how complex reality is. Witness a certain US President right now....
2. I suppose the difference is in addressing the "mood of the people". I think he understood at some level that she was being treated too harshly. Simultaneously he understood she was not well equipped to handle the emotionality of the time (at least, not publicly). Again, the generous interpretation is that he walked the "middle path" not for his own gain or power, but for the good of the nation.
And I think that is how he was portrayed in the film.
I fundamentally disagree, but fair enough, then -- but I would suggest taking a look at Morgan/Sheen's The Deal and The Special Relationship, because I think viewing The Queen in light of those entries in their trilogy will shed some light on just what Morgan intended in his general portrayal of Blair.
These scene makes Blair very, very sympathetic to an American audience. How much of that may simply be because it's the job of the actor to empathize with his character and communicate that is hard to say - but a lot of it is written in the speech.
I think that's a very interesting point -- that we Americans may sometimes be more likely to perceive Blair (and the Queen) more sympathetically, more romantically, than might a British audience. After all, we Americans tend to romanticize the British Monarchy in general -- it's foreign, so it's not something we're as familiar with, and we don't necessarily see some of the flaws that the institution has.
The Kissing Hands scene at the beginning of the film is very important, too, in that regard -- it rather firmly establishes the Queen's arrogance, her sense of entitlement, her absolute disdain and disrespect for the democratically-elected Prime Minister and (thus implicit) disrespect for democracy. The Queen isn't a bad person, but I don't think The Queen shies away from pointing out her own arrogance at the start -- which is part of what makes it such a compelling film: An arrogant and entitled woman who learns to accept some humility, who learns to remember to once again put her duty before her ego. I sometimes think that the sense of arrogance and entitlement the film is so careful to establish sometimes isn't picked up on by other Americans I've watched the film with; I haven't watched it with a Briton, but I wonder if a British audience might not more easily pick that stuff up.
* * *
Here's an interesting question, though: What do you guys think the stag stood for? What was its role in the story? Did it symbolize something?
Surely it symbolized her, did it not? The proud old traditions, killed and unceremoniously strung up (like Mussolini? Ceausescu?)
Was it her realizing if she didn't adapt she would be (symbolically) hunted down and strung up?
I think she identified with the animal, and when she saw its fate, it genuinely hurt her...certainly in the recognition that she was previewing her own political fate (and perhaps that of the monarchy itself), if nothing else.
Something like that, I think...
Firstly, I just want to be clear that I haven't actually seen The Queen, but I have seen The Deal.
A movie released in 2006 that depicted Blair as being genuine and admirable would be like releasing a movie about George W Bush that portrayed him as a graceful and heroic intellectual. That is to say that it would be so far removed from the public perception of the man that it would be laughable and it would be critically slaughtered. From 2002 on, Blair was much more popular in America than on this side of the Atlantic and the perception of him in the UK had become that he was a man of few principles that was desperate to hold onto power for as long as possible. Sure, Labour had won the election the year before, but that had more to do with people still not trusting the Tories than a belief that Labour was good for the country. By the time the movie was released Blair had already announced that he was going to resign the following year to appease growing discontent within the party.
I thought the stag symbolized Diana. She did not fit into the royal family, being a bit elusive to them. The stag was elusive. The stag was pursued and hounded to his death, kind of like Diana. The stag, like Diana, was considered attractive (It had an impression set of antlers). When the stag was finally dead, the Queen realized it had been more than just a trophy and that its death was sad, kind of like Diana's death.
I liked the movie. The Queen and Price Phillip seemed to be accurate (not like I know the real ones) but Charles came off as more sympathetic and feeling that he seems to me to be in real life.
The movie seemed to accurately show the arrogance of and, more importantly, how far out of touch the royal family had become. Diana had been a pain in the ass to them, but they bear some of the responsibility for what she became, Charles the most. If he couldn't get over Camilla and was too weak to break off the relationship (and too stupid to hide it if he continued it) he shouldn't have married her.
I've always got the impression that Prince Phillip is asshole, although protective of the Queen. She may have been out of touch, but no one can question her devotion to duty. When she's gone, I don't think Charles can replace her. Not even sure William can and I think more of him than I do of Charles.
I liked the movie. The Queen and Price Phillip seemed to be accurate (not like I know the real ones) but Charles came off as more sympathetic and feeling that he seems to me to be in real life.
The movie seemed to accurately show the arrogance of and, more importantly, how far out of touch the royal family had become. Diana had been a pain in the ass to them, but they bear some of the responsibility for what she became, Charles the most. If he couldn't get over Camilla and was too weak to break off the relationship (and too stupid to hide it if he continued it) he shouldn't have married her.
I've always got the impression that Prince Phillip is asshole, although protective of the Queen. She may have been out of touch, but no one can question her devotion to duty. When she's gone, I don't think Charles can replace her. Not even sure William can and I think more of him than I do of Charles.
Agreed. How difficult would it have been to make her happy? She wasn't exactly a towering intellectual. It was obvious she was being humiliated, so no wonder she started trying to protect herself.
Oddly enough he had a friendly relationship with Diana, even after the divorce. They were both outsiders and had both been shafted by The Firm to a certain extent.
Except it's been pretty much the done thing for a royal, especially an heir to have both a wife and a mistress. My history is a bit rusty but I think it used to be an official appointment. I think the theory behind it goes back to the days when it *really* mattered who ended up on the throne. There's be a wife, usually of nobility (usually a powerful British family or a European royal) who's mostly there for show and the production of more heirs and then there's the mistress who's there for actual companionship.
In this instance there's two sides to the story. On the one hand there's Charles who's grown up as the heir the the throne and is steeped in royal protocol and duty and naturally takes it all for granted. On the other hand there's Diana who while certainly not common, wasn't a royal and seamed to have bought into the fairy tale and got rather shell shocked by the realities of the way these people live. Nobody was really at fault, it's just the way things went down.
Also, I'd take issue with anyone calling Liz arrogant. As she said in the film, her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill, meaning she's been doing her job a very long time, has seen a lot of change and isn't about to be impressed by some jumped up sprog who wanted to be a rock star but fell into politics instead. Don't get me wrong, she was and has always been a bit out of touch-there's just no avoiding it-but I'd never say she was ever arrogant.
That was how I read the first meeting with Blair: the old hand meets the newbie (consider that Blair was actually born while she was on the throne).
Though actually, the history of the royal couples over the last two centuries has actually been quite good on that score: from William IV (took the throne in 1830) through to the present Queen, only one of them (Edward VII, a notorious rake) was really known for extramarital affairs. Though that doesn't cover the rest of the royal family, of course.
It was hardly "official", but it was quite common for much of British history.
Though actually, the history of the royal couples over the last two centuries has actually been quite good on that score: from William IV (took the throne in 1830) through to the present Queen, only one of them (Edward VII, a notorious rake) was really known for extramarital affairs. Though that doesn't cover the rest of the royal family, of course.
This also goes back to that most telling line in the film: "She's been brought up to believe it's God's will she is who she is".
Imagine what that does to a person's pysche? And to their ability to connect with others.
I don't think she's arrogant. I think she's clueless. And I don't even mean that necessarily in a negative way. I think that the film depicted her discovering scene by scene how clueless she was. Oblivious, but not malevolent.
And as was pointed out earlier by several people, she may in the final analysis have been right on target about the whole thing. Just not in the short term....
I'm just a clueless American, but I think that the film is, in the end, sympathetic to both the Queen and Blair. Over the course of the film we see both of them having to examine their own long-held assumptions. And at the end they have realized that some of those assumptions maybe don't fit the world they live in, and they'll have to work together.
Perhaps not exaclty historically accurate, but a good story.
Perhaps not exaclty historically accurate, but a good story.
Well, there were a lot of things in the old days that are not considered acceptable today. By the time he married, at least in western society, it was frowned upon to cheat in your marriage.
If you go by your logic, by tradition, they should have been able to chop off Diana's head for her adultery.
One gets the impression that she just got pitched into the family and no one helped her adjust. Plus - I think that as she grew popular, Charles got a bit jealous.
I don't know about that. It seems that if one doesn't do what is expected (protocol) or whatever, one would get a frosty glare. I think that she has a sense of what is a person's proper place or what it should be and I read that as privileged arrogance. I could be wrong. Then again, titles and such mean zip to me. I judge a person based on both what he or she has achieved coupled with how decent/ethical they are. She gets zero points for being born to royalty, negative points as a mother but lots of points for her work ethic and duty.
Charles? A few points for parenting and that's it!
Negative points as a mother? I'd say considering the handicaps they were all labouring under her kids turned out reasonably alright. If you discount the affectations of their unique position, there isn't a wild child among them. Compare that to her own sister...
Similar threads
