<p>Helen Mirren was excellent, as was Tony Blair. I loved the scenes with the queen driving throught the Scottish highlands of Balmoral–with her Hermes scarf tied under her chin. What a great image.</p>
<p>Cherie didn’t ring quite true to me and neither did her relationship to her supposed husband or four children. </p>
<p>I walked out wondering why Frears would have bothered with such a big movie and big cast for such a seemingly small moment in history–but when I stated that opinion to English and Commonwelath countries they quickly rose to Frears’ defense. They assured me it was not a ‘small’ moment in hisotry but something quite important to the monarchy–and to them.</p>
<p>I saw it and loved it. My 15 year old daughter and 65 year old mother went along with me and what was interesting was that they both enjoyed it as well–so it was well received among a range of ages. My d also went along for Marie Antoinette and didn’t enjoy it in spite of the imagery and style. I think so many people became fixated on Diana’s death that they forget what a pivotal time in English politics it was. I agree that the scenes in the highlands were fantastic and the symbolism of the stag was well thought out and could apply to any number of situations the film addressed.</p>
<p>I loved the movie too, but thought Charles was quite sympathetically portrayed, at least in relation to how he was often depicted in the media at the time. Prince Philip, if his portrayal in the movie is at all accurate, is a complete a**, though.</p>
<p>Again, I said the same to a group of commonwealth folks who promptly reminded me that Prince Phillip was a Greek Prince who was spritied out of Greece by British Secret Service.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, he comes by his arrogance naturally. Elizabeth’s father opposed the marriage as Phillip was a dashing Naval officer and Elizabeth had fallen for him as a very young teenager (she was 14 and he was 19). Perhaps he also guessed Phillip’s true nature.</p>
<p>The movie indicates that Elizabeth is still devoted to him–and to England.</p>
<p>My Commonwealth dinner guests believe William will be the same sort of stoic, loyal monarch.</p>
<p>Haven’t seen it yet, but it’s on our list. H and I are big Helen Mirren fans, mostly due to the Prime Suspect series on BBC, but also going as far back as that luscious, extravagant Arthurian movie, Excalibur. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t Mirren have been perfect in the Meryl Streep role in Devil Wears Prada?</p>
<p>I have stories about Philip being a boor of the first order from when we lived in England. He also had (has?) a wandering eye, subtly hinted at in the movie. The Queen Mother also liked her drink–again also hinted at in the movie.</p>
<p>I thought the movie was really well-done. Helen Mirren was superb. In the 1970s, she had the reputation of being a sex kitten! Well plugged-in British friends of mine say that the portrayal of Blair is spot on; Alastair Campbell, the man whom the movie credits for thinking up the phrase “the people’s princess” had to resign about a year ago over some scandal related to the the Iraq mess. I forget the exact details.</p>
<p>My wife and I saw the movie yesterday. Even before the movie started I was struck by the audience in the theater. We went to the Sunday matinee and arrived after the previews had started. We found our way to empty seats by the glow of the light on the screen reflected off the white hair of the audience members. We are in our mid-fifties and were younger by 10-15 years than everyone else there. Did anyone else have a similar experience?</p>
<p>I thought the acting was very good but do not pretend to understand the subject of the movie. I am not an Anglophile, though I was born a citizen of the Commonwealth, and I just don’t “get” the monarchy and the British infatuation with such a useless institution. I also never “got” the interest in Diana, in life or in death. At the time I viewed her death as unfortunate, but just a footnote in history and not cause for an international outporing of grief. I did not follow the public events that are portrayed in the film and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that is supposed to have gone on, so in that sense the film was quite interesting.</p>
<p>I also saw the movie yesterday, and our theater was also filled with middle- aged and older people. There were many in their 30s though, not just 65 and older. I thought it shows how few movies appeal to adults who like something more intellectually subtle than most movie offerings.</p>
<p>I loved Helen Mirren’s performance and thought all the leads were excellent with the exception of the actor who played Charles. He looked too much to me like Diana’s brother, who was shown in film clips. He also didn’t seem to capture what I have seen of Charles on TV, either his mannerisms or his voice, and his nose was all wrong.</p>
<p>One of the fascinations of the film is that the Queen represents one particular image of Britain–the Masterpiece Theatre, spirit of Dunkirk image, stiff upper lip, reserved, stoical. When in England, we met many of those types. But there is another side–the Carnaby Street, Beatles, mod, which Blair understoof better, and which Diana came to represent. We also saw plenty of those as well. When we lived in England, young affluent women were often divided up into Sloane Square rangers and Mayfair belles. The former were of aristocratic background; the latter were more likely from new money (or hankering after money); many were in movies, modeling, PR. Diana began as the quintessential Sloane Square ranger and ended up as a Mayfair belle. She also came to represent the triumph of stardom, Hollywood style.
What we saw with Diana’s funeral and what was well captured in the movie was the clash of these two images of Britain.</p>
<p>I have not yet seen this movie…neither my DH nor my 2 sons are at all interested in this story. The thing with Diana, similiar to Jackie Kennedy… they never took a bad picture. Think about your own family pictures…and how many of them are bad…this just never happened with Diana… and compare that track record with the Queen…or her daughters…and you have the opposite situation…rarely is there a photo of them that is easy on the eyes…
Prince Philip strikes me as a man who chose to go along on the ride of a lifetime. I think the word arrogant is perfect for him…certainly my sense of him as a dad is one that is merciless.<br>
I expect this movie might be a rental at some point…unless I go alone!!</p>
<p>My neighbor explained the concept of the British monarchy quite well.</p>
<p>He told me to imagine that the US constitution was represented by a living breathing human being who walked around, had a pack of corgis and loved horses. That is how he views his queen. She is a living representative of the constitution–and she happens to be a throwback to the WWII Londoners who survived those ghastly years.</p>
<p>I didn’t know that she met with Tony Blair every week–did you?</p>
<p>My neighbor also said that the public fell in love with Diana–even though she was essentially a terribly uneducated girl who tried to destroy the monarchy after it nearly destroyed her Cinderella concept of life as a Princess. In a sense, she was the perfect counterpoint to The Queen and The Monarchy. What if her family had been stronger and more supportive? She might not have turned to the public for reassurance and support.</p>
<p>Look what is happening with Kate Middleton. She was invited to Balmoral for Christmas–and turned it down!! Unheard of! Is her middle class family protecting her? Is this her way of putting her foot down? Has she already had enough of the British Press? </p>
<p>Mind you, I’m thick. I didn’t get any of this during the movie. I only pieced it together after a few dinner parties…</p>
<p>Diana’s family was dysfunctional to begin with. She comes from far more elevated background than Kate Middleton. She was no Cinderella. Earl Spencer’s title is far more ancient than that of the house of Hanover/Saxe-Coburg/Windsor. But his wife, Diana’s mother, left him when Diana was little for the heir of the Sanderson wallpaper family. Earl Spencer then married the daughter of Barbara Cartland, the romance novelist. I once saw BC in a Woolworth’s in London, dressed in her trademark shocking pink (she must have been in her 70s at the time).
Diana had the usual education of a girl of her class. No university for her. It always astounded me to find that upper-class girls were not expected to attend university, and it was not for lack of money! But remember that Charles was the first of the royal family to attend university.
Charles came off as rather whingeing and ineffectual. Philip came off as a boor–which by all accounts he is. Some of the stories I heard about him are not fit for printing on CC.</p>
<p>I believe that the custom of the Prime Minister meeting weekly with the monarch dates back at least to Victoria and possibly much earlier. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, but Diana apparently lacked something else that is needed for university. She failed her O-level exams, which in US terms is roughly equivalent to flunking out of the 11th grade.</p>
<p>While it is true that Diana flunked her O-level exams…I like to think that what she lacked in book skills was more than made up for in people/heart skills. My recollection is she was the first world “leader” to be photographed hugging someone with AIDS. She was a strong proponent for stopping Land Mines. There are MANY American college educated spouses of leaders who have not done anything as important. Of course, I am watching the Ford funeral as I type this…and I admire Betty Ford for some of her efforts at honesty and embracing reality…not unlike Diana with her famous comment, “there were three of us in this marriage”…one of my all time favorite barbs!!</p>
<p>You missed my point marite. I know that Di had an aristocratic and uneducated background. She also had the extra burden of a fractured and dysfunctional family. My reference to Cinderella was less literal. In marrying a Prince, she may have believed she would be rescued from that. She may have believed that her life would become a wonderful fairy tale.</p>
<p>I don’t know if she did think she would have a fairy tale life. Girls of her background were pushed toward C. In fact, her older sister had a fling with him; it did not get anywhere, so Diana became the vehicle for her family’s ambitions. I doubt that she really thought further than that. </p>
<p>I know D failed her O levels. She cheerfully said that she was “as thick as two planks.” I suspect, though, that she did not even try. There was not much motivation. She went to finishing school. I knew a number of English girls who did the same.</p>
<p>What made for the Diana phenomenon was the combination of Hollywood-style good looks on her part and the British mania for royalty. The tabloid press is just ferocious and relentless. Diana made for good copy, especially as the doings of the previous generation (Margaret, the Queen, etc…) generated less interest.</p>