Sunday 18 March 2007
God Save Helen Mirren!
For a long time I resisted going to see The Queen. I do not like
fictional "docu-drama" portrayals of contemporary, or even recent, public
figures that people are too likely to uncritically take as "the gospel." But
after friend after friend asked, "Have you seen it?" I gave in. I was
actually amazed at how much I liked two things. I was deeply moved by Helen
Mirren's sympathetic portrayal. And, secondly, the portrayal of Tony Blair
made me like him better than I ever have. (Even though I am something of a
"Lefty" in my general political outlook, that has never translated into warm
feelings toward my fellow Baby-boomer, Mr. Blair.) But I digress....
Helen Mirren did something remarkable.
From all that I have heard, the screenplay itself was of an anti-monarchy
bent. And the writer's abortive rant at the Golden Globe awards -
referencing a certain "stubborn old lady" - was clearly a nod in that
direction. That bent shows up in the rather unfair, in my opinion, portrayal
of Prince Philip, and of others like the late Queen Mum. (Who, by-the-way,
would NOT have been staying with the Queen at Balmoral itself.) The degree
of angst portrayed in Prince Charles was also a bit much... though having
seen the same actor as Edward VIII, I didn't quite find him believable
anyway. (No real fault of his, except for looking too much like the late
Duke of Windsor.) "Thanks be!" that the director discretely avoided
portraying William and Harry!
But back to Helen...
I actually suspect that Helen Mirren rather subverted and sabotaged the
whole project. And she did so by being conscientiously fair-minded about
portraying the character of Elizabeth II. According to all accounts she
closely studied H.M., and it shows. As I watched the movie I believed in her
integrity, and her devotion to duty, and in her struggle to comprehend the
phenomena unfolding around her. Helen Mirren studied the Queen's character
so hard that she made something of a mess of the project's intention, and
produced a masterpiece. At least that is my read on it.
Even though Ms. Mirren has apparently not had a lot of use for the
institution of the monarchy over the years, her testimony is that studying
Elizabeth II formed in her a profound respect for Elizabeth
Mountbatten-Windsor. And her amazing tributes to the Queen in her several
acceptance speeches give clear testimony to her admiration of the true
"leading lady" in that particular role. Thankfully, she had enough scripted
material to run with.
By contrast, over this last weekend I re-watched some old interviews with
Prince Philip. The contrast between the real Philip - an early advocate of
ecological mindfulness as Ranger of Windsor Great Park, and ardent advocate
of the World Wildlife Fund, and so on - and the prescribed role given to
veteran actor James Cromwell was slightly painful. (James Cromwell has
complained a bit about it... as reported some days ago in a posting on this
site.)
What it all comes down to, vis a vis the movie, is that I believe
Helen Mirren turned a potential ugly duckling into a swan. And what it comes
down to in its real world effect seems to be that Elizabeth II has risen in
public esteem as a result... thanks to Ms. Mirren's scrupulously fair
portrayal. It ended up as a "win-win" situation for both screenwriter and
monarch. (Probably somewhat to the chagrin of both!) Meanwhile, Ms. Mirren
must be adding a rather spectacular new display case into her entry hall or
drawing room.
So, in due course The Queen will probably join the equally wonderful
Mrs. Brown in my collection of videos and DVDs. Two movies set at Balmoral,
and both focused on Queens who needed to be enticed back into the public eye
by their canny Prime Ministers. Both featuring stellar performances by great
actresses. What a double feature!
Several years ago, when comedienne Whoopi Goldberg hosted, there was a quip
at the Academy Awards that Dame Judi Dench intended to portray every Queen
of Britain. This was the year of her nomination - and well-deserved award,
even for so brief a part - as best supporting actress as Elizabeth I in
Shakespeare in Love. According to Whoopi, the next queen portrayed by
Dame Judi would be... Boy George! In recent days reports are that Ms. Mirren
has expressed a desire that some would see as nearly as outrageous. It is
said that she would like to portray Camilla Parker Bowles, in a sympathetic
manner. Given her track record, she would do a fine job! But at the
moment... I'm not quite ready for it.
History is showing that the sea-change the pundits thought was occurring in
the early days of September 1997 were more of a bit of temporary, though
heavy, turbulence than anything else. Old documentaries from those days seem
far more dated than the current ongoing monarchy. Some of the course
corrections introduced back then have persisted, and their implications are
still working themselves out. But at the center remains the steady lady that
Ms. Mirren praised before a world audience on February 25, her hair as it
has been, and handbag still firmly in hand.
Somewhere in the background I imagine that the ghost-voice of Dame Edith
Evans (who would have been a perfect Queen Mary, given the chance)
mellifluously intones, "A handbag!?" And so the credits roll.
Yours Aye,
- Ken Cuthbertson
|
The Unofficial British Royal
Family Pages
