
At Nillumbik we have started a bit of an informal Movie Club - ohh how exciting! I have always wanted to do this - to see a movie with a group of friends and then talk about it afterwards - pull it apart, rate it, compare with other movies, etc. Well, for our first movie we choose "
The Queen". You see our "club" consists of all girls, hence we went for a "chick flick" but we steered clear of a teeny bopper, check your brain at the door, fluffy genre. I think we navigated that quite well.
The Queen has taken a few awards already and sees Helen Mirren acclaimed as she richly deserves. I had heard that this movie was orginally intented for the small screen as a telemovie - and thus I went in with small expectations. I saw small evidences of small screeness, but that isn't to say that I didn't throughly enjoy this movie. For although it doesn't have a grand cinematic feel but what it lacks in visual punch it makes up in a captivating script and cast.
I found the two central characters intriguing (other characters I found one dimensional and very annoying - Charles, Prince Philip and Cherie Blair) and found myself wondering about how much of this could be true and how it must be to walk in their shoes. I was moved to tears in the movie when the news was broken that Diana had died - and thought again about her two boys, and brought back where I was when I heard the news all those years ago
(in my car, George, an ugly browny yellow car that frequently broke down), driving down my street in Watsonia, to our house in Elder Street
(a house that I loathed - poor design, unbearably hot in summer and claustrophobic). I remember not really believing the radio report and thinking it was some sick joke. Do you remember where you were when you heard the news?
Anyway, this movie is worth seeing but by all means you could wait till the DVD. In conclusion I will give it a 2.5 out of 5. It losts points because days later after seeing it I have thought little about it - it only gave me a few more shades of the story. My favourite scene is when the Queen is stranded out on the moor (not sure if you would call it that...what exactly defines a "moor"?) and she breaks down crying. My interesting observation is that even then in this movie we do not get to look upon this powerful figure in a most vulnerable human moment, instead we only see her back silhouette sobbing. My questions is; are the English filmmakers really that unprepared to let us see their queen crying - that it would be too out of character? or was it deemed to be too confronting for us the audience to accept a bleary eyed, snot running queen who we have known only to be a stalwart of dignity and stoic endurance? Why is it that women who are powerful are not allowed to show emotion without somehow losing their position of strength?
One of my favourite lines in a movie is in "
Courage Under Fire" when Meg Ryan's character, Captain Karen Emma Walden, is leading her troupe who has been caught behind enemy lines. As they become aware of their situation and she is faced with impossible decisions she begins crying, not sobbing, but calmly, quietly crying, in what is surely a life ending situation. One of her men, who is freaking out, out of control and has been trying to undermine her, starts mouthing off saying, "Great, now the Captain is crying." She turns and spits back at him, "It's just tension, you arsehole. It means shit." And then precedes to give her men a plan of action to save them. I like to think that a woman in power, in positions of leadership can be better leaders not because they do it like a man, but because they are a woman and can recognise and name what is going on - including our powerful, driving emotions!!!
But I am rambling now....
We chatted about the movie at the Pancake Palour afterwards and we all loved it. We swapped all our royal gossip and conspiracy theories - which was deliciously fun. The others gave it an average of 3 to 3.5 stars. So I guess I am being a bit harsher with my
2.5 stars out of 5.