by The Laird o’Thistle
March 18 2007

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 discreetly 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 was 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