The QueenProduced by Christine Langan, TraceySeaward and Andy Harries; directed byStephen Frears; screenpiay by Peter IVIorgan;cinematography by Affonso Beato;production design by Alan MacDonald; editedby Lucia Zucchetti; costumes by ConsolataBoyle; original music by Alexander Desplat;starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, JamesCromwell, Sylvia Syms, Ale Jennings, HelenMcCrory, Roger Allam, Tim McMullan. Color,103 mins. A Miramax Films release.

In October of 1940, the year that directorStephen Frears was born, fourteen-year-oldPrincess Elizabeth comforted an agonizednation on a radio broadcast of "The Chil-dren's Hour," assuring her youthful publicof the compassion and empathy of the RoyalFamily: "Thousands of you in this countryhave had to leave your homes and be separatedfrom your fathers and mothers. My sisterMargaret Rose and I feel so much for you, aswe know from experience what it means tobe away from those we love most of all." Alittle more than a decade later, in 1953, theyear of Queen Elizabeth's formal coronation(she had acceded to the throne a year earlierupon her father King George's death},future Prime Minister Tony Blair came intothe world, the only Prime Minister ever to havebeen born during her reign. These facts,while never explicitly referenced in Frears'smajestic, multifaceted, and surprisingly funnyepic, 77;t' Queen, are nonetheless essential tothe brilliant and complex interweaving ofmyth, media, politics, and power that formsthe core of this eminently human flhri.

As everyone knows by now (even thosewho have seen only the ads). The Queen is afilm about the people of Great Britain in theweek following the tragic and unexpecteddeath of Princess Diana in a car crash inParis; more significantly, it is about theRoyal family coming to terms with a newmedia-driven definition of monarchy andthe political challenge invoked by newly-elected, image-savvy Labor Prime MinisterTony Blair. One aspect of the film's com-plexity involves its dual focus on both themonarchy and the government, illustratedby the relationship between the Queen andthe Prime Minister, a strategy that preventsthe film from being a conventional biopicwith Masterpiece Theater trappings. Whilethe film provides a very human dimensionto the Queen as a person, it both maintainsa relatively ironic distance from the royalfamily as an institution and allows as muchtime to Blair as it does to Her Majesty.

Diana's death was an unprecedentednational trauma with unimaginable implica-tions for the State. Yet, amid all of the disbe-lief, anger, and confusion, the conspiracytheories, the denionizing and mythologizingswirling around the death of the most pho-tographed woman in history, the film man-ages to reinsert the human factor in all of its

messy complexity. It does this by means of aglimpse into ordinary lives in extraordinarycircumstances (the tremendous and heteroge-neous mourning populace appealing directlyto the Queen, the banal chaos of the PrimeMinister's breakfast table) and extraordinarylives in ordinary circumstances (royalty paddingaround in bathrobes watching television,questions of sovereignty considered in aLand Rover), as well as by means of a com-plex and sophisticated look at the politics ofpopular spectacle. Along the way The Queenrestores a sense of compassion and humanconnection that the events it depicts mightseem to deny, while compelling perfor-mances remind us that there are many sto-ries beneath the finely crafted public appear-ances. Yet there is a healthy dose of humorand irony in this very witty film, adding a realtexture to the humanity of the royals with-out abandoning the astute political observa-tions that give the film its critical edge.

Almost classical in its structure (unity ottime, place, and action). The Queen con-cerns the single week occurring between theshocking moment of Diana's death and hermovingly ceremonial funeral in Westmin-ster Abbey, meticulously timed by titles thattick off the days, one by one. An expositoryprologue three months earlier and some-thing of a coda two months after the events,each involving a meeting between QueenElizabeth (the indescribably powerful HelenMirren) and Tony Blair (disarmingly eager,like a friendly puppy, as played by MichaelSheen) at Buckingham Palace, trace a trans-formation in their relationship sparked bythe events of the week after Diana's death.Both the Queen and her tenth Prime Minis-ter have redefined the Monarchy—andthemselves—in contemporary terms. As forElizabeth II herself, we will feel, through thecourse of the film, as if we've come to know

this Royal icon iis a complex, vulnerable, cnipa-thetic, and supremely intelligent humanlu'ing, and conversely, we will be made to under-stand the incredible demands of sovereigntythat so exceed the mere individual. DirectorFrears sums it up quite succinctly, with thewry humor that abounds in the film: "Whilethe institution is idiotic and inappropriate,the woman is extraordinary." And it is thisdialectic of affection for the Queen andskepticism toward the monarchy that leadsFrears to further comment that the film tells"a symbolic story, because it says a lot aboutmy country, which is divided between tradi-tion and modernity." He points out that it"speaks of a conllici that brings the two worldsface to face, as well as a tradition that is boththe country's strength and weakness."

But even before the film's title appearson the screen, we are given two elementsthat transcend the material time frame andremind us of eternity. The words, "Uneasylies the head that wears a crown" {Henry /V,Part 2) invoke the Shakespearean atmos-phere that permeates the film. The Queen issitting for a formal portrait, as a televisionreport showing enthusiastic Labor postersjust prior to the election sparks a conversa-tion between the Queen and her portraitist.Elizabeth says she would like the experienceof casting a vote, just once, "for the sheer joyof being partial," while the painter replies,"Well Ma'am, it is your government"—anexchange that initiates the film's 'official'beginning. A musical flourish from Alexan-der Despiat's magnificent soundtrackaccompanies an upward pan of the Queenseated in formal regalia. As the film's title,T/ie Queen,' appears on the black screenbehind her, Ehzabeth turns in full close-upand looks directly at the camera (and thusthe spectators). And this, in fact, providesthe controlling metaphor of the film: this

Helen Mirren stars as Queen Elizabeth in Stephen Frear's The Queen.

50 CINEASTE, Spring 2007

image will come to life, will address us on anintimate level, and will make us experiencethe complicated human realities and contra-dictions involved in being both public imageand private person. It also reminds us. rightfrt)m the start, that portraiture in our lime isless a matter of paint than of celluloid.

One way the film reveals these realitiesand contradictions is through its behind-the-scenes account of activities in two com-peting corridors of power-—^the vibrantlymodernizing maneuvers of a hugely popularBaby Boomer Prime Minister and the cen-luries-old traditions of established regal pro-tocol and custom—each attempting to dealwith the unprecedented public grief evokedby Diana's death. While we arc givennumerous examples of Blair's uncanny abili-ty to capture and mediate the national senti-ment through the appropriate technology,the bulk of the conflict is played across theperson of the Queen in her most hauntingprivate moments and inner struggles.

In order to achieve what must ultimatelybe a fictional account ot actual events,screenwriter Peter Mtirgan (cowriter also ofThe Last King ofScoltanil) drew from exten-sive research, media publications, interviews(both on and off the rcvord). actiutl public figuresand private assessments, news footage, andother sources to interweave the imagined and thereal into a believable texture of history. Hewas intrigued by what he calls "this globalsharing moment through television," whichwas at once unflinchingly public and devas-tatingly personal, and for this reason the filmgives television a central njle. We aie constantlyreminded of the mediated nature of what wetake for reality, as the repeated intercuttingof footage from BBC World News, CNN,ITV, CiMTV, and global news organizationsrelays to the Royal family, tlie Blairs, advisors onboth sides, the depicted public, and, ofcourse to us, the viewers, the tumultuoushistory (in familiar, iconic images) leading upto the crash, and the halting but inevitableprogress toward an appropriate and respect-ful homage to the Princess of Wales.

The film has availed itself of a team emi-nently qualified to tell this story. ProducersChristine Langan and Andy Harries, alongwith director Frears and screenwriter Mor-gan, had already made The Deal, a 2003('hannci 4 British television drama that pro-vided a revealing look at Tony Blair'sassumption of leadership of the Labor Partythat led to his landslide election as PrimeMinister. A gifted filmmaker uncannilyattuned to the often invisible nuances ofhuman experience (his credits include DirtyPretty Thinp, Diingerous Liaisons, My Beau-tiful Launiirette, Mrs. Henderson Presents,The Grifters, Prick Up Your Ears), Frearsteamed up with Morgan when Langan andHarries approached him with a second pro-ject about another British institution, theRoyal Family. They tiu'ned to Diana's death,which, according to Langan "was an obviouschoice... Diana had been a great cause of

The man with the cheshire-cat grin:Michael Sheen as Tony Blair in The Queen.

tension while she was alive; it was inevitablethat her death would present the Monarchywith perhaps its biggest challenge of the past50 years." Langiin goes on to siiy that the crisisaround Diana's death unexpectedly providedthe brand-new and as yet untested Blair gov-ernment witli an opportunit)' to assert itself in adramatic way, leading to what she calls the"heart" of the story, "the unique relation-ship that developed... between the PrimeMinister and the Queen." At the same timeit is also about Tony Blair's own transforma-tion from a brashly smug and popular mod-emizer ("WiU someone please save tliese peoplefrom themselves!," he says in exasperatedreference to the sluggisli resjxmse of the Ro)'als)to someone who defends the Queen from easyridicule ("She's given her whole life to thepeople of this country in a job that killed herfatlier!," he chides Ills spin d(Ktt)r mid associates).In this way the shining knight of modernEngland becomes a tempered statesman whores^vcts the wi.sdom of his Sovereign and theseriousness of the decisions to be made amidthe shifting currency of public popularity.

Much of the film is taken up with anendless relay of telephone conversations(inspired by newspaper headlines and angryor cynical advisors) between an increasinglyanxious Blair and his Sovereign, as demandfor some sign of public grief hy the Wind-sors reaches near hysteria. One afternoonhis call disturbs her at her Balmoral retreat:"[Some visible display of Royal mourning]would be a great comfort to your people,"he ventures tentatively, to which an intransi-gent Queen replies. "This is a family funeral,Mr. Blair. Not a fairground attraction. Thechildren have to be looked after," invoking acombination of behavior honed by centuriesof royal comportment and the familial tiesshe is sometimes accused of ignoring. Con-tinuing the response—in spite of her agitat-ed husband. Prince Philip (a delightfullyimbecilic James Cromwell), who complains.

'Bloody fool [referring to Blair). Now yourtea's gone cold!"—she moves between thepublic persona, steeped in tradition, and theprivate woman, absorbed in her grief, set-tling on the regal public image that she hascarefully crafted for most of her life. Shecalls for "a period of restrained grief andsober private mourning...Quietly, with dig-nity," adding that this is "what the rest ofihe world has always admired us for."

Later, when it is apparent that anunavoidable national crisis is al hand. Blairrisks propriety and oversteps his position ashe tells her, "One in four are now in favor ofabolishing the monarchy. I advise the fol-lowing...", provoking one of the signatureimages of the film, something thai makes itshumanizing view of Royalty so compelling.On being interrupted from walking herprized Corgis on the grounds of Balmoral,Queen Elizabeth answers Blair's phone callin the castle's kitchen, kerchief on head andsurrounded by English country culinaryparaphernalia. The very next shot shows herupstairs in the estate's corridor, knocking onthe door of the Queen Mother (a hilariouslytipsy, doddering Sylvia Syms): "Mummy!" Aquick cut to the garden, where now motherand daughter are seen strolling, allows us aglimpse of a very intimate moment, whilethe subject of the conversation is anythingbut. As Elizabeth enumerates 'I'ony Blair'semphatic suggestions, including her returnto London and a live television statement,she observes, "There's been a shift in values.Maybe it is time to hand it over to the nextgeneration." The Queen Mum responds,with a gravitas that belies her legendarycocktail-swilling joviality, reminding herdaughter tliat she's "one of the greatest assets thisinstitution has" in its "unbroken line formore than a thousand years." With a sparkleof the wit that forms a significant part of thefilm's appealing texture, she chirps. "SillyMr. Blair with his Cheshire cat grin!"

When Queen Elizabeth finally does makeher televised address to the nation, Frearsand Morgan's film is at its peak of historicalaccuracy, as history and fiction merge. Thepublic image is exactly as we remember it,while the inner conflict that led up to it hasbeen carefully and sensitively exposed. TheQueen is attended to by cameramen andmakeup artists, her attire is appropriatelytailored according to convention, and as sheascends the dais, there is a sense of finalityand accomplishment. While there willalways remain speculation concerningwhether or not the words are entirely herown (and the film remains rather ambigu-ous here), the clarity of thought and the pre-cision of the tribute (Helen Mirren callsElizabeth "steady, true, and honest") suggestthat the words are Queen Elizabeth's own.Addressing the nation "as your Queen andas a grandmother," she refers lo Diana as"an exceptional and gifted human being"whom she "admired and respected... for herenergy and commitment to others, and

CINEASTE, Spring 2007 51

especially for her devotion to her two boys,"further stating that "there are lessons to bedrawn from her life and from the extraordi-nary and moving reaction to her death..."The Queen's acknowledgment of her respectfor Diana is highly significant. Unable toeither obtain the footage or reconstruct it,Frears has expressed regret about notincluding the unprecedented moment whenthe Queen actually bowed to the passingcoffin, which he found to be "very, verymoving...so dignified and graceful."

While many of the critics (and evensome ofthose involved directly with its pro-duction) seem to feel that the film is at leastpartly about the Queen's struggle to adapt toa new media-saturated age that confoundsher, Elizabeth II has been uncannily adept atutilizing all forms of media even before herreign, as her youthful radio addresses attest.It was the twenty-seven-year-old Elizabethwho agreed, "after much heart-searching,"that the Coronation ceremony in Westmin-ster Abbey could be broadcast on television.In 1969 the Queen invited the cameras intoher home for the first television film aboutthe royal family, which was made to coincidewith the investiture of the Prince of Wales.(In tlie film. Prince Charles is |.x)rtrayed sympa-thetically by Alex Jennings, who is able toevoke all the conflict, despair, and ambivalentconfusion experienced by the real PrinceCharles upon learning of Diana's death.)And in 1977, the Queen's Silver Jubilee wasdeclared "an unalloyed triumph" in the wordsof The Evening Standard, as millions of hersubjects came out to greet her in the streets,"showing a depth of feeling few realizedexisted." In light of this particular history,then, what The Queen does demonstrate, infact, is the Monarch's carefully consideredefforts—in the face of the crass and tragicfrenzy that the media had become—to bringher own media savvy into the new era with therespect and dignity that her position deserves.

Another misconception that the filmunwittingly deflates centers on Balmoral, theQueen's summer residence in Scotland, thatcritics repeatedly referred to as a kind offortress to which the Windsors retreated as away of avoiding the responsibility of publicmourning. In fact, the Scottish castle haseverything to do with that complex articula-tion of deeply personal interests and publicroyal presence at the heart of the film. As theQueen tells the Blairs during that first meet-ing—practically inaudible over the audi-ence's laughter at Cherie Blair's (played withgleeful sarcasm by Helen McCrory) leg-endary "wobbly curtsy"—her great-grand-mother Queen Victoria adored the estate,where "all seems to breathe freedom andpeace and makes one forget the sad turmoilsof the world." In the film this is both ironicand prophetic, ironic because it is quite theopposite of what Queen Victoria imagines,prophetic because it does in fact appear tobe the remote idyll the public so deeplyresents in the wake of the tragedy. In fact.

The queen ponders the political pressureson her and the royal family in Tbe Queen.

Balmoral has great symbolic significance forthe Queen. According to royal biographerSarah Bradford, "Balmoral is the place whereElizabeth can fulfill her childhood dream ofbeing 'married to a farmer and having lotsof horses and cows and dogs.' Not withoutsad relevance to the matter of the film, Bal-moral is where a deliriously happy newlywedDiana met the press during her honeymoonwith her Prince. Renowned cinematograph-er Affonso Beato (who has shot over thirtyfeature films including such classics asGlauber Rocha's Antonio das Mortes andDaniel Pollet's L'Homme des Etoiles) wasable to convey both a sense of the inspiring,heady expansiveness of the Scottish country-side and the intimate pressure of the lushroyal interiors, which made the locations ofThe Queen as significant as its characters.

In the film it is this countryside and itstraditions that provide Queen Elizabeth withan epiphany and mark a turning point inher reaction to Diana's death. AmazJngly,this can also be seen as a point of identifica-tion between the Queen and her daughter-in-law, something hinted at in the poster forthe film (the Queen standing wilh a slighthalf-smiie, wearing pearls, in front of a par-tial image of a half-smiling Diana, also inpearls). Repeatedly in the film Prince Philipinsists that all his grandsons need is a bit ofhunting to assuage their grief, and indeedthere is a magnificent prize: a fourteen-point stag that has eluded capture for years.After the Queen's Land Hover breaks downwhile she's on a solitary ride, this stag magi-cally appears. Elizabeth exclaims in sadamazement while the pressure of events hasexacted its toll, "You beauty!" And then sheshoos it away from the inevitable hunterswho will appear, assuming that she hassaved this noble and dignified beast, boundby centuries of tradition and with whom sheidentifies. It is only later, as she is finallypreparing to meet her grieving public, whenshe learns the stag has been killed; the trophy

belongs to an investment banker, out for sporton a neighboring estate. When she momen-tarily delays her journey lo see the spoils forherself, she notices that the stag had onlybeen wounded; she is told he had to be followedfor miles before he was finally killed. "Let'shope be didn't suffer too much," she sighs.

The parallels are obvious; Diana, themost hunted woman in the world, stalked asprey by image-hungry photographers andfinally killed, is described as such by herbrother immediately after he hears the newsof her death and then subsequently in hiseulogy, greeted with the unprecedentedapplause that was the explosion of collectivegrief As if to reinforce this subtext of the hunt,the film precedes the car crash that kills thePrincess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed with abrilliantly-orchestrated montage of racingmotorcycles, the Mercedes, Paris monuments,and archival footage of paparazzi pursuingDiana through the years. This culminates inthe famous footage of Diana's hand coveringan intrusive camera lens in Switzerland,where she pleads with the press to leave herchildren alone, and then a shocking blackscreen is punctuated hy a loudly ringingtelephone. This is the pursuit from the stag'spoint of view, recast in the vocabulary ofmodern media and the woman's image.

The Queen makes her peace with the stagin the name of centuries of tradition, recog-nizing that the antlers, symbol of the kill,have adorned royal hallways since themonarchy began. Diana and Queen Eliza-beth are shown as linked through a deepdevotion to the public and a compassionateunderstanding of the people as well as thedudes of royalty. 'Portnaits' of Ixith Elizabeth andDiana bracket the film—Elizabeth's in theimage that opens the film and Diana's in theimage of her smiling face, winking out fromher brimmed hat, that ends the funeralsequence and the week that has led up to it.Diana and Queen Elizabeth are the only twoRoyals who seem to have expiressed, understood,and publicly displayed a sense of the respectand dignity that the monarchy requires.

Another larger framing device involvesthe meetings between the Queen and TonyBlair. During her meeting with Blair thatcloses the film Elizabeth observes: "You'reafraid that some day, quite suddenly withoutwarning |the loss of public confidence] canhapjien to you. And it will." Tony Blair's levVion inimpending vulnerability leaches him humil-ity, as his ambition is now tempered by arecognition of the hard choices that makepopularity ephemeral (v itness Blair's disastrousdecision to align with George Bush over Iraq). Althe film's end, this is what the Queen'ssunny walk with Blair in the garden amid tlicyapping corgis signifies. The distance tracedbetween the film's bookend meetings of theMonarch and her Prime Minister articulates anecessarily modern and self-aware vision ofmonarchy in the age of democracy, whilereminding us of the awesome power of thepopular will.—Sandy Flitterman-Lewis

52 CINEASTE, Spring 2007