The Crown - Review

[shadowkat]

Finally finished watching The Crown Season 1, which is about Queen Elizabeth II's reign from her marriage, her coronation, through her sister, Princess' Margaret's brief and somewhat tragic broken engagement to Captain Townsend.

The mini-series by Stephen Daldry is extremely good. I have no idea how accurate it is to the actual events.

It is however an interesting artistic portrait of Britain and The Crown during this time period -- there's an episode that sort of describes the intent of the series, through an analogy of sorts. Which I didn't pick up on until I began to write this review.


It's the second to last episode, where Winston Churchill decides to resign. In the episode, there's this amazing interlude, where Churchill is sitting for a portrait commissioned by both heads of parliament. The artist is Sutherland. During his sitting both Churchill and Sutherland examine each other's paintings, and focus on a painting that each made after their child died. Sutherland focuses on Churchill's continuous painting of gold fish pound that Churchill later reveals he put in a year after his daughter Marigold died. And Churchill focuses on one that Sutherland did. Then they discuss painting...and Sutherland tells Churchill that he can't hope that Churchill will like his work. But he tries to paint what he sees, the truth as he sees it, the person.
And then they discuss each other's paintings, and Sutherland remarks that he saw great pain, and sorrow, a darkness underneath the gold fish pound painting. Churchill wonders, is that a reflection of what is in you or me. Except, Churchill was obviously feeling these emotions when he created the painting.

Later, when the portrait is finally revealed. Churchill feels humiliated by it and hates it.
He rejects the painting. Sutherland goes to visit him and asks why...telling Churchill, who rants at him for showing his likeness in such an unflattering manner...that he is an artist, he can't not paint what he sees. But it is just art, it is not personal.

I think, in an odd, way, Daldry is stating that is true of this miniseries as well. This is an interpretation of events through the lense of writers, many years past when they took place. And, many of the events they are interpreting took place behind closed doors and between people both living and dead who told no one outside of their nearest and dearest about them.

Often those who live in the public eye are the most remote. It's as if they are encased in glass or marble, we can see but not touch. They cannot show the all too human pain and suffering beneath the plastic smiles.

I don't envy Elizabeth her Crown, or her life, of wealth and posterity, but...decisions that isolate her. Towards the end of the mini-series, she's adrift. Isolated. With little to no support from friends or family, or so it seems. The husband she loves, can't come to terms with his role as perpetual side-kick, seen but seldom heard. And her sister can't forgive her for standing with the Church of England, and not letting her marry the divorced Townsend. (Although I don't see how either Phillip or her sister thought she had a choice in the matter, considering when the Prince of Wales did it, not that long prior, he had to abdicate the throne and move to France. And he even counsels his niece to stand with the Church. He tells her that as Queen she can't really abide by her promise or pledge, she's split in half. )

I didn't blame Elizabeth, I blamed an antiquated law within the Church that was created in a time period where people didn't live that long, and well people didn't marry for love but property and advancement. Historically, marriage wasn't about love it was about property and procreation. It really was about division of property.
And I blame a lot of old men who can't change or get rid of antiquated laws that no longer make any logical sense. Inflexibility or the inability to handle change can lead to immoral acts. As you can see, I got angry at the Church of England and wanted someone to rip them a new one. But I can see why Elizabeth didn't, even though she desperately wanted to and did not agree with them, because doing so would have destablized her government and country. It could have caused instability.

Historically, it's not clear what happened. Because according to what I've been able to find, Margret mysteriously called off the romance after the two years were up and said that they'd chosen to go their separate ways. So the above is just the artist's interpretation of the events. Which makes me wonder why they chose this interpretation, as opposed to a less damning one of Church and Country? Maybe because this one provided the most angst and drama? Or it appears this was the most logical reason?

I was watching The Crown partly to try and understand the Brits and their monarchy.
I don't. I admit that. I think there are certain cultural differences between countries, faiths, etc that are difficult to wrap one's head around?

Years ago, back in the 1980s, I wandered around Wales collecting Welsh folk stories, mainly ghost stories and jokes, and had an interesting discussion in a pub with a bunch of Welshmen and women. It was regarding politics and the Crown. On the wall of the pub, was a portrait of the Prince of Wales -- Edward, who they still revered.
They asked me what my political stance was. Was I Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, Labor? I told them that I was moderate and pretty much neither, I despised Reagan, didn't like Thatcher much either, and unfortunately we hadn't had any Democratic candidates that were lovable, or even likable, but I voted for them because lesser of two evils. They accused me of being wishy washy, and did not understand why I wasn't devoted to a particular party and more focused on the character of the candidates. While I had troubles understanding why they had monarchy which didn't appear to do much, except pop up for special events -- some lauded figure head. They insisted this was not true, but didn't really expand on it.

The Crown explains the monarchy bit. I still don't understand why Great Britain still has one. It seems like an anarchism in this age. But it does shed light on it.

Art can do that, if done well. It can also confuse and pass on incorrect information.
So, it bodes well to take some of it with a grain of salt.

At the end of the Churchill episode, Churchill burns his portrait. We have no way of knowing if he actually did -- the portrait is consider the Lost Masterpiece. So this is just conjecture. And the writer's of the series fully admit it -- showing in writing the truth.

The series is a fictionalized portrait of Queen Elizabeth the II, depicting the challenges and burdens surrounding her day to day duty as Queen. As seen through the lense of the writers, it examines various themes and moral quandaries. Such as should religious doctrine get in the way of love? And should duty break apart family? And to what degree if any, is image and stature important to maintain? Or power for that matter?

It raises some interesting issues. Ones that don't have any clear answers, which is shown as well. In particular, when Elizabeth navigates the treacherous waters of determining the fate of her sister's love life. A job Elizabeth does not want any part of, but has no choice in.

Comments

[shadowkat]

According to the new book on Charles, she tried to intervene several times in opposition to Phillip's decision about his education (to little avail

I felt a little sorry for Charles. One of the reasons the mother suggests that Elizabeth send Phillip away is she notices that he's taking out his frustrations on Charles. Philip even makes a comment that the genders have been reversed, his daughter is more into male activities than his son.

I will give Matt Smith credit for giving Philip a little vulnerability and making him sympathetic. Because he's not written that way.

I really agreed with the Queen Mum, who said he was sulking around like a teenager and not being supportive. Yet they are both still alive...which is interesting. While Margaret is long dead.

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, I agree Smith gave him a more relatable portrayal. But I suspect there wasn't a lot positive to say about him. I gather that Margaret also developed cancer, so she ended up taking after her father whereas Elizabeth has taken after her long-lived mother. Given that Phillip is older he's definitely beaten the odds for longevity.

[shadowkat]

I was telling my co-worker about the Crown and mentioned Phillip.

He said, "Phillip, that Nazi."

And I responded, "WHAT? How? When ?"

Then he proceeds to tell me about something that happened in the fictionalized King Charles III. (LOL!)

Margaret smoked like a chimney just like her father did. And both died of cancer. Elizabeth never smoked and insisted that Phillip not smoke. I think you are correct, Margaret was a lot more like her father, and in some respects weaker.

Phillip from what I've seen...is either non-existent in the films with Helen Mirren, just a shadow at her side, barely speaking. Smith gives him something with just the eyes. Smith has surprised me, because I found him to be rather manic in Doctor Who and hamming it up a bit. While here he's very restrained and gets a lot across with just a look or subtle shift of gait.

[yourlibrarian]

Heh, well it's her uncle Edward who was actually a Nazi sympathizer. I thought it interesting that his portrayal here was vaguely sympathetic, although the people who actually were most sympathetic to him, like his sister, don't even appear in the series.

The cancer issue is certainly an intersting mix of genetics and behavior. That the Queen Mother lived so long when she came out of an era where not only was there constant secondhand smoke but the general air quality was terrible make it seem like a miracle that anyone lived to their 90s. Certainly she would have the best of care, though I found it amazing (and rather disgusting) that they had surgery within the palace and also left the body there for some time. I guess the latter in particular was more typical in the day but it was kind of a fascinating look at how Elizabeth lived at a turning point in history not just in cultural mores but in terms of everyday life.

[shadowkat]

The cancer issue is certainly an intersting mix of genetics and behavior.

Very true. My grandfather never smoked a day in his life and died of it. Probably due to the pesticides and chemicals he was around as a trucker and farmer.

And I know hardcore smokers who never had it. And one's who did. Seems to vary.

Heh, well it's her uncle Edward who was actually a Nazi sympathizer

That was my response to my co-worker. You got them confused, that was Edward and Mrs. Wallis.

Edward is portrayed in an interesting manner, both sympathetic and as a bit of a lay-about or louse. I like the complexity of the depictions of these characters. For years, Edward's story was portrayed as a great romance, but in recent times it's come out that he was a Nazi sympathizer and a bit self-centered. Not the fairy tale romantic hero people thought he was. I always found that somewhat interesting.

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, I agree there's definitely been a turnaround on his portrayal. I think at the time with so little known about him (and it being pre-war) the idea of a handsome prince willing to leave his high profile position and country for the love of a woman who was never seen in a flattering light seemed romantic. It's not often a man is seeing as giving up everything for love so it was definitely an unusual story.

Though it was hardly everything -- I noticed that in The Crown Margaret was offered a similar exit for Townsend in which she likely could have lived decently on his salary. But I noticed she didn't take it. By comparison Edward and Wallis lived quite well, albeit in exile, and he always had the cachet of being a royal which got them a lot of benefits. If Edward had actually been cut off without a cent, I do wonder if he'd have been so willing to step down. Or if Wallis would have been willing to marry him after all.

Given what's been known of them since -- pretty unflattering all around -- I found the portrayal pretty even handed in The Crown. But I think they were rather stuck in that regard because so much decision making during Elizabeth's early reign was so clearly influenced by Edward's choices that even if they'd had no contact they almost had to make him a figure in the story. And that meant making him a real person.

[shadowkat]

It's hard to like Edward. Even in the Crown, he comes across as a bit whiny and spoilt. And you're correct Margaret is not given the same deal that he is. Edward was given a sizable stipend/allowance for abdicating the throne. While Margaret, who isn't Queen, and her abdicating the throne isn't even really much of an issue, would have gotten nothing and had to live on Townsend's salary. I wonder if that was gender bias?

Ironic, that such a big deal is made of her marrying a divorced man, when years later all of Elizabeth's kids have been divorced and remarried. Very much a problem of the times, and history has not reflected kindly on the people who enforced it or thought it important. That said, I'm rather glad Edward had to abdicate. Charles was kinder and a far better King than his brother would have been.

Question: Were Edward and Charles, Victoria's children? Or was there someone in between? Can't remember.

[yourlibrarian]

I imagine there was gender bias, but mostly I expect it was because (1) Edward was already king at the time of abdication, so he had more power to set terms, and (2) Margaret would be following in his footsteps, so the terms were likely to be harsher for her so as to discourage other family members from doing the same.

I think you mean George (he was King George but Albert by birth), and he was a grandchild. But yes, the whole divorce issue seemed so odd to me when the Church of England was founded on the principle of divorce. If Henry hadn't wanted more wives he could still be Catholic and a lot fewer people would have died over the centuries in pointless religious conflict.

[shadowkat]

But yes, the whole divorce issue seemed so odd to me when the Church of England was founded on the principle of divorce. If Henry hadn't wanted more wives he could still be Catholic and a lot fewer people would have died over the centuries in pointless religious conflict.

Peasant tried to explain this to me in a separate thread. But I didn't quite get it.

It feels hypocritical to me somehow. But, as peasant pointed out in a separate thread, I'm also looking at the issue with a modern sensibility, so there's that.

And back then -- religion and power were pretty much linked. Henry didn't just create the Church of England because he wanted a divorce, but because he was tired of being dictated to by Rome and the Pope. He didn't like the fact that the Pope had power over him. It was a power grab and a somewhat violent one, also from Henry's perspective successful - he could do pretty much whatever he wanted after that.

So what he did essentially was put the power in the King and his/her descendants, as opposed to the Church in Rome. The Anglican Church or Church of England is ridiculously similar to the Catholic Church. They have nuns, similar rituals, similar rites, and follow similar text. It's the closest to Catholic of the Christian churches. The only real difference, is they don't follow the Pope, instead the head of the church is the King or Queen of England. If you want to cement your power -- that's a clever way of doing it. (I've never understood how Anglican's stomach a Queen or King, who is not a trained theologian, hasn't been elected by trained and educated theologians, as the leader of their religion. But that goes back to the Divine Right of Kings - in the old testament. It is however, depending on your interpretation, a bit blasphemous under the New Testament or Christian teachings. But then, you could claim, so is the whole idea of a Pope or head of a church. Depends on interpretation and which scholars you believe or accept. Personally, I think the facts and text support Jesus' rejection of the Divine Right of Kings and a religious leader also being a monarch. After all, that's one of the many reasons whey he was so controversial and got crucified, he didn't want to be the King, and yet at the same time wanted to overthrow the current governmental structure. But I can see how people might handwave all of that, or maybe they just don't know? It's amazing the number of things people are willing to hand wave in order to continue to worship something, whatever it may be.)

Henry's decision did cause a lot of death and war, but Henry was a bit ruthless and willing to do just about anything to achieve power. History has not been kind to Henry, but it's not kind to Christianity either.