The Crown - Review
Jun. 10th, 2017 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFinally 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-12 06:50 am (UTC)I guess the weird position of the monarch in relation to the CoE does give it more power over her than almost any other individual.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-12 12:46 pm (UTC)I don't know how much the writers of the series stuck to historical fact. It works from a dramatic perspective to put it on the CoE, and it also emphasizes the difficulty of being Queen -- you have to please everybody, and often end up pleasing no one.
The series does discuss the "Divine Right of Kings/Queens" and how the Crown has been bestowed directly from God. That once she becomes Queen, she's a representative of God, almighty.
(Highly ironic, since Jesus Christ would have hated this practice. One of the reasons he was crucified, again according to some religious scholars and theologians, was because he wanted to overthrow this practice and do away with Kings and monarchies. King Herod hated him partly because of this, as did Rome. Which was a militaristic society and monarchy based. With that in mind, the practice is in a way, anti-Christian. Yet, the CoE is based in Christianity.)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-14 11:58 am (UTC)Well, obviously everything in Christianity is open to interpretation, and on top of that the CoE was of it's time. The Church of England emerged at a period when the whole concept of the divine right of kings was also emerging, so I don't know exactly which arose out of which or if they are utterly interdependent. I know the idea was also popular in France but I'm not sure if it spread there from us or if we got aspects of it from them. The later is more likely simply because we were culturally marginal in the late 16th century and throughout the 17th. It is very likely that the reason it took on such significance in England was because of the Reformation and the need for the king to express and develop a right over the church as part of the process of breaking away from Rome. But the original idea may have come in from France via Scotland and James I.
But the idea of the significance of the anointing of a king is of course much, much older. And the Queen takes her coronation oath very seriously indeed.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-14 12:41 pm (UTC)The Divine Right of Kings dates back to the Old Testament. As far back as King David. It's pre-Christianity. Goes back to Babylonian and Egyptian times.
That's why Jesus's preaching against it was so controversial and got him into trouble with certain Hebrew sects.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-14 01:00 pm (UTC)I think they used "the divine right of kings" to justify the idea of a monarch to the population. Often religion was used to compel or rule the masses. It still is. Because humans need to worship things -- and religion is a way of expressing that need. It also brings people together.
Historically, many conqueors achieved their goals by sending missionaries or co-opting the religion. That's what Rome did when it invaded the Celts. It co-opted the religion and merged it with their own. One of the reasons the ancient Hebrew were a problem for many of their rulers is they refused to take on their rulers faith and their religion was harder to change or adapt.
The science fiction series Battle Star Galatica and Deep Space Nine both explore how this is done, how if you can create or control someone's religious beliefs or faith, you pretty much own them. (See The Holy Roman Empire).
Religion and politics have always been hand in glove. That's why the founding fathers of the United States made a point to separate "church" and "state" and create a secular government or state. It permits religious freedom, but makes it impossible for someone to do what rulers were doing in Europe for centuries. They wanted to ensure it didn't happen in the US again as well. Smart move. Turkey did the same thing for a while, but I think it's become non-secular again. And people are upset. Because non-secular or a religious state is dangerous.
Now, there's the other side of course, which is a ban on all religion but the state. In the Soviet Union and China and Nazi Germany, people had to worship the religion of the state, whether that be the state itself (Nazi Germany), or it's church. (Similar to Henry the VIII stating everyone in England had to adopt the Church of England as their religion -- this resulted in various upsets, but it was his way of controlling people.) If you didn't, you were often put to death. Not unlike what happened during the Spanish Inquisition and during the Holy Roman Empire's rule.
The problem religion has always had to some degree is people want to use it obtain personal power or gain, and it's very easy to use in that way. Look at Joel Olsteen, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, various televangelist, Scientology (which is considered a religion - I see it as far right).
no subject
Date: 2017-06-12 02:16 pm (UTC)Hmmm...religion and politics obviously makes me a little twitchy. I swing more than a bit towards the left on both.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-14 11:51 am (UTC)If you do wish to continue, I am now wondering what you mean by 'left' in religious terms. I've never heard anyone apply the left-right terminology to religion itself.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-14 12:39 pm (UTC)I'm actually more worried about pissing you off, to be honest. ;-) I can be a bit opinionated and didatatic without meaning to be.
I am now wondering what you mean by 'left' in religious terms.
Best to define by example:
I'm Unitarian Universalist - which is considered the far Christian Left. In religious terms? Not as ritualistic ( our major rituals are lighting candles of joy or concern (instead of communion), a flower communion in celebration of the Czechs fighting against the Nazis and winning, Juneteenth Celebration (abolition of slavery), a strong focus on human rights and social justice) , more intellectual, more inclusive (ie. whoever you love, whatever you practice, however you look, whatever your ethnicity or nationality - all are welcome here. Well, except those who hate.) UU's were amongst the first to celebrate same-sex marriage. And we did the Vagina Monologues in our Chapel to raise money for victims of intimate violence.
The Christian Left is strong on social justice, and it's mission statement is "Standing on the Side of Love". Religious services are music, community announcements, wisdom story, sermon, readings...and we get our religious teachings from various religious texts, including Buddhist philosophy, Wiccan, etc. It's Christian, but doesn't take the Bible as literally as most of the faiths do. And depending on which UU church you are in, it can be more Christian based or Cultural Humanist (I'm not Cultural Humanist -- that's farther left), or a bit of everything. We've had Soltice Celebrations for example.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-15 12:34 pm (UTC)The UU sounds very interesting and... kind. Although also very different to what I am used to.
The Church of England follows its traditional orders of service, although different churches do different things within that. Worship centres around the recitation or singing of various phrases from scripture, the Psalms and hymns as well as prayers. There is plenty of space allowed for individual prayer, and adaptations by the priest. It is always both very familiar and very individual to each church. In the cathedrals, people mainly come for the music, and the music is maintained at a very high standard drawing on centuries-old traditions of unique English liturgical styles. And I think that the rhythms and communality of the ritual, and the grandeur of the buildings, allow people to move into a different state of consciousness. It is probably more akin to a tribe dancing around a fire while someone beats the drums than what you described.
There is a level of inclusiveness required of the CoE precisely because it is the state religion - it is not just that everyone is welcome but that each parish church belongs to everyone in that parish, regardless of if they worship there or not. We own the CoE in a cultural sense even if we aren't Christians.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-15 05:04 pm (UTC)Hmm..reminds me a little of the Episcopalin churches that I've been too. I'd always thought CoE was more Catholic in structure, due to the nuns. Although maybe the Anglican Church and CoE aren't the same? My knowledge of CoE is admittedly limited to Call the Midwife and various television shows -- which is highly unreliable.
It is true, here , as well, each church depends on the Minister/Priest and/or congregation -- they set the tone. For example - some UU churches are cultural humanist, some more Christian based with more formal singing, others, more informal. Ours is heavy into music -- but it's more gospel, Broadway, classical and choral. Works for me, but not so much for one of my friends who prefers more classical/choral arrangements. Some UU's feel more like Fellowships.
Catholic is similar over here, as are really all the denominations -- it really depends on the people inside the church.
My Dad used to play a game with me as a small child in church -- he'd fold his fingers making a church, "here's the church", then make a steeple, "here's the steeple", then open them and wraggle his fingers, "open up the doors and here's all the people" -- telling me even back then that people make up a church.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-15 05:18 pm (UTC)Within the CoE there is quite a bit of variation between Low Anglican and High Anglican. The really high churches are called Anglo-Catholic and they are very similar to the Roman Catholics. (And if you've ever tried to sing through a fog of incense you will appreciate the difference - that stuff burns the back of the throat like nobody's business!) But most normal Anglican churches aren't like that.
I've only watched Call the Midwife once so I can't really tell you how useful it is as a reference point :D
That sounds fun. I am always in awe of your gospel choirs. I can't do anything without sheet music in front of me.
Yes :)
Before you get the wrong idea, I'd better tell you that I am not actually a member of the Church of England. I take part in a lot of services because I sing in the choirs. So I'm not a pillar of the church so much as a buttress - supporting it from the outside :)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-15 06:44 pm (UTC)You just like to sing in choirs? ;-)
I can't sign -- even in a choir. Tone death. There are only a few songs that I can sort of sing -- gospel I can do, for example, anything low register. My voice is a low alto. Can't hear or process the higher notes to even attempt to replicate them. Nor will my voice go there. (It's not a physical thing so much as how my mind processes information. Hard to explain. But it's not breath. Also there's the slight issue of being unable to remember lyrics or a tune to save my life. Often I can remember the words, but the tune is lost to me.)
The Anglican Communion is the worldwide church, of which the US branch is the Episcopalian and the English one is the Church of England.
This explains a lot. My mother was Episcopalian until she met my Dad and converted to Catholicism. I've been to the Episcopal churches -- they tend to be beautiful stone and stained glass. Also more laid-back than Catholic, you can have female ministers in the Episcopalian in the US. And they support in most cases LGBTQ rights.
But I thought they'd originated in Scotland? I'm probably confusing it with Calvinists, who are very different? I've been to all of them at one point or another, but over time my brain has blurred a lot of them together.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-16 03:49 pm (UTC)I you can sing some things you are not tone deaf. If your voice is low register alto then it is normal not to be able to get the higher notes and for them to have no logical meaning in your brain - the connection between the brain imagining a note and the vocal chords being able to reproduce it works both ways.
I have a really bad memory for music too. Hence my reliance on the sheet music. I have literally sung something in a concert one night and not recognised it on the radio the next morning. Its just the way my brain works. Fortunately it has made me a very good sight reader and doesn't effect my performance as long as I'm not expected to do anything from memory.
We have female and gay clergy. There is still some disagreement about allowing gay marriage, because the church is trying to avoid schism with the socially conservative Anglican churches in Africa. They have been kicking that can down the road for years now and sadly there is still no real resolution in sight.
One of the biggest advantages the Anglicans have in this country is they inherited all the old churches and cathedrals. So there is a wonderful heritage of architecture, and the liturgy has grown up around those churches taking advantage of their geography and acoustics. Singing an Anglican service in the choir stalls in one of the great cathedrals is a true privilege.