TV/film/books The Crown

[David Roach]

The Crown is beautifully acted, directed, scripted and I enjoyed it as a piece of tele-visual pseudo-fiction very much. The portrayal of Churchill by John Lithgow is so good it made me laugh out loud. The scenes with Stephen Dillane as Graham Surtherland were riveting. And Clare Foy does a great 'sulky-monarch' face.

As someone brought up in the late 50s to 'God-fearing' parents who fought in WW2 it satisfies the popular fiction of Royalty & Churchill leading the country like the figurehead of a ship, Britain cresting the waves.....etc etc. In reality, well.....it's popular fiction.

 

[saxyjt]

Is that heightist?

That would be banned by forum rules, would it not?

PS: You just taught me a new word. At first, I thought it was a sect found of 8888888888888888! 🙂

 

[MandyH]

The Crown is beautifully acted, directed, scripted and I enjoyed it as a piece of tele-visual pseudo-fiction very much. The portrayal of Churchill by John Lithgow is so good it made me laugh out loud. The scenes with Stephen Dillane as Graham Surtherland were riveting. And Clare Foy does a great 'sulky-monarch' face.

As someone brought up in the late 50s to 'God-fearing' parents who fought in WW2 it satisfies the popular fiction of Royalty & Churchill leading the country like the figurehead of a ship, Britain cresting the waves.....etc etc. In reality, well.....it's popular fiction.

I am neither a lover or hater of our monarchy and I know little (to my shame?) of British history. I happen to be British by birth, have lived abroad and would do so again.
But I enjoyed this series (courtesy of my son's subscription to Netflix) when we watched it a couple of months ago.
There were some really "ouch" moments, when I wondered whether the Royal family's press team had approved the final version of the series, and I wondered on whose memoires it was based.
It certainly doesn't portray the Royal family's life as being all hunky-dory, and it represents well what cannot have been an easy accession - Elizabeth was never born to be Queen, she had that prospect thrust upon her by her uncle's abdication and her father's untimely death. She didn't get much time to prepare and the scenes where she asks Churchill for education, and then realises her own inadequacies, as far as her education was concerned, so she engages a personal tutor, were quite revealing.
Plus her constant battles with other (female) members of her family and trying to prove herself as monarch.

Also, knowing Prince Philip as we do nowadays, the portrayal of him in his younger years, is truly hilarious.

 

[saxyjt]

her father's untimely death.

How the tobacco industry may have influenced history... 😱 or not. We'll never really know.

 

[Colin the Bear]

I have very mixed feelings about monarchy. The presence of Monarchy perpetuates the institution that one person is born to better than another and yet I have a great affection for the family. She's been Queen all my life. A stabilising presence in a world of change. Takes the job seriously and performs well as far as a commoner can tell. Lord knows what will happen when she goes.

 

[saxyjt]

I have very mixed feelings about monarchy.

Being French, I won't say a thing! But you know what we did, in a moment of frustration, I guess...

In those days, our (French) monarchy ruled. Obviously not the way people expected them to...

In the Uk today, unless I missed something, it's just for show! So, I hope you enjoy it.

 

[nigeld]

Being French, I won't say a thing! But you know what we did, in a moment of frustration, I guess...

We did it 140 years before you. So there!

 

[Dave McLaughlin]

I appreciate we're straying into difficult territory and won't be offended if this gets moderated.

I have nothing personal against the current Queen, and I'm sure she has to spend a lot of time making small talk with boring or downright unpleasant people. But I think the institution is an anachronism, and should quietly go away.

A related, but more difficult, problem is the House of Lords. Again an anachronism, but what do we put in its place? I believe many (but not all) of its members are very conscientious and hard-working. And the fact that they don't have to stand for re-election every four or five years means that they can take a more long-term view than the Commons.

If the upper chamber is elected, members will still be tied to the old party system, and care more about re-election every few years than about what's good for the country 20 or 50 years from now. And if they're appointed, who appoints them? It's a conundrum.

 

[Colin the Bear]

The best argument I heard for not replacing the Monarch as head of state was... President Thatcher. President Blair works too.

 

[Jazzaferri]

Its interesting to find out that Mr Blair came to have a very high regard for Her Majesty and the institution of the Crown

 

[BigMartin]

President Blair works too.

I'd vote for President Lionel Blair.

 

[kevgermany]

Guys, we're over the line here. Back on track please.

 

[kevgermany]

I'd vote for President Lionel Blair.

That's taking electoral fraud to a new level!



(for those that don't know, he was a composer/dancer who died a while ago. Very fondly remembered)

 

[BigMartin]

(for those that don't know, he was a composer/dancer who died a while ago. Very fondly remembered)

Composer? Not sure about that. Lionel Bart was a composer (eg "Oliver!").

 

[kevgermany]

Composer? Not sure about that. Lionel Bart was a composer (eg "Oliver!").

You're right, I mixed them up. Sorry.

 

[saxyjt]

Log in or register to view this reply.

 

[jonf]

Log in or register to view this reply.

 

[MellowD]

Log in or register to view this reply.

 

[kevgermany]

Log in or register to view this reply.

 

[jbtsax]

Log in or register to view this reply.