Sin #89: The Royal We

Few can deny the public’s fascination with the British Monarchy. Amid the hundreds of books and movies written about the nation’s royalty one can find a real-life melodrama playing to all our voyeuristic needs. One of the most acclaimed movies at this year’s Academy Awards is “The King’s Speech” starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush. It chronicles the rise of King George VI, a man who’s had a terrible stammer his whole life and now has to give a speech amidst the beginning of another terrible war with Germany. Bertie, as his family called him, is a man unsure of himself who never thought he’d be King (in fact, his older brother was heir to the throne but was forced to resign after he chose to marry an American divorcee). The film is impeccably shot and acted and could represent a prime example of what insiders call “Oscar bait”, a term used to describe movies more interested in garnering awards than connecting with audiences (this term might be a tad unfair for the movie since the story is quite engrossing). The main reason to see “The King’s Speech” is to marvel at the performances, especially Colin Firth’s brilliant portrayal that captures every physical nuance in the stammer and also makes the King a wholly sympathetic and yet deeply flawed individual. He’s the frontrunner at the best actor award, deservedly so.

In recent years there have been several films about the monarchy. A few years ago “The Queen” gave Helen Mirren a best actress Oscar. The movie poised itself among the controversy of Lady Di’s death in Paris sparking enormous criticism for the Queen and the establishment after she refused to give her a proper Royal burial (even though she divorced Prince Charles, in the public eye she remained the “People’s Princess”, a term coined by Tony Blair). The story also introduces Blair as prime minister, portraying a clash between liberal and conservative views. What I like about the movie is that it remains neutral to its characters; the Queen herself seems to rise from the stereotype of an old bitter woman resenting the public’s sudden disapproval although that’s not to say that she’s portrayed in a flattering manner since there are times that her scorn for Diana is quite obvious.

One can go through every history book and find an interesting story to tell. On TV we had Jonathan Rhys-Myers playing Henry VIII (in an unlikely yet entertaining portrayal) with “The Tudors”, which just ended after four successful seasons. Once again Helen Mirren played a Queen in the great HBO miniseries “Elizabeth I” and at the movies Cate Blanchett played that same role in two films (the first was widely acclaimed while the second one was mostly ignored).

A recent example of a handsome and involving production is “The Young Victoria” starring Emily Blunt (very good in the title role), which portrays the romance with Prince Albert. The movie is beautifully made with great attention to period details and shot with a fresh and modern perspective (although it isn’t as jarringly anachronistic as in Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” which was all about blending pop sensibilities to a stylized version of 18^th century France).

There’s no denying that these movies play to our fantasies about monarchs. We place them among the common man and yet identify with their plights and even care for them. In a way, except for maybe their wealth, they might not be all that different from us.