The Queen
-
99-1100896887
As there is no "best Score" thread yet up, may I suggest the Alexandre Desplat be considered for The Queen. As a musician and composer, I found the unobtrusive--unless you were following it, specifically--music in this film to be totally appropriate for this wonderful film.
The score is regal without being Elgar( anagram) and not trite Land Of Hope and Glory stuff, which is what we would expect from a composer of British film music--horns, "Jerusalem", Kings College Choir, etc. If you weren't listening for it--okay. Take my word that it was a very good score.
The score is regal without being Elgar( anagram) and not trite Land Of Hope and Glory stuff, which is what we would expect from a composer of British film music--horns, "Jerusalem", Kings College Choir, etc. If you weren't listening for it--okay. Take my word that it was a very good score.
Big Magilla wrote:The only cavet is that I'm not sure I get all that symbolism about the stag. Was the inference that the ice queen cared more about the death of a dumb animal than her grandchildren's mother?
Similar to cam’s interpretation, I took her connection with the stag as the thing that finally allows Elizabeth to mourn Diana in a way that the people would find appropriate and necessary, but also In a way that makes sense for who she is as a royal figure and a human. I don’t believe that she feels worse for the stag but the animal’s fate is what finally allows her to recognize the untimely demise of her ex-daughter-in-law for, I do think there is a parallel to be made between the hunted animal and Princess Diana who’s been “hunted down” by the paparazzi. Maybe that’s too obvious an interpretation but that’s what I took away from it.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
99-1100896887
Maybe someone in Britain will elucidate us more on the connection between the stag and the Queen, but as I remember it, the stag represents the Crown and its power, and this is a particularly elusive one, very handsome, with an extremely large, mature rack.
It is being stalked by Philip et al, and when Elizabeth sees it, she knows it is doomed, as it has found itself in a vulnerable place.The Connection is made.
A somewhat precious conceit, but it does illustrate --cinematically, and for purposes of the screenplay--more vividly, perhaps, the Queen's decision to join the people in their mourning.
There won't be a finer, small( you're right, Pete) film this year.
[My choice of the word "rack" is correct, and in no way, only accidentally here, is it an appropriate word to describe Diana's, um, fulsomeness.]
It is being stalked by Philip et al, and when Elizabeth sees it, she knows it is doomed, as it has found itself in a vulnerable place.The Connection is made.
A somewhat precious conceit, but it does illustrate --cinematically, and for purposes of the screenplay--more vividly, perhaps, the Queen's decision to join the people in their mourning.
There won't be a finer, small( you're right, Pete) film this year.
[My choice of the word "rack" is correct, and in no way, only accidentally here, is it an appropriate word to describe Diana's, um, fulsomeness.]
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I, too, saw this with a MUCH older audience - a good many of whom were born before the title character.
Who says "small" and "great" have to be mutually exclusive? This is a great small film. It's a fascinating lend of documentary footage and acting. It has the feel of All the President's Men - another film where you know what's going to happen but still fascinated by it as it unfolds. It's easily Stephen Frears' best film since The Grifters.
The only cavet is that I'm not sure I get all that symbolism about the stag. Was the inference that the ice queen cared more about the death of a dumb animal than her grandchildren's mother?
While all the acting is good, this is essentially a two-character study between the superb Helen Mirren and the astonishingly good Michael Sheen. I agree with Mister Tee on Sheen's performance. While I merely penciled him in in my latest predictions, I'm now putting him down in indelible ink.
Who says "small" and "great" have to be mutually exclusive? This is a great small film. It's a fascinating lend of documentary footage and acting. It has the feel of All the President's Men - another film where you know what's going to happen but still fascinated by it as it unfolds. It's easily Stephen Frears' best film since The Grifters.
The only cavet is that I'm not sure I get all that symbolism about the stag. Was the inference that the ice queen cared more about the death of a dumb animal than her grandchildren's mother?
While all the acting is good, this is essentially a two-character study between the superb Helen Mirren and the astonishingly good Michael Sheen. I agree with Mister Tee on Sheen's performance. While I merely penciled him in in my latest predictions, I'm now putting him down in indelible ink.
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
BJ, I just got around to reading your post after seeing the movie: you seem to have looked into my mind! Very lucid posting, how old are you? I feel exactly the same about the second aspect of the movie you liked: I remembered watching the real event unfold and being taken in by the tragedy blown up by the media (I still have newspaper clippings and special edition magazine, not to mention the funeral on some unmarked VHS tape). I found this movie to be quite fascinating in that aspect, not to mention wonderfully acted and filmed. I was also part of a much older audience, and everyone seemed to love the movie, and Mirren's perfomance especially. This was a great movie.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Franz Ferdinand wrote: Anyway, what do Sorkin and Kelly have to do with The Queen?
LOL My comment was supposed to be in the thread about Sorkin's new TV show.
Lesson to be learned: Never post comments when you've just come back from going drinking with friends.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
Sorkin also wrote A Few Good Men which was reason enough for me never to waste an hour of my life with The West Wing.OscarGuy wrote:I don't mind the knock on Bochco or Kelly but Sorkin brought us the fantastic series The West Wing, so don't make him out as some villain.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
That Aaron Sorkin -- and the even more loathesome David Kelly and Steven Bochco -- are considered genii of the small screen is a primary reason of why I never even sample television series.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I liked The Queen as well, although I agree with Mister Tee: this is not a great film. It's small and simple, visually competent but not an exceptional piece of filmmaking. But I admired several things about it in particular.
The first is that I think The Queen's premise is, quite simply, very interesting. By focusing so closely on the royal family (and by extension, Blair) during the week of Princess Diana's death, the film approaches both of its dual subjects (in my opinion, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana) in a pretty oblique manner. Thus, I think the film reveals more interesting facets of the lives of both women (and their function for both their nation and the international press) than a traditional biopic on either would. And though plenty of films have dealt with characters grieving after the loss of a loved one, this tale of royalty mourning the death of a family member (who happened to be a very public international figure) seemed unique to me: this is not the type of story often told on film, and I appreciated that.
The second aspect of the film I found very interesting is certainly more personal, as I'm one of the younger members of the board. When Princess Diana died, I was old enough to understand what had happened, but not old enough to comprehend the chain of events that this film covers. Of course, I've learned much about 20th century history from films I've seen. And with the recent slew of 9/11 films, I've begun to see pictures based on history I lived through. But I think this is the first film I've seen where I felt like I was receiving a history lesson on an event I have very clear (if uninformed) memories of; I found it fascinating to juggle the details of history that seemed new to me with my own recollection of the media coverage I experienced firsthand. I realize this reaction has very little to do with the film, but it certainly affected my response to it.
I thought Mirren was wonderful. This is a regal performance in every sense of the word. To cite just one aspect of her performance, I love the way she walks as Queen Elizabeth. The way she carries herself is so different from the way she moves in say, Gosford Park (in which she played another character with a very distinct style of movement.) Perhaps it's a small detail, but it's one I noticed and admired alongside her very moving, graceful scene work and lovely speeches. (I disagree, Tee, I think she's got some great Oscar clips.) That said, I'm still on the look-out for a best actress contender to truly cheer for (as Mister Tee puts it). But at least she's better than ALL the nominees in this category last year.
I think this is a very likely Best Picture contender. The audience (full of MUCH older viewers than I) seemed to love it, and I think its combination of light humor (there ain't a lot of comedy in this year's race) and genuinely moving moments will take it far. For me, though, while I think I'll almost certainly prefer it to some of the more blatantly Oscar-baiting bores to come (maybe even, if those web reviews are any indication, Flags of Our Fathers), I can't help but already feel a tinge of disappointment should it take a spot away from far more dazzling accomplishments like (sight unseen) Babel or Volver, or even Little Children (which I have seen).
(Note to self: stop overusing parentheticals.)
The first is that I think The Queen's premise is, quite simply, very interesting. By focusing so closely on the royal family (and by extension, Blair) during the week of Princess Diana's death, the film approaches both of its dual subjects (in my opinion, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana) in a pretty oblique manner. Thus, I think the film reveals more interesting facets of the lives of both women (and their function for both their nation and the international press) than a traditional biopic on either would. And though plenty of films have dealt with characters grieving after the loss of a loved one, this tale of royalty mourning the death of a family member (who happened to be a very public international figure) seemed unique to me: this is not the type of story often told on film, and I appreciated that.
The second aspect of the film I found very interesting is certainly more personal, as I'm one of the younger members of the board. When Princess Diana died, I was old enough to understand what had happened, but not old enough to comprehend the chain of events that this film covers. Of course, I've learned much about 20th century history from films I've seen. And with the recent slew of 9/11 films, I've begun to see pictures based on history I lived through. But I think this is the first film I've seen where I felt like I was receiving a history lesson on an event I have very clear (if uninformed) memories of; I found it fascinating to juggle the details of history that seemed new to me with my own recollection of the media coverage I experienced firsthand. I realize this reaction has very little to do with the film, but it certainly affected my response to it.
I thought Mirren was wonderful. This is a regal performance in every sense of the word. To cite just one aspect of her performance, I love the way she walks as Queen Elizabeth. The way she carries herself is so different from the way she moves in say, Gosford Park (in which she played another character with a very distinct style of movement.) Perhaps it's a small detail, but it's one I noticed and admired alongside her very moving, graceful scene work and lovely speeches. (I disagree, Tee, I think she's got some great Oscar clips.) That said, I'm still on the look-out for a best actress contender to truly cheer for (as Mister Tee puts it). But at least she's better than ALL the nominees in this category last year.
I think this is a very likely Best Picture contender. The audience (full of MUCH older viewers than I) seemed to love it, and I think its combination of light humor (there ain't a lot of comedy in this year's race) and genuinely moving moments will take it far. For me, though, while I think I'll almost certainly prefer it to some of the more blatantly Oscar-baiting bores to come (maybe even, if those web reviews are any indication, Flags of Our Fathers), I can't help but already feel a tinge of disappointment should it take a spot away from far more dazzling accomplishments like (sight unseen) Babel or Volver, or even Little Children (which I have seen).
(Note to self: stop overusing parentheticals.)