Talk:The Queen (film)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Link
- 2 Is this film American?
- 3 The Stag
- 4 Accuracy
- 5 Comparison photos
- 6 Royal responses
- 7 Stag scenes
- 8 Redirect
- 9 "King of England"
- 10 Mechanic?
- 11 Historical inaccuracy vs. figures of speech
- 12 Private Secretary
- 13 Requested move
- 14 Fair use rationale for Image:The Queen cd.jpg
- 15 Michael Sheen
- 16 Film plot
- 17 Abdication
- 18 Historical drama?
The link to the screenwriter Peter Morgan is wrong, it leads to think that another Peter Morgan (who is dead) is the writer (and I guess he isn't). Sorry, I'm not aware of the technicalities of web editing, so I'm just posting the mistake here, and maybe someone else can fix it.
Is this film American?
Is this film considered an "American" film? I pose this question because of the recent Academy Awards event, which handed an award to Ms. Mirren. I have assumed that the film is British. I have also assumed the the Academy Awards are limited to American films, with the exception, of course, of "Best Foreign Film." These could be false assumptions. Can anyone lend any insight to this?
- Of course it is a British film! The Academy Awards are not just for American movies, they are international awards. There is a section for "Best Foreign Language Film", for films in languages other than English Paul75 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- How do you figure the Academy Awards are NOT only American? Just because they have ONE award for a Foreign Film DOES NOT make the Oscars an international ceremony. Think about Cannes when you talk or think international. Academy Awards are ALWAYS for Hollywood films. Gautam Discuss 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was directed by a British director, and the vast (if not all) of the cast was British, so I presume that makes it British. Does that also mean that the article should be written in British English entirely (except where other spellings would be applicable). For example, honor should be spelt honour. JGXenite 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Going through best picture winners, wasn't Chariots of Fire a British film? Also Lawrence of Arabia, Tom Jones, and Bridge on the River Kwai. These films all had Hollywood studios as American distributors, but they were not produced by Hollywood. Most of the categories are supposedly open to films from anywhere. The regular ones tend to be dominated by English-language films, and English-language film-making tends to be dominated by Hollywood, but there have been British winners. And in terms of best picture nominees - Life Is Beautiful was Italian, Elizabeth was British, The Full Monty was British, Secrets & Lies was British, Shine was Australian, Il Postino was Italian, Four Weddings and a Funeral was British, The Piano was Australian, Howards End was seemingly British, The Crying Game was British, My Left Foot was, I think, Irish, etc. I think the only rule is that the film has to be released in the U.S. john k 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
the plot leaves out the part about the stag. it isn't exactly part of the story arc but it provides an insight into the queen's character and takes up a significant part of the film, so i think it should be included.
- I also think it should be included, but I think there should be seperated section - the hunt for the stag is sort of tool of storytelling, I don't know how it's called in english, but the opening and closing scenes also seemed to be such tools - they are not important for main action of the film, they outline details, like charecters, atitude, relationships and historical background.
- P.S. I think it's very good film ---- Xil/talk 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The sections dealing with public events (such as the speech, or the crowds) appear fairly accurate. As to the rest, I think part of the point is that, even at the end, the Queen "as a person" and her role as monarch remain seperate, so in reality we just don't know how she, or the other royals, actually felt about things. Something about that should probably be added. Daibhid C 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- We'd have to wait, I guess, for someone to comment on the degree to which the imagined scenes seem accurate. There are aspects in the externally linked materials, and elsewhere here. The article on Cherie Blair mentions her reported contempt for the royal family, and it's sourced, so we can use that. Similarly, the linked Mirren interview in The Independent mentions in passing that "cabbage" is supposedly one of Phillip's terms of endearment for Her Majesty.
- A "realism" section would turn out most hostile to the movie, I cannot conceive of that being a wise idea. It is fiction, and as such it may have a right - but anyone who has seen even the shortest private interview with Philip, Charles or Elizabeth knows that they could not possibly express themselves in the feeble language which the characters use in the film. ~Jjjjc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A strip of comparison photos of the actors in character and the real life people they play would be brilliant for this page JayKeaton 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) There is one here: http://homepage.mac.com/gayrevi/iblog/C1528208335/E20050922104502/Media/mirren.jpg
I would love to see a section on any feedback from the royals or the government on this film, if any is to be had. Gregwmay 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could we have a source for that statement? Also, what about other people--the Blairs for instance?--Jdavid2008 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Helen Mirram was invited to Windsor to meet with QE2 because of her performance in the film. She couldn't go because she was in the middle of South Dakota filming National Treasure 2 at the time. QE2 knows about the movie, even if she claims not to have seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me what the story with the stag is all about? --18.104.22.168 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —Avn001 - I went to see the show last night. I thought it was brilliant. Today, after church I thought about the scene again and in my mind the following picture played off. The Queen got stuck in the river. Then the stag appeared on the scene. The most beautiful stag the Queen has ever seen. This is a reflection of Princess D. The Queen heard a shot in the distance, and made a gesture for the stag to go away. Remember that the Prince Phillip had this obsession to kill this stag? To cut the story short and get you own mind moving, the stag was shot on another farm. This is Princess D getting out of the way of her home ground, going some where else (France) where she was wounded by all those who gave her a hard time, and eventually died. The Queen, I think, portrays the real feeling in this scene, af knowing that a lot went on without her intervention and had to see and feel that the wounded Princess was killed by her, the Queen not doing enough to stop the hate built up under her very own family. I would like to hear from you on what your thoughts may be upon my interpretation. Kind regards from South Africa. Contact me at email@example.comAvn001 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Andre van Noordwyk
- They are stalking and hunting the stag to its death. Diana was stalked and hunted by the media to her death. Quite simple really! Paul75 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- We really shouldn't be engaging in this discussion on a talk page, but (imho) the stag def isn't an allusion to Diana. It seems rather an allegory for the traditional, conservative, and noble past the Queen seeks to represent, and one which is is threatened (by rampant capitalism, amongst other things, as acknowledged by the private client's shooting of the stag). Nicolasdz 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Stag is the Queen. When she goes to see it, headless and all, she sees how the broker shot it in the face, and not in the heart. The Queen (of the movie) felt hunted up until that point in the movie. When she sees that the broker could not kill the stag, and professional hunters had to stalk it and kill it mercifully, she regained her strength. It's a metaphor. The Media and The People / Anti-Monarchists, could not bring her down. Sports movies and Action movies have similar metaphor moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I dont think 'The Queen' should re-direct here, if someone said that, you think of the person, not the movie. Viva43 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I tried 'The Queen' and was surprised it didn't lead to this page. If I was looking for the person, I would type something like 'Queen of England', because there are so many queens... Nicolasdz 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"King of England"
I think that the contention that this usage is invalid as there has been no such title since the Act of Union of 1707 is debatable. Many Scots in particular would argue that a union of two countries is exactly that, and hence a king of the United Kingdom is, by direct implication, also both the king of England and the king of Scotland.
- There's a king of England in as much as there's a king of Ontario; the monarch reigns in these places, but only as they are a part of a lager state over which the king is sovereign. Thus there's a King of the United Kingdom and a King of Canada, but no longer any separate King of Scotland, nor has there been a King of Western Australia. --G2bambino 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The British Monarch *is* the King or Queen of England, even if that's only a partial description. It's not inaccurate in any technical sense, just only partly descriptive, like Asquith's grave that states he was Prime Minister of England.
- The British Monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; England isn't a country any more than Scotland or Wales are. Thus, technically it is incorrect to refer to a King of England; such a thing hasn't existed for over 300 years (and I imagine the Prince of Wales, of all people, would be well aware of such a fact). --G2bambino 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the other users. England is a country, so is Scotland, so is Wales. The Queen of each of them is Elizabeth. William is expected to be King of England. More importantly, even if the description is technically legally incorrect, which is at best debatable, it is irrelevant as a throway remark by Charles in the middle of the night in this movie. To highlight it at all in an article the size of this is unnecessary. --126.96.36.199 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is now usually considered to be incorrect to use "Queen of England," due to sensitivities on the part of the non-English in the United Kingdom. However, the idea that "King of England" is incorrect does not in fact originate from 1707. For at least 200 years after 1707, "England" was frequently used as synonymous with "Great Britain" or (after 1801), "United Kingdom." Obviously, in situations where precise correctness was important, the term wouldn't be used, but it continued in common usage, and was not considered to be incorrect - simply less formal. It is only in the 20th century that this usage of England=United Kingdom began to be considered inappropriate. Moreover, obviously a lot of people still use "Queen of England," even if they know that England is not synonymous with "United Kingdom." There's really no need to discuss it in this article. john k 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
George VI was the king who famously broke up the Empire and made a separate crown for each commonwealth state. Therefore his complete title is pretty long e.g. "King of England, King of New Zeland, King of Canada, ......" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I was interested to hear the Queen mention in the film that she had been a mechanic during WWII. However, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom says, "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service ... and was trained as a driver." Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Military_career. Can anyone clarify her actual training and service? Thank you. -- 184.108.40.206 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's not technically incorrect as older cars did require extensive knowledges that only a "mechanic" rather than a "driver" of today has. Unlike a chauffeur, whose work she should know quite well, a "driver" that she had been did a lot more than merely driving a truck around. --Revth 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Historical inaccuracy vs. figures of speech
Two things are listed here as 'historical inaccuracies': Charles calling William "the future King of England" and the Queen Mother saying the monarchy has "an unbroken line going back thousands of years". These may be inaccurate but they are not necessarily 'mistakes' by the filmmakers: they are simply representing casual, normal ways of speaking. In real life, no-one would say "he's the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories" or "our family goes back 1,126 years in an unbroken line aside from 3 dynasty changes and a parliamentarian interregnum". The characters may be saying inaccurate things, but the scenes are only historical inaccuracies if it can be proven that the people concerned never said those things at that time. Right? Cop 663 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"One inaccuracy is that Robin Janvrin is represented as the Queen's Private Secretary during the aftermath of Diana's death, but in fact that position was then occupied by Janvrin's predecessor..." According to the Script of The Queen, Janvrin is the Deputy Private Secretary in the film, not the Private Secretary as this article states Brian | (Talk) 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Queen cd.jpg
Image:The Queen cd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I have cut down the references to Michael Sheen's various portrayals of Tony Blair in the opening paragraph. Whilst it is a point of interest that he'd played Blair before this film in 'The Deal', the plot details of that film are irrelevant here, as is the suggestion he'll play Blair again in a forthcoming project. Such details are fine on Michael Sheen's page, but this page is for the film 'The Queen'. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged it as too long. I'm also concerned, sitting here reading it as I watch the film, that a lot of conjecture and details not actually contained in the film is presented. It seems too full of details that were not in the film. It needs to be properly rewritten with only the facts in the film, not reading between the lines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, it lacks accuracy. For instance, "Hearing a distant gunshot, she shoos the animal away and decides to carry out Blair's recommendations." is not correct. In the film, her encounter with the stag comes before Blair's final recommendations. Only after taking his phonecall ('in the kitchen') and *then* talking to her mother, does she decide to give in. (Unless, of course, the DVD I have is a different edit from the one the writer of this outline has seen, but the article does not mention different cuts.) Radioflux (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The film suggests abdication was a real possibility but was dissuaded by the Queen Mother.
- "Queen Elizabeth Ii - Queen 'Nearly Abdicated', According To Film", Contact Music. August 15, 2006. Accessed June 10, 2011
Does it actually make sense to describe this film as an 'historical drama'? In 2006 it was dealing with events less than a decade previous. All the central characters of the film are based upon currently living people (with one obvious exception). The Day of the Jackal, made in 1973, deals with events more than a decade before. Do we classify that as 'historical drama'?