Glen and I do not really follow the Royals. We don’t tune in to the Queen’s annual Christmas message, her 64th televised one tomorrow. Didn’t watch the fairytale wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana in 1981 or her mournful funeral in 1997. We’re not au courant about Prince Harry and Meghan or Prince Andrew, even though it’s hard to avoid the headlines. The Royal family gets a lot of ink!
Years ago we saw “The Audience” on National Theatre Live at a nearby cinema. Peter Morgan wrote this play about weekly conversations between Queen Elizabeth II and nine Prime Ministers. Although these audiences do occur, and have since Elizabeth’s ascension in 1952, no notes are taken or records kept. Morgan invents the dialogue in his stage play, as he does in the movie “The Queen” (2016) and in the TV series “The Crown.” He’s not offering history lessons, just suggesting views of the Royal family and other notable individuals while recalling historic events through imagined conversations and scenes.
THE CROWN (Netflix) ♦♦♦½
About art and entertainment Peggy Noonan of the WSJ writes: “There’s dramatic license, which is necessary or nothing’s fun, and historical truth, which is necessary or nothing’s understood. Ideally in any work they more or less coexist, however imperfectly. In “The Crown” the balance is far off.” Noonan admits enjoying the acting and the production values but takes umbrage at its careless treatment of history. In watching the series I decided to suspend my disbelief.
This story about a dysfunctional family is too compelling to get bogged down in verisimilitude. The characters enact familiar issues — marital discord, sibling rivalry, substance abuse, bullying at school, an entitled young generation, and more. Where to find happiness? Not in the world of the Royals.
Morgan reminds us of major events from the past. It’s heartbreaking to recall the Aberfan colliery disaster of 1966; a collapsing spoil heap destroyed a Welsh village, killing 116 children and 28 adults. Painful to remember apartheid and the resistance of Margaret Thatcher (and Ronald Reagan) to economic sanctions against South Africa. Interesting to review the controversial Falklands War of 1982. Thatcher’s quick response to the South Atlantic conflict led to a surge in her popularity. Reelected in 1983, she remained in office until 1990, making her Britain’s longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century. We applaud Gillian Anderson’s commanding imitation of Mrs. Thatcher. Her performance alone makes season 4 worthwhile.
Emma Corrin nails the role of Diana, to whom she bears an uncanny resemblance. Seeing her and Charles put under the microscope in intrusive ways, however, becomes tough to bear. Our viewing is tainted.
The show spares no expense in cinematography. While opulent interiors may not entice, the magnificent landscapes of Scotland beckon us to take a flight overseas for a tour. Oops. No one should fly to the U.K. these days!
We will watch season 5 — though hope Princess Diana and Prince Charles get less airtime. •
P.S. Glen also gives “The Crown” ♦♦♦½.
P.P.S. Our household is one of 73 million worldwide that have watched “The Crown” since it began in 2016.
Patricia Britton says
A good review Pam. Series like “The Crown” are presented to us as a “bio pic” but really, I think they are a bit more historical fiction. The basic facts may be accurate but the rest is fiction. Good historical fiction is my favourite reading. There is lots of bad historical fiction out there as well. I like “The Crown”. But I realize the limitations to its accuracy. The current Royal Family would have us believe it is all fiction. I for one don’t think so. I put on my suspension of disbelief hat…. and enjoy the fun. I didn’t need the series “The Crown” to tell me I don’t like Charles; real or fictional. 🙂
Pam McPhail says
Like you, Pat, I enjoy the series when I don’t worry much about its historical accuracy. For example, Konrad Yakabuski in The Globe and Mail writes “this character assassination is rolled into an unnuanced narrative that makes Mrs. Thatcher into the villain of the piece and takes vast liberties with the truth… Mr. Morgan seems to be … rewriting a chapter in [Britain’s] recent history with the goal of discrediting the woman at the centre of it.” Mrs. Thatcher was/is a polarizing figure, but we don’t have to reckon with her reputation to admire Gillian Anderson’s portrayal.
Please recommend a few of your favourite historical fiction books. I seem to have more time for reading these days!
Chris Krueger says
A good article, Pam. I, too, don’t follow the Royals but I have watched most of The Crown.
Pam McPhail says
Yes, Chris, the series is entirely watchable and, for us, a welcome change from gritty crime dramas.
Linda Richardson says
Thanks Pam for your perspective on “The Crown”. My daughters and I, especially Hayley, are definitely Royal watchers. Say what you will, but I have watched all of the televised Royal weddings, starting with Charles and Diana, as must watch event TV. The girls and I also sadly waited in line to write in a memorial book after Diana’s death. More recently, Hayley and I waited expectantly at the Parliament Buildings in Victoria hoping to catch a glimpse of William and Kate and their two adorable children (at that time) during their Royal Visit to our city. I have read enough about the Royal Family, particularly the younger generation, to not be surprised at the depiction of Charles and Diana’s marriage. Anyone who watched the separate TV interviews of Diana first and then Charles knew that Diana suffered from Bulimia and depression and that Charles, rather unwillingly, did his royal duty by marrying Diana but kept the fires burning for Camilla, the woman he really loved. Suffice to say, I have been thoroughly watching the series. I thought that the earlier seasons highlighting Elizabeth and Churchill’s relationship, as well as Elizabeth and Phillip’s relationship, were particularly well done. The fact that the creators of the series have been able to rather seamlessly and successfully substitute actors to play the main characters as they age is another reason to watch. I haven’t finished Season Four with daughter Casey but am already looking forward to Season Five. For those who prefer a documentary over historical fiction, I would recommend “The Windsors” series on CNN.
Pam McPhail says
Linda, Please don’t read my review as a criticism of Royal watchers in life or of “The Crown.” It’s not. I especially like that Mr. Morgan brings to the screen, in this widely watched series, issues such as bulimia, depression, substance abuse, etc. And the stellar enactments of well known individuals give “substance” to the treatment of these societal challenges. That’s commendable.
Linda Richardson says
No worries Pam. Just adding my point of view. Cheers!
MarieMcLean says
Interesting review, Pam. We also enjoyed “The Crown.” Olivia Coleman as the Queen is wonderful and it was great fun, as usual, to see the foibles of the rich and famous. However I think they portrayed Charles and Diana and even the Queen in too broad strokes, giving them none of the nuances that make even the most evil villain compelling and the most virtuous hero/heroine more interesting. Even though I have no love for Charles, I did think they portrayed him in an excessively negative light, even having him physically hunching and slouching about. And Diana was too much the victim, the Queen too much the all-wise sovereign.
Pam McPhail says
Dittos, Marie, to your astute observations. Sometimes Peter Morgan makes too clear his biases, but he does compensate in other ways — in the splendid settings for instance.
Ken McLean says
Thanks for this excellent review of “The Crown” Pam. I find this one of the best shows on TV, though I do share some of the concerns re its distortion of history. There is, for example, no warrant for the letter that Earl Mountbatten wrote Charles just before his death ( Mountbatten’s that is )and I agree with Marie that Charles is treated unfairly. I’m not sure why they feel that Olivia Coleman could not very ably play the older Elizabeth, but hope that Imelda Staunton will do as good a job. Gillian Anderson’s transformation into Maggie was amazing.
Pam McPhail says
I doubt the Queen visited Churchill on his death bed either — if we point out historical distortions. But it’s fitting to imagine the towering figure of Sir Winston Churchill receiving such exceptional, well earned attention from Queen Elizabeth. I’m sure Imelda Staunton will reign in her role!
Glen Wickens says
Through selection and emphasis, The Crown has evolved into the Royal soap opera, perhaps a predictable development once Charles and Diana took centre stage. Enough gaudy material in the Royal vault — adultery, assassination, insanity, cruelty — that if you didn’t know the series had some connection to history you might ask: who could make up this stuff?
Pam McPhail says
Ouch! Your remarks are harsh, but in a sense you’re rewriting Mark Twain’s observation: “Truth is stranger than fiction.”