The Queen - La regina

Frears brilliantly recreates that royal events surrounding the tragic and sudden death of the people of England's beloved princess. The focus is on the royal family, particularly Queen Elizabeth and what may have gone in her mind during this ordeal. Frears attempts to give an impartial view of the event and sticks to the main point. He cleverly uses live footage of the late princess and combines it within the film. The cinematography and quick cuts are very effective. Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen give standout performances. No doubt it must have been difficult to play both parts but the two actors pull it off without hassle. Even as Queen Elizabeth (one of the most unsexiest queen), Mirren looks sexy and not in a way that distracts the viewer from the character. It's remarkable how she so accurately displays the nuances of the title character. I'm glad that Michael Sheen finally got a role to display his wonderful acting abilities. James Cromwell and Sylvia Sims are equally good in their roles respectively as the Queen's husband and mother. Helen McCrory makes Cherie Blair look pretty. My only small complaint is that, the film, at times, moves at a very slow pace but otherwise this is a well made movie that gives a glimpse of how the tragic event might have affected the royal family.

I saw her Elizabeth I not so long ago and I was bowled over by her fearlessness, I was moved, transported, amused. Now, Elizabeth II, the living Queen. Helen Mirren accomplishes the impossible. She lets us know the Queen, her Queen, without passing judgment. Just being her. I found myself understanding her dilemma in human terms. Something that she had done so brilliantly with Elizabeth I, she humanized her or rather she allows us to find the human creature behind the iconic façade. The difficulty of not falling into a caricature or a simple impersonation may have seemed insurmountable but here she is. Perfect, real, extraordinary. Long Live Helen Mirren!

It was Meryl Streep no less to call Helen Mirren "an acting God" and she wasn't kidding. I saw "The Queen" again last night, a year after the hype, the awards and the masses of superlatives thrown Helen Mirren's way and you know what? It was all richly deserved. Her performance got an extra something along the year and I believe it will continue to grow like most wonderful true things. Helen Mirren is not an actress who "dissappears" behind a character , no, she is in total control and that's what makes her creation so moving. The illusion is fueled by her own conviction - the character's as well as the actress's. Last night I wondered, during the Queen and her Prime Minister's walk, how did the real Elizabeth II reacted to this portrait. I'm sure she's seen it and I'm sure that she must agree that nobody could have done it better or more fairly.

At the time of Princess Diana's funeral I remember thinking that, instead of rewriting "Candle in the Wind", Elton John should simply have performed a song from "Evita"- the one that asks the questions "Why all this howling hysterical sorrow? What kind of goddess has lived among us? How will we ever get by without her?" Tim Rice's lyrics were, of course, originally written about Eva Peron, but they could equally well have been written about the British public's over-reaction to Diana's death.

Those sentiments were not popular ones in September 1997, but they should not be taken as implying that I have any particular axe to grind against either the Monarchy in general or Diana in particular. Republicanism is simply another manifestation of our regrettable tendency to jump on American bandwagons (in this particular case two hundred years too late), and I have always thought that King Charles III and Queen Diana might have made a formidable Royal couple. Charles the Head, with his intellectual interests in spirituality and the environment, and Diana the Heart, with her spontaneous human warmth and touch of sex appeal, could both have brought qualities to the Monarchy which it has sometimes lacked in the past. Unfortunately, their wildly contrasting characters, which could have made them such a great Royal team had they been able to avoid washing their dirty linen in public, made it impossible for them to live together as a married couple. The woman we buried on that September morning nine years ago was no longer Our Future Queen but rather the dead mistress of a millionaire Egyptian playboy.

This film is not about the life of Diana (there is a great film to be made on that subject, but it has not yet been made and probably will not be for a number of years). Nor does it attempt to analyse exactly why her death should have provoked such hysteria, including not only hysterical sorrow but also hysterical anger against the Royal Family. I suspect that the main culprit was the media which, exercising the harlot's privilege of power without responsibility, had over the years built Diana into (to borrow another phrase from "Evita") "a cross between a fantasy of the bedroom and a saint". The press found itself under criticism when the paparazzi in its employ were implicated in her death, and needed to divert the public's anger onto a new target. Given, however, the incestuous interdependence of the media world, where press barons own shares in television and film companies, film-makers are often reluctant to subject the Fourth Estate to too much scrutiny.

This is, rather, an examination of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and her Prime Minister Tony Blair and of the roles played by them in the events following Diana's death. The two are sharply contrasted, but the contrast is not one of ideology. The Queen is constitutionally obliged to remain politically impartial and Blair, who moved New Labour into the centre ground and away from its traditional attachment to Socialism and class-based politics, is probably less likely to harbour anti-monarchist sentiments than many earlier Labour politicians. (The Old Labour republicanism attributed to Cherie Blair in this film looks very old-fashioned). Rather, the contrast between them is that between differing temperaments and, even more, between different generations.

The Queen is the representative of the older generation, a believer in tradition, in dignity and emotional restraint. She sees no need to rush back to London from Scotland (the Royal Family traditionally spend late summer on their Balmoral estate) or to fly the Union Jack at half-mast over Buckingham Palace. (Tradition decrees that only the Royal Standard, which denotes the presence of the Monarch and is never flown at half-mast, can fly over the Palace). She is sympathetic to the Spencer family's wish that Diana should be given a private funeral. Blair, on the other hand, represents the younger generation- he is a believer in innovation and change rather than tradition and more sensitive to the public mood. His politician's instincts tell him that the Royal Family's attitude represents a public relations disaster in the making, and tries to persuade the Queen to return to London, to fly the flag and to grant Diana the official funeral for which the public are clamouring.

Michael Sheen bears a close resemblance to the Tony Blair of nine years ago, and has clearly studied him closely in order to catch his every gesture and nuance. I was not, however, particularly impressed by his performance. He seemed to have fallen into the trap of watching his subject too closely, becoming a mimic rather than an actor. I felt that I was watching an impressionist of the Mike Yarwood or Rory Bremner school impersonating Blair rather than an actor playing him in a serious drama. Some of the members of the Royal Family, such as James Cromwell's Prince Philip and Sylvia Syms's Queen Mother, seemed one-dimensional figures, based upon popular preconceptions rather than any attempt to create rounded characters. Alex Jennings's Prince Charles was rather contradictory; at times he seemed the most sympathetic of the Royals, at others weak and cowardly.

By far the best performance came from Helen Mirren as the Queen. In the past she has chosen some rather dubious vehicles for her undoubted talent (notoriously "Caligula"), but this is one of her most assured performances of recent years. Her Elizabeth II emerges as a very human and sympathetic individual as she and Blair, despite their many differences, discover a growing respect for one another's point of view. In many ways, this subject would have been more suitable for a TV drama than a cinema release. Mirren, however, always makes it worth watching. 7/10

How silly of me. I kept putting off seeing this movie because I had an acute case of "Dianaetis" Too much about the doomed princess of the people. Well, I was wrong. I was very, very, wrong. The film is a surprising, unpretentious masterpiece and I haven't mention Helen Mirren yet. Apart from the fact that it's a film perfectly suited to be seen in your own living room or like me, in bed, it's also cinema with capital letters. The illusion created by Helen Mirren's portrayal is total and I mean total, eerily so. There were moments in which I was seeing the real thing or the "royal" thing I should say. When Elizabeth II bows to pressure and returns to London and views first hand the overwhelming show of affection for Diana, something happens to her, we will never know what exactly, but something. That in itself is Helen Mirren's mastery. To tell us exactly that without revealing anything. Needless to say I'm buying the DVD. I know I will see this one many times.