|
anastasia beaverhausen
|
I’m through episode 5 now and I’ll go against the grain and say I cannot tolerate the Thatcher stuff. So cringey and frankly I don’t care about her and all of that. I also don’t see why we had to waste an entire episode on the intruder. I wanted this to be solely focused on the family and instead we’re skipping weddings, births, courtships, etc in favor of intruders, Thatcher (cringeeeee), stags, etc. Disappointing so far.
Oh dear and I am loving Gillian Anderson as Thatcher and I thought the episode with Michael Fagin was one of the best of the season (along with the one about Margaret/hidden Bowes Lyons cousins). The show is such complete hash in terms of truth and history but the acting by all the principals has been really good this season. I can't remember who complained about Charles' whinging but I think that's actually more accurate than not - when he was unhappy, everybody knew it (in his circle). He wrote a number of letters that have crept into the public arena which give credence to all the complaining he does in the series. One thing I don't understand is why the producers chose to portray Diana giving Charles a video of her singing, with a full orchestra, for their anniversary, when I believe in real life she gave him a video of her dancing? Which would have been truthful and touching. But in that ep she says: "I can only express my feelings by performing" (or words to that effect). None of that made sense to me. It would have been FAR more effective for them to show C. reacting to D.'s gift awkwardly (not necessarily callously, as they have him do) if it was portrayed as simply, a gift from her heart, which he can't accept because by that time he's back with Camilla. Sometimes the truth is more effective (and believable) than the fictions they come up with! I agree. I always thought that the Charles of that era was a bit immature, self centered and whiny. It’s great that age has blunted most of that, and he’s grown into his role. What I can’t get past is the way Diana is portrayed - she put herself forward a lot. Maybe that’s how it really was, but I was always under the impression that this was an arrangement promoted more by the families than the actual participants. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Booklover
Warned
|
I have only watched 2 episodes but I'm not hooked yet. I realize that it's a drama but even as such, I don't think it's that good. Interesting that when they are all at Balmoral, there are no signs of Anne's children, she had at least one at that stage. Andrew and Edward are
nowhere to be seen so far and Margaret's children aren't around either. The only who consistently comes across as spoiled, entitled, and downright rude is Margaret. Which I think she probably was. Could have done without the hunting scenes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GoodGollyMissMolly
|
I have only watched 2 episodes but I'm not hooked yet. I realize that it's a drama but even as such, I don't think it's that good. Interesting that when they are all at Balmoral, there are no signs of Anne's children, she had at least one at that stage. Andrew and Edward are
nowhere to be seen so far and Margaret's children aren't around either. The only who consistently comes across as spoiled, entitled, and downright rude is Margaret. Which I think she probably was. Could have done without the hunting scenes.
The show isn't about Anne's children. The further we get from the early seasons, the less we will see Anne, Andrew, and Edward. They did mention twice she had kids, and I think that's enough. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret
|
I have only watched 2 episodes but I'm not hooked yet. I realize that it's a drama but even as such, I don't think it's that good. Interesting that when they are all at Balmoral, there are no signs of Anne's children, she had at least one at that stage. Andrew and Edward are
nowhere to be seen so far and Margaret's children aren't around either. The only who consistently comes across as spoiled, entitled, and downright rude is Margaret. Which I think she probably was. Could have done without the hunting scenes.
The show isn't about Anne's children. The further we get from the early seasons, the less we will see Anne, Andrew, and Edward. They did mention twice she had kids, and I think that's enough. No, the show isn't about Anne's children, or Margaret's; none of them are HRHs. We catch a glimpse of them in one family group shot later on and I think that's enough. As I see it, those peripheral characters are only relevant to this story insofar as they make an impact upon the lives of the characters who do, and will, wear The Crown, and they don't. I think the hunting scenes are important. They provide an opportunity to show us what the members of that family really enjoy doing, and the customs of their tribe, and their values and priorities. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larzen
|
I liked the ending where the Queen finally told Charles both he and his wife were overprivelidged, overindulged and spoiled and no real people would care about their endless whining.
Feels she could deliver that remarks today to some in the next generation as well…both in UK and other royal families.
All in all I like season 4 better than season 3, I feel Olivia is getting a bit more into that role.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Crayon
Most Exalted Member
Reputation: 4201
 Offline
Posts: 15042
"Near catastrophic"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cool your jets, everyone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomme
|
Mahvellous. Need not watch the show now. Ta! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
fairy
Most Exalted Member
Reputation: 5136
Offline
Posts: 21629
|
Mahvellous. Need not watch the show now. Ta! Applause!! He is brilliant.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anastasia beaverhausen
|
Mahvellous. Need not watch the show now. Ta! Applause!! He is brilliant.. The Thatcher impression is better than Gillian’s. Oh dear..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carreen
Mini Member
Reputation: 295
Offline
 Germany
Posts: 371
|
Oh dear! I finally gave in and bingewatched nearly the whole thing. Feel as though I've swallowed a whale - well some of it is still stuck in my gullet.
My verdict!
The show seems to be structured in a kind of double strand plait. Each episode focuses on a main topic and a secondary topic to throw the main topic into relief. Some episodes present private matters as main topic, others on general social affairs. As though you're reading one day a gossip newspaper with some social or political criticism, and next day, a serious newspaper with a juicy gossip column.
For me, the really interesting stuff is the relationships to prime ministers - after having read so much about Churchill and Eden, I was happy to see them played by great actors. My husband tried to watch with me and gave up after some episodes: too much Princess Margaret and not enough Churchill was his verdict.
I found the Aberfan episode powerful. I was surprised about the positive portrayal of Dickie Mountbatten - he was a Janus head figure which they could have highlighted more. But both Gret Wise and Charles Dance gave sublime performances.
Some storylines were ludicruous - this whole astronaut theme was very weak, and I'm sick of the stereotying of Americans as loud, naive and clueless. They could have showed Philip's crisis after his mother's death in a better way, I'm sure. Well, at least they took some time for dialogues and the open ending was okay.
The whole class issue is really shocking for Continental Europeans, this either you're in or you're out. Interestingly, the Queen gets on easily with a Labour politician who has the "right" background (Oxford) but not at all with a Tory who comes from the wrong side of the class divide (Thatcher). I love Gillian, I truly adore her, but you can feel that she loathes Thatcher and turns her into a cruel caricature. Which sticks out because the others try to humanize their characters.
The portrayal of Charles is much more fair and nuanced than I expected. The Wales chapter showed his difficulties in finding his own language, and how he was stifled all the time.
Camilla, too, is shown as a really tragic figure in the series. How her parents bow to the Queen mother and then everybody pushes her into a marriage. I have no idea whether this happened or not, I never heard of it before, so here I relate to the fictive version. She clings to what she has with Charles. People around her didn't give her time to come to a conclusion of her own whom to marry, at least in the series it's outside influences, not her own decisions, that shape her fate. I have no idea how people can watch that and then hate Camilla.
David and Wallis were given a nuanced treatment. There are many question marks regarding the abdication and their sympathies for the Nazis. Petropoulos wrote a book about it. How much of it was real sympathy, and how much the wish to stick a finger into the British establishment's eye?
The actress playing Diana does a good job although nobody can play the charismatic vulnerability of her face and smile and eyes - they were her own.
Great actors for the courtiers, those reptiles. The actor of Tommy Lascelles does a great job, he was freezing my blood and I waited for his scenes, knotting his hands behind his back.
Princess Anne steals every scene, I love the actress who really gives a glimpse of a great character where the petty and generous mix.
One of the things that really, really bother me, not only in the Crown but in popular culture overall, is the need to pitch two women against each other. All. The. Bloody. Time.
You have the Queen vs. Princess Margaret in many tiring variations. The Queen vs her supposed rivals in Philip's affections. The Queen vs Mrs. Kennedy (another wasted opportunity - this chapter was really weak and left out a lot of British-US background). Margaret vs Tony's many lovers. The Queen vs Mrs. Thatcher. Camilla vs Anne. Camilla vs Diana.
Some male rivalry was there, too, but one Porchy doesn't balance out the serie's emphasis on males divided about matters and facts, and females divided about feelings and attention.
There are some rare scenes of feminine solidarity between the royal sisters but the overall impression is of weak females who are dependent on male appreciatioin and admiration. They just have to re-fill their batteries.
We all know the stories and the gossip, and it's easy to see even for a layperson where the writers invented scenes or details, or shifted the timing. Not for one second did I feel that I was watching historical truth. When I read Philippa Gregory or Mary Balogh or even Georgette Heyer, I know I'm not really looking into the mind of a Tudor princess or a Regency debutante. The heroes wriggle their eyebrows, have modern nicknames for their sisters, and the heroines dream of independence. thy're modern, it's impossible to re-create the past. And I have the same feeling when I watch the Crown.
They foreshadow a lot. E.g. Andrew's conversation with his mother about the movie his actor friend appeared in - supposedly talking about Koo Stark but actually foreshadowing the Epstein scandal. It's sometimes so heavy-handed that it takes me straight back into 2020.
All in all, this is just one way of telling the story.
Who is their audience? People who know the gossip and compare reality and series to argue about it? People who know nothing about the Windsors (like my husband) and couldn't care less? I learnt nothing new, my husband told me in the middle of the first season: now let's find a good movie about Churchill and watch that instead!
Sometimes, they give awkward explanations that British viewers don't need - and I ask myself: perhaps written with American audiences in mind who need these expositions? But then, Europeans and Britons themselves may also no longer know and care about the BRF. Would they watch the show?
Oh, and Helena Bonham Carter is a goddess. I always suspected it but now we have confirmation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret
|
Great post, Carreen!  It was very interesting to read your take on the show and the portrayals by the various actors. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jolene
|
Anderson's portrayal of Thatcher was cartoonish. She played her a la Mr Burns from "The Simpsons." LOL
I had sympathy for Charles in season 3 and the first part of 4, but they turned him into satan. I think the actress playing Diana did a great job. Though Marg didn't have a lot to do this season, HBC did a lot with the role. She seemed to have the most growth and thoughtfulness except when she was being a jerk to Thatcher for sitting in a chair. Peter Morgan made the BRF into vulgar snobs for the most part. I'm going to miss Tobias Menzies.
Dear Peter Morgan & crew, not all Americans are loud. I always get told I'm too soft spoken.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rita
|
Just finished the last season, still not impressed with this show..
I am aware there is alot of polemic about this last one because if the Diana/Charles/Camilla drama but even that didn't catch my eyes to me it look like the Queen describe it to charles in the final episode the whining of overprivelidged, overindulged and spoiled brats..i don't know what they wanted to achieve or what is the message but it's seems lame to me
The only person i hated how the show presented is Mrs Tatcher..she was more than the cartoonic image they insist to show during the whole episodes imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
