Photo Credit: NetFlix
The Empire strikes back!
Last month, it was confirmed that The Crown, the 10-part biographical drama television series, created and written by Peter Morgan and produced by Left Bank Pictures and Sony Pictures Television for Netflix has been commissioned for a second season.
Filming, in fact, has already begun.
The epic drama focuses on the early reign of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the longest remaining monarch in British history, from 1947, and her marriage to Philip Mountbatten, her bitter clash with her younger sister Princess Margaret, through Winston Churchill’s resignation in 1955 as Prime Minister, when the ‘’British Bulldog’’ was forced from 10 Downing Street due to failing health.
The series has largely been met with rave reviews.
And why wouldn’t it?
The cast is absolutely packed with star-studded talent, beginning with award winning actor John Lithgow as the grumpy old man, Sir Winston Churchill, English actress Claire Foy (who previously played Anne Boleyn for the BBC series Wolf Hall) as the young Queen, Matt Smith as Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh, and Jared Harris (who might best be remembered as Lane Pryce from the AMC drama series Mad Men) who packs a mighty punch portraying King George VI before his untimely death in 1952.
The sterling cast is matched by a spectacular budget. The Crown reportedly cost a record $130 million, making it the most expensive television production ever by Netflix. The recreation of Queen Elizabeth’s wedding dress alone, worn by Foy in the premiere episode, cost roughly $35,000, according to The Telegraph.
In all, there were reportedly 20,000 costumes worn in Season 1, 293 speaking parts (up to 600 extras), and about 500 production crew hired across the UK, South Africa, and Kenya.
So why the need for yet another British period piece?
Some, like James Vernon, Professor of History at the University of California Berkeley, cast a skeptical eye.
What strikes Vernon the most about The Crown is its timing, coming so soon after the Brexit vote (Britain’s exit from the European Union). The strength and glory of the British Monarchy, according to Vernon, and its influence over public policy, has long disappeared.
Vernon argues that '' It [The Crown] is obviously part of a long tradition of aristocratic and royal shows (Downton Abbey being the most recent) with the fantasy of an independent nation, (one with an empire still) – only perpetuates and reproduces the nationalist idiocy that led to the Brexit vote. This is the version of Britain they want to recapture.''
That, of course, is a profound political view of The Crown.
Others, like to highlight the show’s majestic, artistic quality.
According to James Sherwood, London-based broadcaster, curator, and author of ``Fashion at Royal Ascot: Three Centuries of Thoroughbred Style,” “the final three episodes did choose to shine too bright a spotlight on the marital difficulties of The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.” “The animosity between The Queen and Princess Margaret,” Sherwood thought, “was also rather overplayed when you consider how close the sisters remained for the rest of their lives. But apart from those two lapses in taste, I think The Crown was a huge success and looked absolutely glorious.”
John Lloyd, contributing editor of the Financial Times, and previously a reporter for London Weekend’s London Programme and producer on London Weekend's Weekend World, thinks The Crown lives up to its grand billing, though, he would one day like to the see the darker side of the monarchy dramatized.
“Like most films, documentary or fiction, on the UK royal family, it's essentially respectful, stressing the Queen's seriousness, responsibility and growing confidence. These are traits which she does seem to have; the allure comes not so much from her but from the glimpses given of royal life, the dramatic and romantic side of it played up.” Lloyd observed. “It's mildly narcotic, but after a while sickly, like too much of something too sweet.” “It would be good,” Lloyd suggests, “to have a radical film maker let loose on a film, illuminating the darker passages, and the still-servile attitude much of British society displays towards the royals. “
Anne Sebba, British biographer, writer, and author of a number of books, including, "That Woman: The Life of Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor," while applauding the show's gripping and entertaining quality, does point out one factual oversight of The Crown.
According to Sebba, "Wallis [who married Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, which led to his abdication] is too simpering sweet for my taste." "She was angry at her exile", Sebba explained, this along with her humiliation at not being granted Royal status and the sacrifices she felt she had made to live with the Duke. Their bitterness was corrosive and worsened with time. "
"Beyond the compelling entertainment," Sebba said, "it’s good to be reminded of the family dynamics that the public can otherwise only guess at. How Philip has bridled at his perceived straitjacket, how Churchill’s continuation in power made him a frail relic of a bye-gone era, how the loving relationship of Margaret and Elizabeth was complicated and shot through with envy, but above all how the shadow of the Abdication loomed over almost every decision and set the tone for how the Royal Family should behave long after that behavior was appropriate."
Patrick Allitt, born in England, educated at Oxford, and professor of American history of Emory University in Atlanta, gives The Crown two thumbs up, three thumbs up, in fact, if he had another thumb and looks forward to Season 2.
"I think it’s a really brilliant achievement," Allitt told me, "in that it manages to avoid either gushing over, or condemning, the monarchy. The complexity of the characterizations is superb, as is the presentation of awkward dilemmas (like what to do about Princess Margaret). I particularly appreciated the way in which Churchill is shown to be a very troublesome old fellow, not the demi-God we’re sometimes presented with these days. "
Personally, what I found so enlightening about The Crown, aside from the tug and pull of the complicated relationship between the state and crown, amid a rapidly changing world in the mid-twentieth century, was how the liberty and independence of Elizabeth was stripped from her as soon as she ascended to the throne. Soon after her coronation, she quickly realized, at times painfully, that she now had to cling to the office the Crown with its long held British monarchial traditions and practices, however archaic and out of date they may have seemed.
When Elizabeth, for example, first approved of the marriage of her sister Margaret to Group Captain Peter Townsend, a divorced war hero, she is reminded that the monarchy must submit to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which stipulated that Margaret would have to wait until age 25 to marry a divorcee. In the end, Elizabeth deferred to the office of the Crown rather than grant the wishes of the sister she loved so much, including breaking a promise they once made to their late father, that they would always put each other first no matter what.
Elizabeth's personal liberty is subordinated, once again, when she wants to appoint her personal favorite as her private secretary, when her current secretary to the Sovereign, Tommy Lascelles, announces his retirement. She is soon strongly encouraged to stick to the tradition of the office, by appointing the senior deputy (not one of her own choosing) in keeping with the traditional line of succession.
So, even with all the gilded trappings of the monarchy living as she does in the splendor of Buckingham Palace with wall to wall servants, footmen and drivers, at her beckoning call; in the end, it all comes at a mighty high cost: Elizabeth’s personal freedom.
-Bill Lucey
January 8, 2017
The Royal Family: Did You Know....?
- In an average year, The Queen receives approximately 60,000 pieces of correspondence.
- Queen Elizabeth II was Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 1952.
- The Queen always writes with a fountain pen that belonged to her father, King George VI.
- The only house the Queen is not permitted to enter is the House of Commons, since she is not a commoner.
- The Queen is distantly related to George Washington, the first President of the United States and General Robert E. Lee
- The Queen has 10 residences at her disposal: Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St. James Palace, Kensington Palace, Hampton Court Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham, Holyrood Palace, the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster.
- The Queen's middle names are Alexandra Mary. She was known to her grandmother, Queen Mary, as `The Bambino.'
- As young girls, Elizabeth and Margaret were educated at home. They were the last royals not to receive a formal education.
- Queen Victoria was the first sovereign to take up residence at Buckingham Palace in July 1837 and in June 1838 she was the first British sovereign to leave from Buckingham Palace for a Coronation
- Buckingham Palace has 775 rooms. These include 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms.
Source: The Royal Family website; ``The Book of Royal Useless Information: A Funny and Irreverent Look at the British Royal Family Past and Present'' By Noel Botham and Bruce Montague.
Comments