I think Season 3 is easily as good as the previous seasons, no drop in quality at all. The writing and acting are top notch.
I was just watching the episode about Prince Charles' investiture this evening when it occurred to me that The Crown seems to portray Elizabeth II as something of a post-modern monarch. This portrayal of the Queen is of a person who is entirely convinced that the purpose of her office, and of the various offices of her family, is to do and say nothing, to express no opinion, to take no action other than to be visible, and even that at a great distance. She clearly believes that to affirm any opinion is to appear to reject other opinions, and that would threaten to disrupt the national unity that the Crown represents. She expresses this in various ways and in various contexts: in "Aberfan", she puts off visiting Aberfan, saying that her presence there would only interfere with rescue and recovery efforts, and her reasoning seems sound. In "Coup", she scolds Mountbatten for presuming to ask her to exercise her "unique constitutional powers" to remove Harold Wilson, and her position there is based on the conviction that the only correct way for a PM to be removed is by the vote of the people. Again, sound reasoning. Then, when Charles goes off-script in his investiture address, the Queen seemingly reproaches his very desire to have and express his own identity and opinions, insisting that "no one wants to hear" his voice, not even his family. At this point, this commitment to inaction starts to look less like principled restraint and more like a morbid fear of causing unrest by alienating any members of the populace who may not agree with an opinion. And that suggestions starts to color other, seemingly principled and responsible decisions to inaction. In short, the whole thing starts to look like self-preservation, ironically by the deliberate negation of the self. I call this a "post-modern" portrayal of a monarch because it shows the monarchy as truly nothing more than a symbolic institution, and the monarch as completely understanding and accepting this situation. It suggests a situation where a country pretends to be a monarchy and the monarch pretends to rule, and most everyone, except dotty old Lord Mountbatten and naive, callow Prince Charles understands this illusion. It's an interesting portrayal with many complexities. Just as a disclaimer, everything in this post is to be understood as my thoughts about The Crown as a television program, NOT about the actual Queen Elizabeth II or the institution of the monarchy or the government of the UK. The series, like all historically based non-documentary dramatic series, is essentially historical fiction and cannot reasonably be anything else.
So it looks like The Crown will run for 5 seasons instead of 6 as originally planned. There’s been some speculation that recent events involving some of the family members have something to do with it. It’s too bad, I’ve really enjoyed the series so far but at least there are two more seasons to look forward to. ‘The Crown’: Netflix Royal Drama To End With Season Five – Deadline
Is indeed a shame! I wonder though whether it's (also?) anything to do with it not featuring in Netflix's top 10 end of year most watched list. Perhaps they can't justify the huge expense if it's not pulling in as many viewers as hoped..
Bagehot, who was certainly not post-modernist, distinguishes between the "effective" and "dignified" parts of the British constitution. The monarchy largely falls into the latter category. The Queen has been dedicated to preserving the distinction. You make a perceptive point and the series has indeed explored the tension between the two roles/temptations.
I've just caught up with this series, one of many on the get-to list that I finally got to. A few observations: 1) I never thought the Royal Family was nearly as fascinating as most folks do. Even if the show takes more than its share of liberties with the truth, it's changed my mind about that. 2) Prince Charles is the least favorite of any royal, at least to most Americans. This show probably changes that too. Between the brutalizing treatment of his father and the subzero tenderness of his mother, it's a wonder he didn't become a complete monster. 3) Speaking of QE2, her character becomes increasingly less interesting, not to mention less attractive, as the show goes on. Not just in appearance - Elizabeth is transformed from a charming and likable, if clueless, young woman into a stolid, cold and increasingly unlikable middle-aged woman who knows there's something wrong with her but has no intention to change. The fact that her position requires that she not change doesn't make her personality any more attractive to me. 4) I'll echo the observation others have made, namely that season 3 feels more disjointed than the first two, each episode focusing on a single event while the rest of the plot threads dangle, some waiting to be revisited in a later episode, others forgotten altogether. The writing and acting are still strong, but the seamlessness of prior seasons isn't. 5) Yes, the acting in The Crown is as good as I've seen in a long time. Especially hard to pull off in a project like this, with multiple actors playing the same part.
*no spoilers please* This is so well made, you can overlook the laboured symbolism and anyway the Firm is larger than life. They could make twice as many eps and still not run out of material. But why does Tobias Menzies play Philip to sound like Charles? Are or were they really that alike?
It's more of a case that Charles sounds like Philip. Why would it be the slightest bit surprising that a son sounds like his father?
It wouldn’t be. My point is that Philip doesn’t actually sound like that. But on the point of voices, Gillian Anderson makes Thatcher sound almost hoarse from the off. She didn’t sound like that until much later. But she totally nails her physically imho.
She is very good, though it does feel a little as though she's gone straight in as a later Prime Minister era version of Thatcher (1990 ish) rather than how she actually looked at the start of her time as PM (1979)
Indulge me... What the hell is that game the Royals are playing : one dibble dibble, ten dibble dribble and then marking their faces with a burnt cork?
I think it is basically a very well made soap opera with the royals as main characters. Obviously real events play a big part in it and I like their recreations of huge British/World events. But 99% of the dialogue (at least) will be made up and most of the family are caricatures. I think it is ultimately extremely shallow and I find it less interesting as it gets closer to the present time. Not a big fan of the royal family, but it is worth watching, just not as good as (particularly) the first season.
Like many Americans I find the royal family preposterous and often comical, and for that reason fascinating. There's no logical reason for them to exist but we're glad they do.
Precisely. Lovely fags. Superb interview with HBC by Hadley Freeman in the Graudina last week I think.
