MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS SO HIGH FUCK
Kind of a strange twist on the, "axolotl tanks," from the, "Dune," series of books. I wonder if it was intentional.
There's a scene where Lucy goes to level twelve. She watches a VCR tape. A pregnant woman is show to be strapped to a metal table in a tank of water. She gives birth to a dozen or so, "Gulpers," which proceed to eat her. In the show, "gulpers," appear to be genetically mutated, "axolotl," which are an amphibious salamander native to the underground waterways of Mexico City. Axolotl's distinctive gills are located outside of their bodies.
In the series of books by Frank Herbert referred to as, "The Dune Trilogy," there is a race of men known as the Bene Tleilax who are famous for their cloning technology. They can create a clone from just a few cells of a cadaver which can later recover their full memory[1], or create, "Face Dancers," among other things. It is eventually discovered they enslave their females, whose wombs are used to grow the clones in. Thus, the name, "axolotl tanks" of Tleilaxu.
I understand in the game "Fallout 3" the "gulpers" with fingers in their mouths are mutated salamanders, but in the T.V. series they appear as axolotls. I am guessing a writer is a fan of Dune and changed the salamanders to axolotls to create a, "literal," axolotl tank. Kind of a creepy homage to just as creepy an element of the Dune trilogy.
[1] In Dune lore the full memories of you and your ancestors are encoded in your DNA at a cellular level. (It's Science Fiction, and just supports the real thrust of the story. Spoilers, it's a story about how you shouldn't trust charismatic leaders.)
I can see any of the top 4 being the winner, they all deserved it, my favorite top 4 in such a long time :heart:
Interesting to see the parallels illustrated: Charles vs Diana post-divorce; Diana vs Camilla in the press; Diana vs Dodi and their fathers; Diana with the kids vs Charles (“I’ll just dump them with the nanny”, which is absolutely not accurate: the Emir of Qatar was coming to see the Queen, as Head of State, not Charles. So many liberties taken about the 50th birthday party: the press are not “invited” to these things, Charles did not make a speech, and Margaret was not there. And the scenes of Charles trying to manage Camilla’s “relaunch” in the public eye are ridiculous. Finally, why is the Queen again given such a dour portrayal? Overall, a decent episode, very well directed.
IMHO the first good and interesting episode in the season. And that final confrontation between Charles and Diana was just chef's kiss.
Another great entry in The Crown‘s fourth season. This episode jumps a few years ahead and deals with The Queen‘s relationship with her four children. Therefore we also get to see Prince Edward and Prince Andrew for the first time in the show I think. At least at an adult age. The episode also shows us the beginnings of the Falklands War, which was quite interesting. Olivia Colman and Gillian Anderson are as brilliant as always.
I'm mean I couldn't be more delighted with the Stevie Nicks feature
[6.8/10] I want to cut The Crown some slack here. If it followed Queen Elizabeth’s life long enough, it was either going to have to recast or start using an array of prosthetics and old age make-ups. Either option comes with significant drawbacks. I love Olivia Colman in everything from Broadchurch to The Favourite. I’m a fan of Helena Bonham Carter’s work with Tim Burton and beyond. I...vaguely remember Tobias Menzies from Game of Thrones. Regardless, the creative team made the right call here.
And yet, it is undeniably jarring to go from the performers who’ve embodied Elizabeth, Philip, and their coterie for twenty episodes and move onto an almost entirely new cast. The production is the same. The sets are the same. The writer is the same. But there is an undeniable disconnect from episode 20 to episode 21.
It’s understandable, and well within the realm of willing suspension of disbelief. “Olding” cheekily makes reference to it with the Queen selecting a new portrait for stamps and currency that acknowledges the change. But it’s also hard to adjust on an emotional level to the fact that we’re only a few months along the timeline, but Claire Foy and Matt Smith are gone, and there's some veritable strangers wearing their clothes and living in their home. It will take some time to acclimate.
The Crown does its best to accommodate us. A surprising return from John Lithgow as a dying Winston Churchill provides connective tissue between one period of the show and the next. Colman’s Queen arrives to give her mentor one closing benediction, and a kiss on the forehead that mirrors the one he gave her upon his last departure. The icon’s death helps seal that we are at the end of one era and the beginning of another.
And, it must be said, Bonham Carter is the perfect casting to take the baton from Vanessa Kirby as Margaret. Beyond the physical resemblance between the two actors, Bonham Carter has made a career out of embodying the same chaotic, rebellious, off-beat energy that ran through Margaret’s veins in her performances as the Queen’s sister. Time will tell the tale, but at the jump, the casting directors nailed that one.
The problem is that, even if you can forgive the necessary but friction-filled transition of the cast, the writing here is below the series’ usual standards. Big picture, there's an interesting theme at play. The Queen is not a neophyte anymore. She listens to her husband, to her high society gossip mongers, and suspects that her new prime minister, Harold Wilson, must be a KGB spy. She’s confident in her political and social instincts after years on the job.
Only now, she discovers via her spymaster, that it is instead the art surveyor in residence at Buckingham Palace whom Elizabeth has been geeking out with, who has been doing dirty work for the Russians. The high society fops she’s been rubbing elbows with having been leading her astray, and the unlikely, comparatively salt of the earth economist she looked upon with skepticism is, unexpectedly, more on her wavelength.
There's something there! The changing of the tides isn’t just symbolized by Churchill’s passing, but by the arrival of the first Labour Party PM the Queen has ever had. Beyond her individual political affiliations, she’s only ever had Tory PMs, and in Winston’s wake, there's a certain comfort to that. Having that discomfort lead you astray, challenging your preconceived notions and forcing you to reevaluate your immediate reactions and maybe your broader prejudices is a good tack to follow with Elizabeth. It sets the season on a good thematic course as season three launches.
Hell, it even ties into the meta elements of the recasting. Baked into the story is the notion of giving new people a chance, even if they’re not what we’re used to, because they might surprise us with how much they’re on our wavelength. If the Queen herself is willing to expand her horizons and find common cause with a comparatively common man, who are we to turn up our noses at some new performers?
The problem is that even if the story is good, the nuts and bolts writing isn’t great. All of the scenes involving the spy mystery seem overblown and melodramatic, rather than elegant and/or naturalistic. This show’s never shied away from high drama before, but whether it’s breaking in a new cast or embarking on a new storytelling cycle, the delivery feels miscalibrated here.
More to the point, the episode’s dialogue is strewn with tortured, blunt metaphors. When Anthony Blunt, the double agent art historian, is giving his big speech before his arrest, he gives an on-the-nose oratory about truth that stings the ears. The Queen’s speech at his art event after the revelation comes down about palimpsests and the like, and double-identities in portraitures leads to painfully obvious coded exchanges with the appropriately-named Blunt expressing her distaste. And her closing exchange with Prime Minister Wilson about how numbers don’t mislead, but rather what-you-see-is-what-you-get, just like the man himself, could hardly be more ham-handed if the PM was wearing bacon-wrapped mittens.
Sure, there's some juice to Philip trying to threaten the turncoat to watch his back, only for the seemingly soft-spoken art dork to turn the threat around and intimate that he’ll expose Philip’s shenanigans with the Russian-entangled osteopath from last season, another piece of connective tissue. But the whole presentation of it feels a step down from the intimate, lived-in vibe The Crown managed to hone over its first two seasons.
With any luck, season 3 will find its sea legs again. Season 2 was already a bit of a step down from season 1, despite some major high points. You can tell that the show has already eclipsed its original premise. Reloading is a way to freshen things up a bit, but also a chance for things to go awry in a whole new way. The Crown has earned the leeway to figure itself out anew, but fresh cast or not, this isn’t the most confident start to the new era.
[7.9/10] I low key hate The Crown’s Philip. He insists on sending his son to a haven of cruelty that Charles is plainly unsuited for. He yells at him for being weak. He threatens his wife with a messy divorce over it all, after having cheated on her multiple times. Sure, he recognizes the bullshit around the monarchy better than most royals, and he’s got more than a few witty bon mots. But in the confines of the show, he’s a bad person.
And yet, through it all, he means well toward his son, and he is a fair bit better father than he ever had. “Paterfamilias” is a tough episode to watch, because you feel for the show’s version of young Charles. As my wife pointed out, he’s of a piece with the subject of Saturday Night Live’s “Wells for Boys” skit: shy, sensitive, and bullied at every turn. Seeing him subjected to such cruelty by one parent, who puts his foot down and threatens to destroy his marriage to prevent the other from putting a stop to it, is gut-wrenching.
But Philip isn't doing this to be cruel. I’m on the same page with him when he tells Charles that their life isn’t the real world, as servants cut his food for him. I understand his concern that sending his son to an uptight boarding school would produce a molly-coddled twit, unprepared for the rigors of the real world. The goal to give his son a crucible that will strengthen him, give him discipline, is not unreasonable, even the results are abominable.
More to the point, you feel for the show’s version of young Philip here as well. He too is a boy who faced difficulties in the way of bullying and separation anxiety. He too was treated harshly by the other boys based on who he was and where he came from. The experience was a miserable one for him too. And in the part we see, maybe the most miserable.
Because however rough Philip’s parenting is, he is Mr. Rogers compared to his own father. In a tragic series of events, young Philip gets into a scrap with another student at Gordonstoun, which prevents him from going home to visit his favorite sister over break due to his punishment. Without Philip coming to visit, the sister chooses to fly to a family wedding instead. And the plane she and her born mid-flight child take crashes, killing all aboard.
The boy blames himself. Rather than seeing this as tragic happenstance, his already wounded heart crumples to ashes. He reasons that if he’d behaved, he could have stopped this butterfly effect from happening. The scenes of this devastated child, suffering nightmares of his closest family member’s dead body, ready to do god knows what in the lake by his school, stopping and crying in the funeral procession, are truly harrowing.
But nothing tops the trauma of his deadbeat father, the one who’s supposed to have the adult wisdom to know this was a horrible coincidence and not the fault of an innocent child, laying the blame at his grieving son’s feet. The Crown’s Philip is a bad man. His father is a monster.
Thank god for Uncle Dickie. In past and present, the man is a saint. He is a release valve for Charles in the here and now, and he gives young Philip the support he needs in the flashback scenes. For someone presented as a conniving operator in season 1, he’s a remarkably kind and empathetic soul in season 2.
But young Philip doesn’t want empathy. He wants absolution. He wants penance. He wants to wring the guilt from his bones. So he finds salvation in his labors, punishing himself by building the wall whose construction was meant to be his sentence for fighting with his bully. In that, he breaks himself down, working himself to the bone, until he cannot help but ask for the assistance from his fellow students and headmaster. It is in that crestfallen moment, that Philip finds the strength, and the camaraderie, to build himself back up.
It is rousing, even inspiring in the moment. But in truth, I don’t love it. I’m amenable to the idea of letting people work through grief in their own ways. But the headmaster, who genuinely seems to care and to want to forge a better world, could do better than allow a traumatized young man to revel in an act of self-flagellation he doesn’t deserve.
Despite it all, the effort works, or at least works well enough, because there is an inner strength in Philip which, however lamentable, these sorrowful events bring to the fore. We see it in the cold shower scene, where Philip’s fellow students hype themselves up for two seconds of a freezing water wash, and Philip stands stoic beneath the spigot, proving his mettle to those who doubt them. He may want nothing but to curl up with his favorite sister, but that resolve is there within him.
It isn't in his son. I know little of the real Charles. But in the presentation of the show, this is a boy who is simply not built for this. He wants to make his father proud, but doesn’t have that same mettle, the same inner strength that simply needs to be summoned by the hard times to make better men. For a well-for-boys kid like him, the rigorous process is a futile one, and thus a cruel one, which results only in the suffering of someone not made for it who will fumble in pain for that which they cannot achieve.
Philip cannot see that. He can only see his own struggles, the way parents inevitably see themselves in their children, without realizing that this meat grinder is not the ladder out of them for Charles that they were for him. His intentions are noble and understandable , but at some point, to knowingly let it continue despite seeing the consequences, verges on abusive.
Uncle Dickie gives the cinch of the piece. He tells a young Philip that he may hate his father now, but that one day he will hopefully know what it’s like to be a heated father and yearn for forgiveness. Who knows, maybe Philip’s dad has his own complicated backstory to explain his actions. But he earns his son’s hatred fairly here. And whatever life raft Gordonstoun gave Philip in his hour of need, it produced a philandering scumbag who seems far less than a role model for anyone (in the show, at least).
But now he knows what it’s like to be on the other end, to hope that you’re doing the right thing and that one day your child will thank you for it, or at least forgive your mistakes born of good intentions. As the closing text tells us, Charles tried to do better for his own kids, but is having his own intergenerational struggles as we speak.
There is no perfect way to do this. Everyone makes mistakes in caring for the next generation. All we can do is strive to do a little better each time. I sympathize with the Philip of The Crown, for his unspeakable traumas and for his desire to give his son the same strength he forged through hardship in the frozen reaches of Scotland. But I sympathize more with a poor helpless boy, made to suffer cruelly and needlessly, as old sins find new purchase once more.
[8.2/10] I’m reminded of two pieces of received wisdom. “The grass is always greener” and “There’s no right way to be a woman.” “Dear Mrs. Kennedy” is an illustration of both ideas at once. Two iconic figures of the twentieth century -- Queen Elizabeth and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, are envious of one another’s lives, which spurs each to try to put down or top the other. But in the throes of the tough expectations placed on each, they recognize one another’s plight and find common cause, as one of the only two people who know what it’s like to be women in this kind of spotlight.
The episode writes it all on the screen a little too much for my tastes. Aside from the final scene, there's no internal thought either woman, or any character really, has that doesn’t get vocalized or beat the audience over the head with. But the performances are spectacular. Claire Foy is superb as always. Conveying Elizabeth’s self-loathing, her attempt at openness, her hurt quality, her triumphant joy, her queen bee preening, and her deep sympathy -- nothing’s too much for Foy. And guest star Jodi Balfour does a great job as Jackie O, giving the sense of her as the picture of glamor in public, but also a wounded dove behind closed doors.
But what I most like here is the trajectory of The QUeen’s feelings toward her erstwhile confidante and rival. The swings back and forth between hating and sympathizing with Jackie, trying to upstage her and trying to comfort her, in ways that feel true to the character and interweave perfectly with historical events.
You sympathize with Elizabeth when she gets a look in the mirror at the wrong angle on a rough day and starts to feel bad about herself. So when a woman comes to London who’s the same age, but who is the talk of the town for her beauty, charisma, and education -- three things that Elizabeth is already insecure about -- you can understand why she’s so put out. It doesn’t help when the Queen Mother and Elizabeth’s own husband fawn over Jackie. And while I think the show goes a little overboard in conveying the sense that Mrs. Kennedy is this adored object of fascination and desire, it soundly sells the idea of why Elizabeth would bristle at this interloper who seems to be everything she’s not.
And yet, if only to keep Jackie away from Philip, the Queen invites her closer, rather than pushing her away. There's a magnanimousness to Elziabeth here, allowing Jackie a certain intimacy despite the fear that this woman is outshining her, and her ignorance of decorum (watching the private secretaries balk at the Kennedys using the wrong protocols and titles was hilarious). They bond over mutual shyness, over being married to strong-willed men, over loving animals. With an olive branch, Elizabeth turns a potential enemy, someone she’s jealous of, into a friend she can relate to. If the episode had stopped there, it would have been good and interesting enough.
Instead, the pendulum swings the other way to devastating effect, when word gets back to the Queen about some harsh things Jakcie said at a local dinner party. (As an aside, I love the fact that Margaret is the one who stirs up trouble with all this, being practically vindictive in her efforts to undercut her sister’s joy.) By all outward appearances, Jackie betrayed the Queen and, as Elizabeth herself later puts it, “the spirit” of their interactions.
Elizabeth invites Jackie into her private spaces within Buckingham palace, the most inaccessible and reserved areas of her home, and Mrs. Kennedy’s purported response is to call it run-down and dilapidated. Elizabeth opens herself up to this stranger, and the report she gets back is of personal insults that cut her to the bone: about her age, about her “incuriousness”, about her responsibility for the declining state of the U.K.’s place in the world. The combination of envy and apparent camaraderie put Jackie in a unique position to wound Elizabeth, and the bombs she lobbed more than do the trick. Foy sells the hell out of the QUeen’s hurt to hear the report.
But Elizabeth doesn’t take it lying down. I’ll admit my ignorance of the big Ghana trip. I thought this was a plot that ended in, if not tragedy, than at least embarrassment. The Queen felt stung by being seen as a “puppet” and wants to upstage Jackie’s ability to smooth things over for the Americans in Paris. So she makes an ill-considered jaunt to an African country that's been sidling up to the Soviets in a bid that all of her advisors, formal and informal counsel against. Ghana President Nkrumah’s self-aggrandizing reception of her only further suggests it’s a grievous error and she’s being used.
Only then, she dances. I’ll admit, in an episode that's fairly blunt, it's hard for me to perceive how a simple foxtrot is able to win over Ghana’s leader back to the Commonwealth’s side. But as with the Kennedys, it’s a hoot to see stuffy British functionaries fret like schoolgirls over their beloved monarch daring to do a box-step. And taken generously, you can read it as the Queen being willing to show respect to another leader, relax and let out some of that personality that Lord Altrincham implored her to demonstrate. Even if it was mostly for show, you can see Elizabeth practically glowing at the gesture’s success, a subtle message to her arrival in Washington that two can play at this game.
Except things are not so wonderful for Jackie, despite Elizabeht’s image of her. That's what I most appreciate about the episode -- the reveal that each woman puts the other on a pedestal to some degree, and that each struggles to see the ways in which they’re both fighting against the same forces. It’s no coincidence that the direction and editing focused on Elizabeth during the Kennedys’ visit to London mirrors the direction and editing focused on Jackie at one of JFK’s speeches. The same subtle looks and worries about a wandering eye, the same fears that she’s being humiliated by her husband’s attention to their women, reveal that however much there's a perceived rivalry, Jaqueline and Elizabeth are in much the same place.
(As an aside, it has to be said -- I’m a big fan of Michael C. Hall from Dexter and Six Feet Under, but he is pretty awful as JFK. His accent sounds atrocious, and his acting style here seems dissonant from the other performers in The Crown.)
Jackie learns from her husband (who gives Philip a run for his money in assholery), that the whole Ghana trip was spurred by Jackie’s comments. Again, the show writes it all on the screen ehr, but I appreciate that knowing ehr comments got back to Elizabeth makes Jacki want to express her contrition.
The differences in presentation between the two women’s first meeting and their second is striking. The tour of Buckingham is reserved, intimate, personal. The latter reception at Windsor Castle is grandiose, formal, showy. One was to invite someone in. The other was to show off the weight of your office. This is Elizabeth not trying to be the bigger person, but instead to be the grander person, feigning an uncaring air about Jackie’s statements, even as everything from the dolled up guards to the formal tea service to the slathering of jam on crumpets screams “I’m confidently better than you.”
Only this time, it’s Jackie who opens up. She talks about her own hardships with Elizabth, intimating the troubles at home and the reason she was so apt to want to shine in Paris. She talks about the jealousy she dealt with from her spouse, with hints of abuse. She speaks of being basically drugged against her will, all giving Elizabeth an insight into the plight of this person whom she’d formerly seen as a mean demigod. And most importantly, for my purposes anyway, Jackie expresses her regret because of how much she admires Elizabeth -- for her grace, for her leadership, for being , in so many ways, all the things that Jackie fears she herself isn’t. There's a subtle implication that on both sides of the equation, these efforts to outshine or put down was a product of each woman looking at the other, and feeling less than.
That is profound and pathos-ridden. As I’ve said before, I see the central mission of The Crown to be to reveal the underlying humanity of these distant figures. And it’s hard to imagine what could do that better than showing that even these exalted, iconic women feel measured by one another, pitted against one another, envious of one another, when each is facing battles public and private that give them common cause and common understanding. It is, like so much on this show, a metonym for broader societal changes and societal pathologies that are still with us today.
The end result of it all is sympathy and a desire to support one another. It doesn’t excuse Philip, but I take Elizabeth’s quip on happiness to indicate that while she still bristles at Philip’s flirty behavior and general unruliness behind the scenes, she recognizes in Jackie that it can be worse. And so when those grim events of 1963 take place, she sees Jackie’s strength and defiance in the famous deliberate choice to wear the same outfit with her husband’s blood on it. She uses the levers of state to pay tribute to her and to her loss. And she writes a personal letter, not as a rival, but as a friend, as one of the few people who can understand what it’s like to feel the pressures of that envied but unenviable position, as an icon, and as a woman.
Therein rests the cinch. With the weight of gendered expectations, both of these admired women feel like they don’t measure up and yearns for the other’s life. But when they get to see it up close, truly understand what it entails, in the end, all they can feel is kinship.
Mathew Goode is an excellent actor, I like him, but he's completely miscast in this, sadly
[7.4/10] Everyone sucks here. Some people suck to varying degrees, but everyone’s in a bad way to some degree or another. It’s a weird episode, one that isn't bad by any stretch, but plays in spaces that don’t do as much for me as a viewer.
Let’s go with Tony, since he was prime on my hate train after his debut episode. Let’s list the shittery in (vaguely) ascending order: 1. Saying unkind things to Margaret when he knows she’s in a vulnerable place 2. Allowing for snipes behind her back 3. Marrying her just to earn his mother’s admiration and 4. Cheating on her constantly, to the point that he knocked up one of his friends, and didn’t say a word about it (so far as we know).
In truth, I feel a little bad for Tony. They give him some pathos here, with the revelation that he was the unloved son, left behind by his social climbing mother , with the implication that he was disdained for his father’s actions and for his disability which he hides. The guy is messed up from all of this, and it doesn’t excuse his behavior, but it helps explain it.
Margaret’s in the same boat. She says many an unkind thing to Elizabeth. She wants to have the wedding to end all weddings so she can top her sister. And while she never cheats (so far as we know), she’s essentially only getting married because Peter Twonsend is, and she wants to beat him to the punch out of a sense of revenge
But she’s also hurt,and people who are hurting do stupid things. She’s not wrong to be bitter at her sister, even if her words can be cruel. And the prospect that after everything else, Margaret had to wait six months to announce her engagement because Elizabeth is pregnant struck me as utterly absurd. The Church of England won’t let her marry? Stupid, but whatever, the Queen’s hands are tied. But some issue of “protocol” preventing dueling announcements is just ridiculous.
Suffice it to say, I continue to feel the way I’ve long felt about Margaret on The Crown -- that she’s an overgrown child in how she acts, but also one who has plenty of legitimate grievances and reason to feel sad.
That just leaves Elizabeth, who occupies her usual more ambiguous role here -- does she want to look out for ehr sister or support her, or knock her down as part of the cold war they’ve been having? It’s interesting to see her be outwardly supportive, but also watch Tony’s bohemian friends mock the dignity and tradition of the palace (which, in fairness, is something I’d probably do), and so look to nip this whole thing in the bud. Her hunting for dirt on her sister’s fiance allows her to occupy both spaces.
I’ll admit, I find the implication that the stress of finding out all the cruddy things that Tony has done causes Elizabeth to go into labor a rather odd thing. But the show does the ensuing sequence well, making points about the strangeness of the process to modern eyes without having anyone vocalize it.
I appreciate that, because very little in this episode is subtle. It lays on the bit with Tony’s issues with his mom very thick. It doesn’t hide the ball with Margaret’s motivations for the marriage in the slightest. And Elizabeth’s disgust for the whole thing is made pretty plain as well.
But what I do appreciate is the ambiguity of the closing scene between the two sisters where Elizabeth sidles up to telling Margaret what she knows about Tony, but can't pull the trigger. Some mean words are exchanged. Elizabeth rubs it in that Margaret could have had what she wanted but wasn’t willing to give up the privilege. Something tough but fair, which ties into one of The Crown’s recurring themes -- The Queen wishing she could just be a comparatively normal person and wife and mother rather than having to become The Crown. And Maragert turns the comment around, saying it’s ironic that her sister enunciates a desire to be invisible because e she’s somehow able to pull that off despite wearing the crown, a comment that ties into Margaret’s own need to “shine”, as her mother puts it, and her pride in doing so, that's been a recurring theme for her too.
Despite the harsh mutual insults, Elizabeth doesn't spill the beans on Tony infidelities. I initially took it as a kindness, or at least an act of measured forbearance. Elizabeth already feels blamed for the dissolution of Margaret’s first pseudo fiance. She doesn’t want to be the slain messenger again. And so maybe, she holds back because, even though she could blow up Maragret’s engagement and relationship, she doesn’t want to. She wants to let Margaret live her own life and doesn’t want to be seen as the culprit for another relationship down the tubes.
But my wife suggested a more sinister explanation. Maybe her non-commenting is a “you deserve this”-style fuck you to her sister. Maybe it’s not a kindness, but a means of damning Margaret to this life she’s defiantly choosing, with the knowing expectation that she’ll have to suffer the consequences for her own poor judgment.
It’s fair to read it either way, and in truth, there's probably some of each, which is a sign of solid character writing. This is certainty a strange episode, focused on more melodrama and adults acting like teenagers than The Crown usually indulges in. But there's also no one to quite root for, which is, in a story about the pampered clucking at the slightly-less pampered, usually a good sign.
[7.6/10] To quote an equally regal television program, Agents of Shield, it turns out that the former King Edward is a “big fat friggin’ Nazi.”
Frankly, the episode works better as almost a news program or a recitation of historical events more than a drama. I knew through cultural osmosis that Edward and Wallis had cozied up to the Germans in some form or fashion over the years. I did not know that they fed intel to the Nazis, that Edward wanted to be reinstalled on the throne as a puppet king, that they’d seen concentration camps and continued to sidle up to Hitler and company, and that he encouraged the Germans to keep blitzing his home country to soften them up for “peace.”
Fuck him.
If I haven't made it clear in these write-ups, I think it’s important to separate these historical figures as they appear in a television show that needs tidy stories and drama from their real life equivalents. I’m sure many of the events that The Crown depicts don’t align with reality, but take advantage of poetic license or the usual excesses of adaptation to make things more palatable and interesting. So when I gripe about Philip’s attitude or chuckle at Tommy Lascelles’ stuffiness or the like, I do so as though they’re fictional characters, in full acceptance of my general ignorance about the real folks.
But not with Edward. I’m no historian, but there’s credible information in the public record to support this. And even if the worst isn’t true, enough is damn the man. So fuck him.
Honestly, that's the most compelling part of “Vergangenheit”. This is bombshell information to ignorant Americans like me more than half a century later. The history comes alive from seeing the aghast reaction of the Queen Mother, or the events illustrated with Tommy’s voice over. Reaction shots and camera angles and haunting music help sell the magnitude of the reveal. But by god, the information itself is plenty.
The show does a good job of selling the magnitude of the information through the grammar of television long before we know the details. The Germany flashback is unique enough to catch the audience’s attention. And the urgency with which the details are raced from desk clerk to supervisor to the highest levels of government tell you this is some big deal stuff. Hell, the simple fact that they brought back John Lithgow and Jared Harris to reprise the roles of Churchill and King George is a sign. The way it’s talked about with wide eyes and hushed tones sacross the government really leaves you salivating to learn the facts, however horrid they may be.
But truthfully, the character drama doesn’t do much for me here. On paper, I think there’s something intriguing about Elizabeth being a devoted Christsian who wants to practice Christlike forgiveness and struggles to do so given what she learns. You can see her noble devotion to ideas of grace and second chances, and the comfort she finds in religion as a place where she doesn’t have to be The Crown, but can just be “another humble Christsian.”
I have a couple problems with it though. For one, her catalysts for all of this is Billy Graham, whom I mostly know for his antisemetic comments, and his stances against women’s rights and LGBTQ rights. So him as the humble bastion of piety from North Carolina who moves the heart of the Queen doesn't do much for me, and if anything, makes his counsel seem like snake oil. Now maybe that's the point. Maybe Elizabeth is swayed by this man’s decent words without knowing the dark parts of his heart the same way she was with Edward, but you don’t get many hints of that in the text.
More to the point, the dilemma doesn't resonate with me once we find out what she finds out about Edward. I believe in forgiveness and second chances. And still, maybe I’m simply not as pious as Elizabeth is, but it seems like an ethical slam dunk to basically excommunicate him given his crimes. I completely buy that Elizabeth would wrestle with it given her mentality, but it’s hard to feel that in the same way when I’m mainly just aghast at Edwarad’s sins. Hell, the second most I’ve liked Philip (after his penitent Xmas address from overseas) is him telling his wife that she 100% did the right thing, (and the Queen Mother and Tommy agreed over drinks, no less!)
The show does suggest a little divine retribution for Edward. Just when he’s positioning himself for a return to public life, just when he thinks he’ll be able to live a life of purpose again, this damning revelation spills out and dashes it all. I don't really feel for him, since my sympathy for those who sympathize with Nazis is pretty slim, but you do feel his ennui living a life of opulent dullery, a bored showpony paraded about in vapid social engagements.
That's the one area of the divine angle here that really works. Elizabeth cannot forgive Edward, but pray’s for him to recognize the error of his ways, that they can forgive themselves. And maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I take his sullen look in the mirror to be a literal reflection of that, a recognition that this is a mess he made himself, that if insipid card games, silly costumes, and dull parties are his personal hell, he punched his own ticket with his sins against country and countrymen. That is a sad fate, even if it’s a deserved one.
Anyway, fuck him.
[7.3/10] This is a weird episode. It seems meant as a resolution to the marital difficulty storyline that's been percolating through the opening of this season. The shit finally hits the fan, as the Parkers’ divorce goes public and suddenly the shining good feelings that seemed to wash over both Elizabeth and Philip are overwhelmed by the torrent of rumors and speculation that follows in that wake.
The problem is that The Crown all but gave away the game in the opening of the season. We already saw Elizabeth and Philip sniping at each other in the aftermath of all this as the opening scene of the season. So there’s not much in the way of dramatic tension here. We know that things will explode. We don’t know exactly how, but given what was set up in the prior two episodes, it’s not hard to guess. SO much of this episode feels like playing out the string.
There is some personal investment in seeing Elizabeth react to Philp’s affairs not just being a personal challenge, but now being a public humiliation that she’s forced to deal with and have paraded around in the papers. Once again, since The Queen must be reserved in everything, seeing Claire Foy emote or betray clear hurt, anger, and bewilderment as this state of affairs, while putting on an air of placidity on the surface makes for a masterclass of acting.
Otherwise, though, there’s a lot of shots of people looking pensive on beautiful vistas, or a score of grand drama playing over a tabloid newspaper story. As much as I admire the production design and impeccable cinematography of The Crown, it all starts to feel like a bit much.
I also find Philip’s reaction to Mike Parker kind of odd. The tenor isn’t “Well, we’re both shits and it got out. Sorry, but you have to take the fall on this.” Instead, it’s for him to chastise Mike for writing about it and “breaking the rules.” It’s not crazy behavior from a self-absorbed philanderer like Philip, but I don’t know. Something about the presentation makes it feel like the show’s on his side at least a little, and I have trouble sympathizing with the side of “Shame on you for writing an indiscreet letter that shined a light on our misdeeds.”
That said, strangely enough, I found the non-royal parts of this one much more interesting. I’ll admit my ignorance of modern English political history once more. But purely within the confines of the show, I find the persona of Anthony Eden fascinating. The idea that he wasted his best years in Churchill’s shadow, waiting for the man to retire, and by the time he was too desperate and in too ill-health to make an impact as Prime Minister is its own kind of tragedy.
Elizabeth seems to recognize that. And while the man’s fiery speeches show he’s already doomed, you get the sense that he was played by a conniving operator in Harold MacMillan, which only makes his downfall seem more like a sad end. Despite his flaws and mistakes, he gets a certain absolution from the Queen for his predicament, which makes us apt to sympathize with him too. It doesn’t excuse, you know, an unnecessary war and supply crisis that he had a firm hand in, but it makes him an interesting and pathos-ridden character on a personal level.
ALso outside of the explicitly royal circle, Eileen Parker is kind of my hero. I’ve made no secret of my disdain for prickly Tommy Lascelles. So seeing him try to come out of retirement to lean on ehr to delay making any public announcement of the divorce, only for her to tell him off as a shill and a sucker, is a hell of a hoorah for me as a viewer.
More substantively though, despite sympathizing with Elizabeth, I like the way she kind of tells of The Queen even more. I’ll confess, at one point in this episode, I told my wife that it was hard to take some of this interpersonal conflict as seriously as high drama when there are legitimate national and international crises going on just beyond the Queen’s windows. So there’s something roundly satisfying about the Queen personally asking this (I think?) commoner to delay her announcement as her favor, only to be told that she’s already suffered through years of any unhappy marriage as a “favor” t o the Crown, so as not to disrupt thing during Margaret and Peter’s to-do, and that Elizabeth is ignorant of how many such royal “favors” have wrecked lives and marriages to date.
I kind of love that. The interpersonal issues among the royals are interesting from a television narrative perspective. But I like Eileen’s part of this story as an acknowledgement and rebuke that such drama rests atop real people, who aren't insulated by the same kind of wealth and privilege, who have to live their far more regular lives in the shadow of the monarchy’s needs and pleasures. To have some say “enough is enough” and do what they need to do for their own sanity and well-being in that situation is courageous and low-key inspiring.
All that said, I do feel for Elizabeth in this. It’s not subtle, but I like the scene where she welcomes the new prime minister who laments “Eden’s War”, only for the Queen to balk a little, remind MacMillan that he supported the war, and make the point that one must “clean up their own mess.” She’s clearly dressing down MacMillan when she means to dress down Philip, who’s inconveniently absent. But I like that as a nice bit of psychological projection, showing how the personal bleeds into the political.
That said, I don’t know how I feel about the resolution to all of this. The conversation between Elizabeht and Pihlip in Lisbon is still an excellent bit of acting and dialogue-crafting. But it doesn’t have that much more power now than it did in the season premiere. We already knew that Philip had been having affairs. The firm details don’t matter that much. So while I don’t mind watching it again, it’s not as if the context changes much the second time around.
But what I find particularly odd is that the solution to the problem is...giving Philip the royal title of prince? Okay, I guess? The dialogue tries to dress it up, basically saying that Philip wants a title to command some respect from the palace stagehands who infantilize and micromanage him. But it’s a strange ransom to not cheat on your wife, especially since Philip seemed to already have his “Come to Jesus” moment about the error of his ways in the last episode.
I don’t know how it solves anybody’s problems. Maybe that's the point. Maybe it doesn’t, and we get plenty more of this stuff in the episodes to come. (I wouldn't really look forward to that -- three episodes is plenty.) But considering it’s the climax these three episodes have been building too, the connection between the marital issues the Windsors have been aching and the answer of basically giving Pihlip a promotion seems strained. (Plus hey, I’m sure it’s true-to-life, but it doesn’t help that Philip looks pretty darn silly in his floofy crown and furry cape.)
His closing conversation with Mike is a little more interesting -- an acknowledgement that a certain era is over. And the commentary about Elizabeth’s views of her children as mere appendages of the crown, reminders of her own death and replacement, is intriguing as a possible future tack toward exploring that part of her world -- something that's been mostly kept to the side until now. But the suggestion of more kids as a response to all this also feels like a peculiar connection to make.
Now look, this is history (at least kind of) not fiction. The writers are stuck with the events as they happened. But the way they draw lines between personal or psychological reactions and major public developments lacks a certain narrative catharsis. Framing matters. Juxtaposition matters. The suggestion of cause and effect matters. People are strange creatures. Their choices and reactions don’t always fit neatly into narrative boxes or straightforward plots. But as a three-episode arc at least, The Crown struggles to weave its historical facts into a comprehensible, meaningful, or complete story.
Well Mike, your childish bragging has cost you everything. The background music in this episode was perfect.
[7.6/10] It’s nice to get an episode focused on Philip’s personal journey. He’s had subplot before, but making him the protagonist for an episode allows the series to dig deeper, explore what’s going through his mind with more conviction. I haven't loved The Crown’s Philip as a person, but I have found him fascinating as a character: a compelling mix of personal shittery but professionally in favor of royal reform, with a good smartass wit to go with it. It’s too much to call him an antihero, but he has enough of a mix of good and bad qualities to make him stand out enough to support the hour.
What I find particularly engrossing about “A Company of Men” is that, by god, the time away really did settle Philip. I don’t know if it’s exactly in the way that either Elizabeth or the Queen Mother intended. But by hook or by crook, he comes back not merely chastened from the experience, but appreciative of what he has and even homesick. I imagine the real life Philp’s transition wasn’t nearly as neat or cinema-ready (if he had such a transition at all). But as a character story, I love the idea of someone going away only to realize the value of what they left behind.
To the point, as another character describes it, Philip and his private secretary, Mike, are on what is basically a “five month stag party.” They pal around with the seamen aboard the royal yacht. They canoodle with the local indigenous population, which is uncomfortable at multiple levels. They smirk through various official functions and make goo goo eyes at reporters and just generally act like frat boy pricks.
It causes trouble at home. And in an episode that puts the spotlight away from Buckingham Palace, it’s nice to see someone only tangentially connected to the Royal Family (at best) get to lead the B-story. Mike’s wife, Eileen Parker, has had enough and is ready to file for divorce, only to find that she needs hard proof of Mike’s infidelity or worse to be able to get one.
I like the choice to show her trials and travails to wrangle what ought to be hers by right on multiple levels. For one, it’s a fascinating case study of the institutional thumb on the scales of marriage in the 1950s. For another, it’s a good vehicle to explore the culture that permitted, if not promoted, this sort of behavior for powerful men and left few avenues for their spouses to do anything about it. For a third, it shows the royal apparatus that sees one woman’s visit to a solicitor work its way through a byzantine collection of amateur tennis players and ladies who lunch back to the Queen’s private secretaries. And it neatly sets in motion the letter that presumably set up the blow-up between Philip and Elizabeth that opened the season despite Philiip’s apparent change of heart at the end of this episode.
That change of heart comes from a reflection on his own childhood and difficult life that's prompted by the reporter who used some long distance flirting to set up a veritable journalistic ambush. I like the show highlighting the fact that Philip’s own father had his mother committed and then abandoned the family to take up with his mistress. The revelation both establishes that Philip didn't exactly have the best role model himself for being a good partner, and it forces him to reflect on how that situation made him feel as a son, in a way he doesn't want to repeat.
So when we see a little bit of nobility from him, using his status to rescue and return a local sailor, it’s cause to reflect. He sees a father welcomed home. We see him look at happy children, basking in joy with their parents. We see him...implied to take advantage of the indigenous’ women’s generosity. So it’s nice that the show doesn't simply pretend that he woke up one morning and completely changed his ways. But the experience gives him a lot to think about.
One of my favorite scenes in the show happens when Philip and Elizabaeth trade Xmas radio addresses. Both of them can’t exactly speak frankly with an audience of millions. But each also expresses their love and longing for one another amid their separation. The fact that they’re unable to connect by phone makes this one of the few opportunities to speak when they know the other will be listening. Philip speaks about his regret and missing his family, understanding what he has, even if it’s not in so many words. And Elizabaeth’s revised opening statement that basically gives him an open invitation, is reservedly and unreservedly sweet, in that characteristically English way. Taken with her note, it reminds him that whatever the flaws of the family he grew up in, he has a new one, and the chance for it to be a better one.
Obviously, there’s still storm clouds on the horizon. But despite the rocky waters to come, it’s nice to see smartmouthed, bristling Philip have a chance to pause, reflect, and reevaluate, and maybe strive to do better than his own father ever did for his family.
Yes, that's the Queen I want to see! At first I was afraid she gets overruled in her choice of the private secretary and yet again fails to stand her ground - but in the end, in a far more urgent matter, she had the guts to speak up and finally act like the ruler of Great Britain. I love that!
And the last dialogue between Elizabeth and Philip was hilarious.
Really wanted to enjoy this, found it very boring
I felt so many things watching this. It's stunning, it's twisted, it's weird, it's hot. One thing's for sure, it'll be on my mind for quite some time.
3 Thoughts After Watching ‘The Little Mermaid’:
Halle Bailey IS Ariel. She was absolute perfection. From voice to vibe, she captured her essence impeccably. I believe a star has officially been born.
Melissa McCarthy had veryyy gargantuan tentacles to fill. And I think Pat Carroll would’ve been incredibly pleased with what she did with her sea witch.
I thought they built upon the original film’s story in all the right ways. Fleshing it out to make a little more sense. Providing more substance. While not everything was picture perfect, it worked and gave fresh magic to a beloved story.
Bonus Thought: I thought it was a fantastic movie to look at, especially under the sea. Gorgeous colors and visuals. Eye candy all around. And that includes Jonah Hauer-King. :pound_symbol:snack
I can't believe Jessica Wild did not win this challenge, I like Kandy but her runway wasn't the best tbh
lmao that dance sequence to AC/DC was everything haha :joy:
A movie meant to be fun and silly. It achieves the goal perfectly, an excellent option for when you just want to enjoy something without thinking.
Heard of the 80/20 rule? Okay, let's park that til later then...
Julia Roberts was as big a female star as we'd seen back in 1997. That was her decade. From Pretty Woman to Notting Hill, she was the world's sweetheart. She had some stickers along the way but nobody held them against her. She was untouchable.
The best evidence of that is this film. She plays an absolutely atrocious bitch in it - yet... it's deemed fine because it's her.
Every decade has an actress who tries to out-do Katharine Hepburn. The sparkle of Bringing Up Baby is what the editor of this film is looking to capture. Roberts is gorgeous in that girl-next-door-with-a-million-watt-smile way. And Dermot Mulroney provides that handsome but dumb male lead that all good rom-coms cast.
The problem watching 20 years after the fact is that the character Julia Roberts plays is a grade A bitch. First round draft pick bitch. And it's impossible to forgive her for her actions.she spends 80% of the running time being atrocious and the final 20% is spent accepting her actions and allowing redemption - with completely out of character reactions to her terrible deeds. Believability = zero.
The film has some positive points - a crowd pleasing rendition of Say A Little Prayer (one of life's perfect songs). And the standout high point of the movie by a clear margin, Rupert Everett's portrayal. The saving grace of this film without question.
At its release I loved this film for its witty take on a romcom. Watching now is a tough task.
6/10
I'll start off by saying that I did enjoy this movie, and I'm satisfied with the experience it gave me.
Other than that, I'm a little disappointed in the way the story is told.
the first half of the movie is extremely confusing. The pacing is so fast, it felt like watching the trailer of the movie instead of the actual picture. It was such a bizarre experience, I really was wondering why was it going so incredibly fast, it was super hard to keep up and grasp all the info since I didn't actually know Elvis's story at all before this movie.
Also, the scene where he is walking on the street and Doja cat starts playing, no. Just no. It doesn't mix AT ALL with the rest of the movie, it's so out of place in my opinion. Thank God it was pretty much the only moment when they went modern with the music, the rest was kept in line with Elvis style.
So, first half of the movie, really confusing, most of the info felt like it was thrown at my face instead of told and the cinematography felt really intrusive.
Second half of the movie? It got better, because they actually took their time, focusing on less events and giving them their due screen time. Narrating stuff with more calm and detail, the scenes definitely felt more developed and important, the way the first half of the movie should have been told pretty much.
Overall it's a good movie, the story gives a decent look into Elvis.
The actor for Elvis is insane, he looks precisely like him, he acts and moves like him, I've seen videos after the movie and the amount of detail is insane.
It's a worthy experience, but the first half of the movie should really be slowed down A LOT.
Really great performances, but the movie is pretty messy. It genuinely felt like I was watching a movie trailer that was almost 3 hours long.
The movie isn’t completely useless but it is a disappointment. Not having the rights to Bowie’s music is obviously a problem but the main issue is that the film is quite boring. Flynn is okay as the lead but the script doesn’t let him bring the character of Bowie to life. A better movie about the singer will one day be made... I hope... so you can be forgiven for passing this one by.
Starts very well, the way they handle the death of Boseman is very tastefully done (so many well executed emotional beats) and I like the new conflict that they set up, which is a little more grey and intelligent than the usual blockbuster, like the first movie. The new villain is an interesting character, and I quite liked the creativity that went into the design of his powers and world, but for the love of god, never show me those goofy wing boots again. From the second act onwards, the movie starts to get bogged down by the Marvel machine, i.e. the movie slips out of Coogler’s hands. It’s unfortunately forced to function as a backdoor pilot for Disney + shows and used to drive the corporate machine forward, instead of focussing on the development of its own premise and character arcs. The way it rushes through the arcs of Okoye, Shuri and Namor leaves a lot to be desired. Meanwhile, cutting/writing out Riri, Martin Freeman and Julia Louis Dreyfus would improve the overall cohesion and pacing a lot. What doesn’t help either is that the action and visual effects get increasingly worse and worse as the movie goes on, to the point where we again have an ugly third act on our hands, which includes some of the most hideous looking costumes the MCU has ever put out. Moreover, the soundtrack is kinda bland this time around. It’s not like Kendrick et al. were putting out their best material for the first film, but the music here is just so vanilla and forgettable. Finally, I’m not enitrely sure what the script is trying to communicate on a deeper level, besides being a general statement in favour of diplomacy. If it’s meant to be just that, I don’t think this is anywhere as bold as the first movie. Not that it needs that in order to be good, but it’s another layer stripped away from what made the first movie special. What saves the film ultimately is a lot of its craft: the directing, worldbuilding, acting, score, cinematography, costume and set design (underwater world looked great, much better than Aquaman IMO) are all very well handled and stand out in the blockbuster field. It has those strong foundations in place that make it hard to produce a flat out bad Black Panther film, but man does this movie also show that Marvel is its own worst enemy at this point.
5.5/10
.
