An alternative story in all its glory The BBC broadcast a full-length television movie King Charles III / King Charles 3rd. According to the genre, this is an “alternative historical chronicle” (yes, from now on such a genre exists), according to the format – neo-Shakeshpearianism: most of the screen time, all the characters talk in a five-step iambic!
In the not too distant future, Queen Elizabeth II was pleased to go to her forefathers. When the coffin with the body of the oldest and longest-serving monarch in British history disappears in the crypt of Windsor Castle, Prince Charles (two minutes without the king) will turn to the audience and say: "Well, at last."
At this point, particularly impressionable Britons forgot about the film and rushed to the Internet to share their impressions. If you try to summarize their reaction for the first 5 minutes, then the Metro edition managed best. The following text appeared on the newspaper's website:
“200 years ago, the image of a sitting monarch dead was considered treason. But, alas, the only accusation that can be made to the authors of the film now is a lack of taste and tact.
Next, the frame includes all the remaining and currently living members of the royal family (we are presented even the children of William and Kate: beautiful such cupids), and begins the world-old struggle for power. Even if the only function of this power is to decorate with its presence the endless official receptions and dinners.
Charles has mixed feelings. On the one hand, he's very happy. Poor boy waited 50 years for this moment. On the other hand, he despondently reflects on the theme “Mother was too great and ruled for too long.” What can I do to get out of her shadow? Overwhelmed by these passions, he turns into a wild symbiosis of Hamlet and Richard III (this is a neo-Shakespearian story, references to the format of historical chronicles mixed with tragedy are numerous, even the ghost of Princess Diana is all in white ...) and does various strange things that make him either a laughing stock, or a dwarf with megalomania. In short, the country is in political crisis. And the Duchess of Cambridge, well, the one who is nee Middleton, requires her husband to take his eggs in his fist and throw the harmful father off the throne.
Although the picture is declared as a drama, it periodically balances on the verge of comedy. Sometimes it really feels like watching an hour and a half sketch from a humorous show. For example, when another (black, of course) girlfriend of Prince Harry explains to him that the real English food is kebab and Chinese noodles. And he is sincerely surprised: so this is how common people eat ...
To some extent, it is difficult to take seriously the fact that all the characters are real people with real names and biographies. This in itself creates a comic effect. There is almost no visual similarity. Perhaps that was the principal decision of the director. None of the artists are like their hero, but they are all easily recognizable. How else? Here comes a terrible aunt in a wild hat and turns to Charles: "Significant my!" Well, clearly it's Camille.
Perhaps the film takes place in a parallel reality... or on another planet.
This story was invented by playwright Mike Bartlett. Even at the preparatory stage of filming, the channel had problems with casting. It is reported that many actors declined the offer to participate in the film, fearing to spoil relations with the royal family and lose in the future the chance to get into the list of winners of one of those awards that patronize the Windsor.
All major British publications responded to the film. Opinions are polar and therefore even more interesting.
The reviewer “Guardian” put the picture 0 out of 5 and called “disgusting, tasteless, pretentious empty”.
And “Telegraph”, on the contrary, published a very enthusiastic review, evaluating the picture on a solid “five”.
Charles is so lively, causing genuine emotions in the viewer. We sympathize with him, we despise him, we care for him. He's pulling the whole movie.
The film, according to the author, deals with topical topics: what role does monarchy play in modern society? Do we need it at all?
The Daily Herald summarizes:
- The film fulfilled its main function. He was equally provocative, no matter where you looked at him. He made the royalists twist and the Republicans spit.
About the five-foot yamba I want to say especially. I got a lot of pleasure from watching the original, but I don’t even want to imagine what a nightmare awaits the translator, if there is one, who decided to turn this ugliness into Russian.
By the way, the reviewers did not bypass this point.
Herald Scotland wrote: Heroes talk too much. Oh, and in verse! It's a mockery of the viewer!
The Independent says, What a beautiful language! It sounds strange on the TV, though. I think it’s just for the theater.
My verdict:
Technically, the film is made at the highest level (considering that it is still a television production). But the story did not cause me special emotions. And the situation shown and all the problems raised in the film are difficult to imagine on Russian soil. In this regard, the picture does not cause sympathy. And to the level of a really funny comedy, she still does not reach the level. But you can watch for the sake of curiosity to anyone who loves (or hates) the British monarchy.
6 out of 10