Incredibly expensive, high-quality and scrupulously filmed project from Netflix about the British monarchy of the era of Elizabeth II.
Although technically a biopic, the main character of the series is not the identity of the Queen, but rather the monarchy as a paradoxical phenomenon. In fact, this is why it is called the Crown, and not, for example, Elizabeth.
Showing episodes based on real events of the British royal family, the series constantly explores the relevance of the monarchy in the modern world.
What is monarchy - a stagnant relic of the past, led by people who are detached from reality, or a legacy of traditions and the source of the national spirit? Why is it necessary and why are people so fascinated with it? How is this magic maintained? Should monarchy change with the modern world and to what extent?
I would say that the key topic is the dialectics of the individual and the institution of monarchy. Time and time again, the series argues that you cannot become part of the royal family and not give up your personal life. Those whose charisma overshadowed the radiance of the crown or personal took over the rules, were somehow broken fate.
King Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Prince Charles, Princess Diana lost to the system. The former lived in exile, giving up the throne for love. The other one didn't marry her lover. The third married at the request of the family, and the last tragically died.
The hardest part is those who will never wear the crown and whose purpose is only to support the monarch and hang out for extras. “It’s hard to be number two in this family,” the Queen said.
The only person who managed not to conflict with the rules was Queen Elizabeth II. The last season claims that the Crown sat on it like a poured, and no one else with such ease greatness was not given. Although Netflix was a bit Netflix, fantasizing about how much of the harp personality, dancing a twist in the underground with black soldiers, the Queen gave for it.
The pace of the series is unusually slow, which contrasts with many modern projects. The cast is very heavy. And, as a result, the acting is very cool, which affected the number of awards. The picture, costumes and even the accent of the characters are pedanticly adjusted to the era depicted.
In other words, the project has almost no weaknesses.
So ended the epic story of the English crown. I remember watching the show out of curiosity and a desire to learn more about the world’s most popular monarchy. And indeed, if you try to name the “kingdoms” that have survived today, you will remember Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark... And if you say “Queen of Great Britain”, then immediately the brain will add “Elizabeth II”.
What is the phenomenon of this long-running 60-episode film? I think in the rare humanity of the main characters. Screenwriter Peter Morgan created a story that showed celestials as unusual ordinary people. We finally got a glimpse into their luxurious dwellings and their hearts closed to seven locks. Critics will immediately exclaim about the historical inaccuracy of events and characters, but allow me! If you are interested in history, there are thousands of documentary sources in front of you – take it and study it. The entire twentieth century (and even the beginning of the XXI) as in the palm.
But there is something beautiful here, namely personality. The authors are surprisingly detailed, not always delicate, using all available open data to construct heroes, forcing the viewer to empathize with almost real people. Sometimes we even forget that in front of us is not documentary chronicles, but an artistic, perfectly constructed work, where each frame wants to pause and consider for a long time. It seems that only the British could make such a movie. Shakespeare’s heirs have reinvented the ancient Greek tragedy. Where else can you meet such multifaceted and complex characters, where everyone has their own truth?
“The Crown” has already become a film classic: many awards, a brilliant cast, millions of fans and the impeccable work of the team of creators. Criticizing and exposing the shortcomings of royal power, the authors finally confess their love for one who devoted herself to the monarchy. In one of the public speeches Elizabeth says the answer: “Service is not a sacrifice, but an honor.”
Yes, the monarchy is obsolete. Many rituals have long lost their meaning in the modern world. But how important it is to remember that the monarch should not hide a function, but a living person. We have seen enough of these examples in The Crown. Life goes on. History is being made before our very eyes. Will it be so great? .
So ended the most expensive Netflix series. Due to the high quality of the visual, detailed study of images, maximum approximation to real events and beautiful and competent dramatization of events, watching this series was very exciting, and it was no less fascinating to follow the stories of beloved heroes. So, Season 6. What surprises him and what are his advantages?
10 scripted episodes are divided into two unequal parts. The first 4 episodes mostly revolve around Diana. In general, it was obvious and logical. At first glance, it may seem that the tragedy that happened to Diana, given too much screen time to the detriment of other events and characters. However, given the fact that the death of Princess Diana became one of the most famous world tragedies of the late XX century and the most severe impact on the royal family, it would probably be strange not to give this topic proper attention.
Elizabeth Debicki was an incredibly successful choice for the role of Diana. On the screen, she showed tenderness, grace, mannerism, smooth gestures, crystal fragility and incredible sadness in her eyes, timely changing into laughter when the situation demanded it. She no doubt managed to miraculously convey on the screen how strong and active Diana was in front of millions of people, able to attract the attention of everyone around her, and who became shy, modest and unhappy, as soon as she escaped from the cameras.
Quite emotionally shown scenes of her communication with her sons, vividly, sincerely, and given the awareness of the impending tragedy, also heartbreaking. The line dedicated to Diana is revealed in as much detail as possible, and the series was able to put a bold end to her difficult history.
In the remaining 6 episodes of the season, we are carried forward for a short period of time, and this gives us the opportunity to get acquainted with the adult young sons of Diana - William and Harry, who were also replaced by new actors. And, if the previously depicted boys everything turned out quite well in terms of acting (which at that time did not require anything supernatural, although executed very plausibly), then the actors who replaced them, whose responsibility multiplied, managed to do an incredible job and create chic images.
Modest and responsible William, who inherited huge popularity from his mother and who still has not fully survived personal grief, is forced to show strength of character, be strong, watch his every step and stay on top, like his mother. And the young actor Ed McVeigh, who played William, coped with the task. His William turned out to be sensitive, serious, modest, vulnerable and, obviously, very similar to his real prototype.
In contrast, Prince Harry, played by the young actor Luther Ford, is shown, as in life, more relaxed, damn charismatic, very straightforward and unable to sit still without causing problems to his family. However, considering many of his dialogues with his older brother, it becomes obvious that all this is only an even more complex mask that allowed us to abstract from reality, to close ourselves, to live the pain independently, feeling at the same time personal grief and living in the giant shadow of William, in the awareness of the crushing fact of his uselessness, but sometimes overstepping the stick and going into all serious things. And again, the bright acting was able to convince the viewer to believe in such a lively and far from sinless, but very natural image.
Despite enough screen time and even a nomination for the Golden Globe-2024 for best actor in a drama series, there is nothing special about the role of Charles, played by actor Dominic West. Yes, he coped with the task and was quite persuasive in displaying a diverse range of his emotions. However, he did nothing outstanding or too memorable.
Choosing the role of Elizabeth II such a wonderful actress as Imelda Staunton, familiar to Russian audiences for the role of Dolores Ambridge in the series of films about Harry Potter, was quite successful. However, in the sixth season, unlike the fifth, she managed to prove herself much more successful. Obviously, the plot of the series gave her such an opportunity.
Numerous deaths, one after another overtook the royal family, whether it was a former daughter-in-law Diana, sister Margaret or the Queen Mother, combined to show scenes where she was able to show emotions. In particular, how she cared for her sister and what common memories were accompanied by Margaret’s illness, are shown very effectively.
However, admiration for her acting does not mean that the viewer agrees with the position of the Queen herself. The coldness with which she reacted to the situation with condolences over the death of Diana caused me extreme bewilderment. Old Philip also poured oil into the fire, demanding strict execution of the protocol. Such polar positions could still cause doubts in the soul of the Queen, shake her foundations, which forced her to make the right decision. All these torments are very well shown on the screen by Imelda Staunton.
Another of her unflattering qualities, vividly shown in the series, is an unhealthy envy of the success of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Against the background of his widespread public support, the Queen felt some mistakes in the activities of the monarchy, and how strange it was to watch when the subsequent failures of the Prime Minister in foreign policy, despite all the horror of what is happening in the world, caused the Queen nothing more than some perverse form of joy, as a kind of awareness of a return to balanced ratings of Parliament and the monarchy.
The final is always more nitpicking than for all previous seasons, as the viewer always waits for a beautiful ending. But let’s not forget that, except for Elizabeth’s death, the story is not over, it’s here and now, and it was wise to stop it in time when the authors said everything they wanted or could. Given this, the finale looked quite epic, as did the spectacular appearance in the final episode of Claire Foy and Olivia Collman.
The question of the transfer of the throne is the most vivid manifestation of the deep crisis of the monarchy, as well as the all-consuming uncertainty of the Queen, which resulted in a beautiful final speech. Perhaps, in general, for the final season, the viewer may not have enough of the smaller series with interesting analysis typical of previous seasons, telling more specific stories and deeper revealing different members of the royal family.
However, it is obvious that on the eve of the end of the series and bringing the key characters to some logical points (the development of relations between William and Kate, the wedding of Charles and Camilla), the presence of such series would make the project too cumbersome. Therefore, in general, the finale can be called a successful completion of a truly grandiose project and a colossal work that attracted audiences around the world and left a bright mark in the huge and growing universe of quality series.
8 out of 10.
Sometimes it seems incredible how long the series Peter Morgan The Crown has come for 7 years, 6 seasons and 60 episodes, which has become a real cultural phenomenon. Traditionally, I write a review of the third, final part of the series – a new cast and the most difficult decades of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
I noticed a trend – the closer to the present are the events taking place in the series, the more controversy and controversy they cause. After all, these last 2 seasons describe the most disturbing years of the British crown. The 90s and early 2000s show how important British public opinion is becoming, and the question is whether this institution of power is needed. Watching the British royal family for 6 seasons, you see how different they are, how different they think and behave, but understanding the responsibility they have and what they represent (tradition, consistency, historicity), you understand the position of ordinary Britons and the position of the Royal family. And sometimes you can’t make a choice – does Britain need a monarchy?
Seasons 5-6 show the most poignant and scandalous moments of these years. Especially the unfortunate family life of the Welsh, every step of which was covered in the yellow press. I would like to highlight two points: the first is that telephone conversation (I was glad that it took place during this period and with these actors - a younger cast would not be suitable here) - how disgusting I think such interference with privacy (in general, the series very sharply denounces journalists who went to any lengths to get another exclusive). And the second is the famous Panorama interview: it is striking how it was obtained and how it was interpreted so intensely and emotionally. I really liked the way the Queen’s visit to Russia was shown (including the reproduction of the last hours of the life of the Imperial Romanov family – very detailed and tragic). Of course, the most heartbreaking event of the season (I put it on a par with Aberfan) is the tragedy of August 31, 1997 and the consequences (it was unbearably sad to see footage from the series replaced with footage of a real event).
As always at the height of work with costumes: this is the legendary dress of revenge Diana (almost believe that this is a real shoot), and her outfits and swimsuits rest in Saint-Tropez, and the last costume of that fateful Parisian evening. The Queen's outfits - as before conservative, democratic and very bright (so that all subjects, even from a great distance, can say "I saw the Queen") - will highlight her outfits from the Ruby and Golden Jubilees. It is also worth highlighting - Camilla Parker-Bowles wedding dress and a spectacular hat, and the famous Kate Middleton dress from a fashion show.
The third change of the cast introduces us to the royal family already at a respectable age. When I first saw Imelda Staunton as Queen Elizabeth II, I knew that the right choice had been made. She introduces the Queen to us during the most difficult period of her life: when the monarchy faces so many crises and trials that can shake the institution of power. But Elizabeth, with royal patience and dignity, meets these trials, standing steadfast as a rock, faithful to her duty to her last breath. My favorite moments are her famous Annus Horribilis speech, and the final episode, when the Queen, thinking about an irreversible end, reflects on her life and what kind of woman she was and what kind of queen she became.
Their relationship has been tested many times, but Prince Philip (Jonathan Price) has always been the main support and support of Elizabeth. Even despite the fact that now their differences are especially emphasized - he remains an active and energetic man even in old age, while his wife seeks peace and quiet. Philip always supported his wife, because “to love her, to protect her is the main act of patriotism and love,” as King George said at the beginning.
Although she appears less, but still an important role is played by Princess Margaret (Lesley Menville), who sacrificed much in the name of the crown, her relationship with her sister was not always cloudless, and life brought many difficult events. But Margaret remained the closest person to Elizabeth. Her two episodes are simply wonderful - a meeting with the main love of her life Peter Townsend ("Timothy Dalton"), and a beautiful memory of young Elizabeth and Margaret at the Ritz Hotel on Victory Day. . .
I also like the crown shown by the heir to the throne, Prince Charles (now played by Dominic West) - shown here very active, progressive, mature, hardened by numerous trials. Charles is more sensitive to public opinion, recognizes the need for change in the monarchy, and is ready for change. And as for his private life, I feel sorry for all the participants in this triangle - it just so happened that he loved only Camille, and it is sad that his first marriage ended this way.
Princess Diana (surprisingly similar to her Elizabeth Debicki) remains the most popular member of the royal family, a famous charity, a loving mother of her sons. But behind closed doors, she remains a lonely, emotional and anxious woman who decides to speak openly about these feelings (with stunning results). After the collapse of her marriage to Charles, Diana desperately seeks love and understanding. Of course, a lot of time is devoted to her relationship with Dodi al-Fayed (Khalid Abdullah), who came to such a tragic end.
Starting with the 5th season, and actively in the 6th season, the third generation of BCS comes forward - namely the young Princes William (Ed McVeigh) and Harry (Luther Ford). Both William and Harry become a new object of attention in the XXI century. Especially good here is William - modest, calm, attentive, who understands what hopes are placed on him and tries to justify this trust. I really liked how I presented the acquaintance with Kate (Mag Bellamy). And for Harry a little hurt – it is clear that it is not easy for him because of his “spare” status, but it is too early to show the difficulties in the relationship of the brothers.
And a few words about the Prime Ministers, whose weekly meetings with the Queen are the link of the whole series: John Major (Johnny Lee Miller), an attentive conservative, whose premiership fell into numerous scandals; and the initiative Labour Party Tony Blair (Berty Carvel), whose term still causes a lot of controversy.
The Crown - for 7 years this series has become more than just a series. For many, it became a real historical chronicle documenting the history of the life and reign of the great Queen Elizabeth II, who held the British throne longer than others. On September 8, 2022, a new chapter in English history began, and Elizabeth II, after 96 steps, passes into eternity, forever remaining in our memories and in our hearts. . .
The first seasons are very interesting, beautiful, you learn something new, as if the gaps between the known facts are filled. Since season 3, there is a change of actors and somehow everything is already weaker ... and the plot and entourage. But history and dialogue still hold. Since season 5, the casting of the cast is again. And if seasons 4 and 5 already cause a number of questions to the credibility of the broadcast, because there are still people who through the TV screen in real time looked at a number of those news and events and when watching I really want to believe in what they show, in parallel, the feeling that the series is custom-made, to raise the rating of live characters of the series, “whitewash” them. But season 6 is just a “crown” and the apogee of the whole idea. In the middle of the series, you catch yourself asking yourself, is this really about the royal family? Where the queen herself pours tea, and the cups are empty, opens the doors, and the bows seem to have been canceled altogether, not to mention the manner and rituals of treatment, which is a contrast with the first or second season. Perhaps this was the idea of how the monarchy itself was transformed, quietly and gradually, but conceptually. But the interpretations of events, the dialogues, which will always remain a secret for everyone, are very dubious and sometimes absurd. At the end of Season 6, you're asking questions, and are the acting monarchs and their secretaries working on the script? This is definitely an objective position, true or true for descendants who are now 12-18 years old, who are far from it and let it be like this for them. Not to mention the fact that in season 6, ghosts begin ... they have places to be in the movies, but definitely not in this (the wrong format), the viewer is rather discouraged by what he saw.
The last 2 seasons are superfluous, should have stopped earlier. Not only because of the plot component, when a number of mistakes were made by the monarchy itself (for example, the mistakes of Margaret and the young queen were shown very well, whereas further on it is more like justifying the obvious and veiling the doubtful).
There was not enough emphasis on the jokes of Philip, corgis and the participation of the Queen in this, the charity work of Diana, Harry in those years was loved for something, and 2 more sons of the Queen seem not to exist at all (yes, you can not cram everything into 10 episodes, but somewhere unnecessary detail, and somewhere pieces of history just behind the perimeter).
No comments on costumes, casting, dates and events - everything is very cool! Even the dialogues are great places, there is even something to think about. The series teaches and historical. He's not boring, he's in the spirit of the Windsors and the monarchy, movies about historical figures. There are no chases and battles, as in the films about Peter 1 and so on, this film is about another, the authors showed us “The Crown”, i.e. monarchy as a phenomenon, but got carried away and played and went into gossip, scandals ... highlighting what is also in monarchs, but with a different look at it. And so in the first seasons they perfectly kept the balance, giving the viewer himself to draw a conclusion, artistically presenting only the facts, and in recent seasons they slid into a typical series, losing their objectivity and taking a side in this story.
I would recommend watching Season 1-3 and stopping. Because there I found answers to questions (not being a fan of the British monarchy), but only then the series creates a lot of questions and almost no answers. Perhaps this is because the royal family itself is more interesting not through the prism of cinema, but by themselves. William and Kate in the series are nothing compared to those they can now watch in videos on YouTube. Even Charles and Camilla are now much more pleasantly perceived than in the series (no matter what sins they have, it is not worth it to launder them so cheaply).
I have a habit of writing interesting and touching quotes from books and movies, and here in season 6 there are only 3, whereas in the same 3 there were 28.
I don’t plan to revisit it, but if I do, it will be the first season.
But in general, I do not regret that I watched the series on a solid 8 out of 10 or even 9, despite season 6, the creators worked hard and for good reason. But please, if there is season 7, then let it be in 10-15 years.
I'm finishing watching the first season. Or rather, listen, because there is nothing to look at. Well, it's a long time. Is that really a biography? Is that all there is to show? Unbearable boring dialogue. Where did they come from? What did Philip and Elizabeth talk about in the bedroom? What did you want to convey to the audience? Some naive, childish claims that do not fit with the royal family. Is that what to focus on when making a biography? Is that a mockery? Or an attempt to humanize. Look how stupid they are even there. Is there anything else to say? So boring a biography during this period that literally sucked out of the finger what we are shown? Horse, horse racing, jealousy of the breeder... is it necessary to know the viewer? Someone correctly wrote, as if I was not watching a movie, but peeping, somehow even disgusting, I would say.
Repels the behavior of each character. Uneducated Elizabeth is trying to decide state affairs - what is it?
Darkness, failure.
After watching two or three episodes, I realized that this series is not for me.
First of all, it's really boring. It feels like chewing tasteless oatmeal on the water and without oil or other flavoring additives. There are almost no events on the screen, and in those rare moments when something happens by chance, it is presented so sluggishly that I don’t even have to ask, ‘How will this all end?’ Because either the answer is easy to predict, or I'm just not interested. I sometimes had the feeling of watching neighbors through the fence, and not watching a feature film, so there was no conflict in the usual form for the film industry. You could blame it on the fact that the series is based on real events. But even documentaries are more interesting and intriguing than this non-documentary series! For example, this summer I saw a documentary about bear life in Alaska. It would seem to be a terribly depressing topic (who is interested in bears in Alaska?). But the filmmakers managed to interest me, bringing an element of intrigue into the film (will the cubs survive or not?). And here, it would seem, initially such a graceful topic - the life of the royal family. But the creators of the series just blew it.
The second problem is that almost all the characters are repulsive. No, I understand that they don’t have to be perfectly positive, because perfectly positive characters, as you know, fly die... but as a result, the eye didn’t even have anyone to catch! Terrifyingly naive and sometimes even stupid Elizabeth, always complaining about everything like an old grandmother, Philip, mattress Albert, cynical Churchill revelling in power, Venice Scott, hen-heeled Edward, selfish pseudo-rebel Margaret ... Who could be interesting here? Except that the intrigue Queen Mary and Elizabeth Mother, but they have catastrophically little screen time to rectify the situation. In addition, at times it seemed to me that the creators of the series even deliberately exaggerated the negative aspects of the characters. Did Elizabeth, who grew up in the royal family, really share her innermost thoughts with everyone? Did Philip, a war hero, really go to hell for such a trifle as moving from one palace to another? Oh, come on.
Verdict: unbearably boring. I would rather read a book about Elizabeth II. It'll be faster and more historic. Of the pluses, I can call a beautiful stylish picture. Although it turned out to be too dark and joyless.
6 out of 10
The Crown is one of the iconic series of our time. This British work perfectly conveys the spirit of monarchical culture, behind the scenes intrigues, opens the personal life of many monarchical persons. The series is an advanced and, I suppose, objective view of the past, violating all biases, familiar concepts and ideological preferences.
The series follows the life of Elizabeth II and the British royal family over the years. Here, the viewer will meet the responsible approach of the directors to each topic, which from the series to the series is submitted to the audience. The creators carefully worked out every detail, from the script to the costumes and scenery.
Set against the backdrop of British history, the series shows not only the difficulties of succession to the throne, but also the internal conflicts that arise in the royal family and in relations with others. Elizabeth II embodies on screen the strength, confidence and intelligence necessary to govern and preserve the monarchy in opposition to an ever-changing world.
Special thanks are due to the actors who gave birth to such historical characters as Prince Philip, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and Princess Diana. Each actor demonstrated a unique approach to the role, featuring subtle interactions and complex relationships between members of the royal family. All actors, without exception, are good and at the highest level conveyed the real essence of their heroes. Each of the performers built his story and touched upon a great number of problems associated with tangible life problems. It is also worth noting the magnificent entourage that was created on the set and the original production, which allowed to create a very realistic and honed picture.
The structure of the series is also unique. Every two seasons, the time period described in the series and the actors who play the leading roles change. This rather unusual format allows not only to demonstrate the art of artists, but also shows the importance of how the whole world changes depending on past events, as well as how the forces of progress are revealed in new forms and circumstances.
The Crown is a really worthwhile project, a great example of historical reconstruction. The project, full of meaning and memories, inspires to deeply analyze your life and change it for the better. One thing can be said: this is not just the history of monarchs, it is the apotheosis of courage, strength and the ability to create your own way, independent of foreign rules and laws.
I would recommend this project to those who are interested in the history of Great Britain, are ready to see the behind-the-scenes intrigues of the royal family, love deep emotions and want to learn more about hidden stories that were inaccessible to ordinary people for decades. Of course, we all understand that this is a work of art and much that the creators show can be fiction. But it's definitely worth seeing.
I am ready to supplement, but at the same time express my point of view. "The Crown" isn't bad visually, but as has been rightly observed, the King Speaks and Downton Abbey look much better. Like the films Victoria and Elizabeth. And indeed, young Elizabeth is not shown as she really was. In real life, it was no less interesting than in the series. But not the point. . .
The young actress tried to play the role of Elizabeth, but the talent was not enough. However, the authors of the series tried to show her a worthy lady. It is a pity that the authors did not show the true character of Elizabeth, and what made her husband treat her differently.
Of all the characters, I liked the secondary characters. Winston Churchill, his wife, cabinet ministers, office clerks and employees were pretty good. Including the extras. I admit that even George VI was not the most charming. Although in the movie The King's Speech, Colin Firth played it better.
In general, the series turned out to be expensive, but the quality and play of the actors is inferior to the same Downton Abbey.
This little world where there is no place for suffering, Oh my blessed land is my Britain.
The Windsor family, royalty. Now living and ruling United Kingdom Queen Elizabeth II, after the death of mother Elizabeth Bose-Lyon became "Queen Mother". He holds the record among all British monarchs and monarchs in the world in terms of age and length of tenure on the throne (70 years, is it a joke?).
She was born in 1926 – 5 years later than her only husband Philip Mountbatten, who, having not lived a couple of months before his 100th birthday, died in 2021. One of the longest-running marriages in the history of the royal family is 73 years.
Philippe
An officer of the British Navy who loved not only water but also the sky. He was gruff and was distinguished by inappropriate remarks-jokes. Before his engagement, he held the status of Prince of Greece and Denmark, before the wedding he became Duke of Edinburgh and then quit smoking at the request of Elizabeth. A man without the right to a career and make serious decisions, who traveled the whole world with speeches, accompanied his wife to endless receptions - the fate of the unking under the Queen.
Elizabeth
Married at the age of 21, became head of state (sovereign) at 25, crowned at 27 – to begin the path of the Queen and not be afraid to put on their fragile shoulders the burden of government at such a young age – a rather bold step, and for a woman all the more so. But there was no special choice - after the death of her father from lung cancer, she was the first in the succession, and her uncle was out of business (about him below).
In the royal marriage, 4 children were born - Charles - the same not very attractive eared man who exchanged the Queen of all hearts - Diana Spencer - for Camilla Parker-Bowles; Anna, Andrew and Edward. Now the Queen has 8 grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren, nephew, niece, 4 grandnephews.
David and Wallis
Edward VIII (or David - one of the 7 given names), Elizabeth's uncle, was king for 10 months, and in 1936 abdicated in favor of his beloved woman in the face of twice divorced American Wallis Simpson (about this in 2011 Madonna made the film "We". We believe in love. For some, he is a slacker and a parasite on the body of the royal dynasty, who gave unspoken nicknames to his relatives and was convicted of supporting Hitler, for others - an exile who chose love instead of power on the throne.
Margaret
Elizabeth had an only sister – Margaret – a “rebellious princess”, a vice- or “reserve” queen (the age difference is 4 years), who was notable for her vacillation and repeatedly jeopardized the reputation of the royal family. She smoked like a locomotive since the age of 15, drank as if not herself, led a loose lifestyle (within the limits of permission at the royal court) and conquered men’s hearts with expressive eyes and a brighter appearance than Elizabeth. In such a position as they were impossible not to compete, at least secretly: the Queen was jealous of the younger sister in greater freedom, and the princess at least for a week dreamed of vilifying the royal tsatski and the status of someone who decides something in the state. But as you know, sharing power is not easy. There has always been birthright between them. The crown is the system they became part of at birth. Elizabeth is in the middle of the stage, Margaret is closer to the scenes. The eldest according to the canons of behavior was boring and dull in appearance, and the younger one was full of individualism and could charm almost anyone. Predictable, responsible, reliable against resourceful, spontaneous and brilliant. If they had changed places, they would not have changed their minds.
Margaret at the age of 29 married a photographer (he became the 1st commoner in the royal lair, and their wedding was the 1st royal, shown on TV), gave birth to 2 children, divorced after the infidelities of both and died of a stroke in 2002.
Tolerance for the royal family has hung in the balance more than once, and therefore - discussions with prime ministers every week, questions "how to do better and what degree of reaction will be most acceptable", a tough course of behavior, work ethics, a sense of duty and flirting with the press - all this is part of the service of Great Britain, shown in the twentieth century of its existence in the series "The Crown", in the treasury of which there are already 7 Golden Globes.
If all you knew about the royal family is some grandmother, coming out to people in colorful sets hat-coat-bag, marriage/divorce of Charles with Lady Dee, balding older grandson, married to a beautiful and came to the court Kate, younger red-haired (according to rumors, grandmother’s favorite) grandson, married to someone there from the series “Force majeure”, and you are curious to learn really interesting and little-known facts from the life of Britain and the royal family, then the series “The Crown” is for you. The production of only the 1st season cost Netflix an exorbitant amount - $ 130 million, which allows us to rightfully consider "The Crown" one of the most expensive series in the history of cinema. Now each episode is estimated at about $ 670 thousand (according to other sources - $ 5 million).
The Crown is a multi-part feature film inspired by real events. There is truth, fiction and speculation. And this is natural: after all, it is impossible to remove an art project about historical facts from the life of the monarch and the state without a certain amount of fiction - then it will turn into a documentary, chronicle or chronicle of times. The implementers of the idea of the project dignified and respectfully draw parallels between the course of history and the fate of its participants.
What is the Crown and what is the reality? The review format does not allow to publish all the data, but I had enough time and interest to find everything on the network and answer this question myself.
How did the Queen react to the series? The creator of The Crown, Peter Morgan, mentioned in an interview that the royal family knew about the series long before it was released, was "very excited and looked forward to it." Sources went on to claim that the Queen enjoyed the series, despite finding some depictions of the events overdramatized. Apparently, it was about the first seasons, as the royal house criticized the plot of the 4th, part of which is devoted to the marriage of Charles and Diana – they say that in fact everything was much more complicated than shown in the American project.
Peter Morgan and his talented team have done a brilliant job, thanks to which we have a chance to see significant milestones in the history of the British state, the world of the monarchy from the inside, the life of the Windsors without embellishment. “The Crown” is an expensive, beautiful and high-quality series, with a high budget, a good cast, an interesting plot and drama, deep metaphors, excellent directing, wonderful camera work and in its own chosen scheme of editing. And the work of the costume shop and decorators is above all praise.
To depict a portrait of the Windsor family unbiased would not work under any circumstances, and the “Crown” only opened the veil of mystery, creating an allegedly unshakable aura of royal greatness.
Balancing between honoring the crown and overthrowing the royal family
One of the most high-profile projects of our time is the biographical series The Crown, dedicated to Elizabeth II.
The eyes of the current British Queen show all significant events in the history of Great Britain and the world.
Although the series focuses on the reigning monarch and her family, it doesn't slip into a song of praise. There is a lot of criticism.
The series does not hesitate to show the Queen and her family members in an unfavorable light. Many aspects of her life, which she would like to level out, are shown in detail in the series The Crown.
This is what makes this series extraordinary. On this project are people who skillfully balance between the veneration of the crown and the overthrow of the royal family. The series itself was conceived as a story about how the crown manages to combine the personal traits of rulers with the monumentality of monastic traditions.
Of course, this massive project is a way to pay homage to Elizabeth II. The series is one of the most expensive in the history of television and tells in great detail about all the important stages of the life of the Queen.
All roles in the series are performed by British actors. The only exception was John Lithgow, who was honored to play Winston Churchill.
In the first two seasons, Claire Foy played the Queen. The actress has already tried on a royal role in the project “Wolf Hall” in 2015, where she played the role of Anna Boleyn.
In the third season, Elizabeth II is played by Olivia Colman, who previously won an Oscar for playing the role of Queen Anne Stewart (2018 film The Favourite). She played the role of Queen Mother in Hyde Park on the Hudson in 2012.
In the third season, there was a change of the entire cast, as the series made a temporary leap and tells about the events of the 60s.
The changes were dramatic, from the color of the Queen’s eyes, to the halls depicting Buckingham Palace, to the character of the characters themselves.
If in the first two seasons we see an insecure young woman starting her way as a queen, then later we see a man domineering and established in his role. The Queen appears to be a completely different person, not only externally, but also internally. . .
Helen Mirren in the film “Queen” in 2006 portrayed an elderly Elizabeth II and in the press debated that she will embody the image of the monarch in subsequent seasons of the series. However, Helen Mirren is convinced that the project will be better if the world sees a new interpretation of the image of the Queen, rather than her return to a familiar image.
In the final season, the role of the Queen will be played by Imelda Staunton, who many know as one of the main negative characters of Harry Potter - Dolores Ambridge.
However, in addition to the image of the Queen herself, the images of her husband, sister, children of the Queen and, of course, her prime ministers play a huge role in the series. The project involves such stars as Matt Smith, Helena Bonham-Carter, Tobias Manzies, Victoria Hamilton, Vanessa Kirby.
Also, the series will allow you to discover Josh O'Connor, who is inimitable as Prince Charles.
If you liked Downton Abbey, you will certainly appreciate The Crown. Both of these wonderful projects perfectly tell personal dramas through the prism of socio-historical events.
Excellent, atmospheric, dramatic series. Very strong, touching to the heart. You watch the whole season in one day and look forward to the next. The first two seasons are particularly good.
Young Elizabeth as Clay Foy is my favorite. She so touchingly played the young queen, who is no stranger to fun, but she had to forget about it too soon. She would like to do what she wants, but she can’t, because the crown is above everything, because it should be a stronghold of fundamentalism, justice, tranquility.
Matt Smith as a young Phillip is also beautiful. Bold and humorous, but deep down suffering from the memories of a difficult childhood, from public opinion, from the fact that since the coronation of Elizabeth, he is no longer the head of the family and will no longer be able to serve in the Navy.
By the way, mature Philip in the role of Tobias Menzies is also very good - charming and joking. He accepted his place in the royal family and became a real support for the Queen.
The Queen as Olivia Colman is charming, but much tougher. She had to make decisions based on the interests of the crown and not allow herself to be manipulated.
Princess Margaret as Vanessa Kirby is beautiful. Stupid, charming, suffering from undervalue. She loves her sister, but after the coronation there was a gulf between them.
Margaret felt sorry for the whole country, hoping for a happy ending with Colonel Townsend. Happiness sister wanted and Lilibet, but everything was much more complicated. Margaret could be with a loved one, but for this it was necessary to turn out of means for existence, titles, and she could not go. But then she blamed herself, of course.
In the role of the delightful Helena Bonham Carter, Margaret became more calm and wise, although her inner fire was always with her. The relationship with his sister improved, but the pain remained and multiplied.
A change of actors is very kicking. For me, this is rather a minus, although the move is certainly interesting. Then, of course, you get used to it, but sometimes only at the end of the season, because there are only 10 episodes.
My homage to Pip Torrens, who played the Queen's Press Secretary. I watched The Crown after Preacher and it’s hard not to admire Torrence’s talent to play a variety of characters.
The music touches to the core. For this, thank you very much to composers Rupert Gregson-Williams, Martin Phipps and Lorne Balf. This is a good 60% of the success of the series.
Despite the scandalous moments, you penetrate every member of the royal family. Sometimes it seems to us that the royal life is prosperity and happiness. Prosperity – yes, but they too are people with their fears and troubles, with their desires and vices. But they have no right to make a mistake. Every day, members of the Crown are required to conform to their status. They must give up what they want for the good of the monarchy and the image of millions. Sometimes they just want to be human.
After the announcement of the winners of the Emmy award, I decided to go through all the series that won the drama nominations. The main favorites were the series “Mayr from Easttown” and “The Crown”. I have already reported on the first one, and I will tell you about the second one now.
So, "The Crown." To be honest, the last series of the first season was difficult for me. Somewhere in the middle, I knew I had to finish the first season and change the series, so my review is for the first season. To begin with, this is a very beautiful and well-made series. The picture and editing are just shine and it is really interesting to watch the camera work itself. Well, the music here is simply gorgeous, although I did not expect anything less from Hans Zimmer. And yet, the main actress plays well, and she is almost the only member of the team who looks like his real prototype.
But that's where the pros end for me. I have two main complaints about the series. The first is an extremely poor choice of actors. Especially notable are the actors who played Prince Philip and Churchill. I will start, perhaps, with the Prince-Consort, in this interpretation, he not only does not look like his hero, so all sorts of vices were dumped on him. Here he is an envious, jealous and extremely unpleasant type. You don’t believe in their relationship with the Queen, and if you don’t know the background, then you wonder how they lived together for 70 years. In The Queen, for example, the actors had chemistry and a believable relationship (and James Crowmwell is a better and bigger actor than Matt Smith). There is a reason for this scenario, which I will talk about later.
Churchill turned out to be a dull and always bubbling old man. Looking at him, I never believed for a second that this man had won the World War. In any portrait of Churchill more power than in the serial. And especially after watching the movie “Dark Times” with the delightful Gary Oldman as Churchill. After such a performance to perceive John Lithgow in such a difficult role I can not. The rest of the characters were too dead, as if they were their own monuments. Only Elizabeth herself and her sister, Princess Margaret, stand out.
But actors are half the trouble. The main problem lies in another: there is absolutely no interesting and large-scale conflict in the series. The first and only really interesting collision happens only in the sixth series. And then comes back only in the tenth (if anything, it's about the conflict between Princess Margaret and the Queen). There are two reasons for this: first, the plot chosen by the creators to prevent them from distorting the story and coming up with interesting stories. They shoot about real people, and not about anyone, but about the royal family.
And the second reason. Format. The story is stretched into fifty episodes and the writers have to smear the plot. If you take, for example, the same "Queen" or "The King speaks", you can see that there is a focus on some period in the lives of the characters, and therefore the story looks fascinating. It could be done in the style of the Iron Lady, which was a review of the whole life of Margaret Thatcher. And it could have been even better, a series in the style of “Genius”. In 2017, a series about Einstein was released, where for ten episodes they told about the entire life of a scientist. I think the Crown series in this style, which is 10-12 episodes long, could be more successful. Perhaps changing the format of the series would be great, but what we have, I was not impressed.
6 out of 10
In the title brought, I think, the main idea of this film. The second most important thought is that doing nothing together is even better. And the third one is not bad for someone to pay for it.
From a cinematic point of view, the film is great. It seems impossible to achieve such similarity of the main characters with their prototypes, but it happened. The details of the eras the story is about are equally flawless. And it is important that in their description there is no zeal, stretches, fantasies. The feeling that the footage of the documentary is mixed with the scenes of the series.
The acting is great. There is a feeling that they have become so accustomed to the role that it will be difficult for them to live their lives already.
And the most surprising thing is the plot. If we discard conventions, then the country is ruled, of course, limited, although if anyone did not know, then war can be declared in Great Britain only by the king or queen and only with their consent. So the country is ruled by a poorly educated woman, quite mediocre in almost everything.
The main task of the Queen is not to interfere in anything and smile at the right moment.
A red thread through the whole series sews a piercing cry of Yaroslavna - I do not want to rule. Almost all members of the royal family say this. Their job is to rule. This is limited to ceremonial activities and traditional family life. And they all curse their duty. And it turns out some strangeness, I do not want to work, but I am not going to refuse payment for work.
Maybe it seemed only to me, but the archaic that the main characters defend does not help anything. The world is moving forward, but representatives of the nobility perceive only technological innovations.
They either do not understand change or try to ignore it. And at some point this will lead to the fact that the powerful of this world will remain in the world of their own illusions, which has nothing to do with reality. This is not just about the Queen of England.
Margaret Thatcher, Princess Diana and ...
How disgusting it is to get into other people’s lives. If you come to your house, be kind to wait for someone. Sexual adventures of the royal family, scandals, deaths, gossip, rumors - why do you need it? Here the emoji should be with one raised eye and an even higher eyebrow. Of course you like it, otherwise you wouldn’t see it.
To be honest, the series seems increasingly disgusting. It's like getting into someone else's life, like someone suddenly made the neighbor's apartment transparent. You can see everything, but you can’t see it. Some kind of homegrown Dom-2, which makes you sick at the thought. At the same time, it sickens even more from heroes, well at least invented.
In this series, everything is unconfirmed fiction, as both actors and writers say. But that’s not really what the series says. Clever move. Netflix cleverly exploits the fame of the royal family, profiting from it, absolutely without asking permission to publish rumors. And you would like this if you made a movie similar to your personal life, based on speculation in essence.
Nauseating. Better to read the Wikipedia page. And then it becomes clearer what is 1% or 10% truth and 90% lie.
_
But the show is interesting. There are many references to historical events. Yeah, a lot of speculation. We need to separate fiction from truth. It's a pity not everyone will do that.
Diana was pretty good visually. The actress can be seen, for example, in the series Pennyworth. Thatcher came out controversial. But Gillian Anderson is well reincarnated in ' Iron Lady'.
I wonder what will happen next season. The Queen of the series still will not touch (criticize), but it will easily pass through the lives of others. No one can touch the queen. But Netflix is even trickier. After all, the royal house can essentially sue the streaming service. A lot of it. Why doesn't he? The answer is simple: at the court hearings, representatives of the royal house will have to officially recognize some facts that are rumors, but after the trial they will become a recorded given (even under the stamp of secrecy). The royal family could sue Netflix for millions of dollars, but ironically, they can’t do irreparable damage to their reputation. Netflix hitter
The fourth season tore my feelings to shreds, made me think again about the meaning of being, why this is all, why we live, where we are going and why almost everyone suffers so much? For several days I wandered with a heavy heart, going back again and again to the insane injustice of the world, to the kind of ruthlessness of fate, of God, of the universe. And I'm not quite out yet, just trying. And to review this season (and the series) is unlikely ever will be too painful.
But first it was season three. Very reserved against the background of the Greek tragedy that plays out in the aftermath. It featured searches for Soviet spies, horses, American astronauts, a miners' strike, novels and tons of debt discourse. The suffering of Princess Margaret, the spiritual quest of Prince Philip, the burden of Prince Charles, and the Queen’s controversial decisions were the leitmotifs of the season.
The most unexpected episode - "Aberfan": the death of 144 people (116 children) in South Wales as a result of the collapse of the breed. Queen Elizabeth II only visited the village on the 8th day (I think Diana would have been there on the first day). Nothing seems to characterize this woman more vividly and clearly than this episode - obsessed with duty and decency, she simply did not understand that it is necessary to behave naturally, show empathy, and not hide behind protocols. And although she believes this to be her biggest mistake, she seems to have learned no lessons in continuing to choose protocols, rituals, and reputation over people, perhaps only until very recently when she allowed her grandchildren to marry for love.
A special mention deserves the episode "The Prince of Wales", in which the heir to the throne goes to Wales to study language and culture before the investiture procedure. There, the prince faces an outspoken hatred of the monarchy, with nationalists and Republicans advocating cultural and political autonomy for Wales. Charles is imbued with sympathy for the aspirations of these proud people and gives a speech in which he actually expresses support for them, which infuriates his mother - the Queen declares that his opinion is not interesting or important to anyone in the state or in the family. Good mother! And once again we have to exclaim: great is the power of art! It's impossible for Charles not to be empathetic, even knowing what he's going to do with Diana. Growing up in a mother's dislike - you don't wish that on anyone.
And here's season four. Young, timid, but already attractive Diana catches the eye of the Prince of Wales, combing the whole country in search of an enviable passion, marriage with which you can calm the domineering and inflexible mother and, obeying her will, pretend that he refused the love of his life (the novel with Camilla Parker-Bowles by that time lasted for 9 years!). Diana Spencer, dreaming of a fairy tale and a prince on a white horse, like many girls, fell in love - and the trap slammed shut, her personal hell began.
Writer Peter Morgan made the fourth season very feminine - the tone is set by Princess Diana (Emma Corrin), Queen Elizabeth II (Olivia Colman), Margaret Thatcher (Gillian Anderson), Princess Margaret (Helena Bonham Carter) and Princess Anne (Erin Doherty). Personal dramas, skillfully intertwined with the military (Falklands War) and political events of the era, dominate everything.
Betrothed to a young beauty, Charles almost the next day forgets about her, leaving Diana to herself - immediately unnecessary, lonely, falling into anguish in a huge castle, realizing that the heart of her future husband is already occupied. Against the background of the coldness and alienation of Charles, his unwillingness to even try to understand and dispel her fears and suspicions, Diana develops neuroses, bulimia - suffering, or rather only harbingers of future troubles, plunge Diana into a terrible state - she goes crazy from loneliness and jealousy, then and then provokes vomiting, dropping emotional tension, and melts, melts, melts before her eyes. . .
Going down the aisle, Diana knew for sure that there is another in Charles’ life, and they had seen each other only 13 times before marriage (!), but inexperienced (what a compliment to the girl!) and childishly naive (who kept this quality forever), raised on beautiful fairy tales, she believed that everything would work out. They were not formed, and could not be formed - they were too different: he was 13 years older, more educated, more serious, more stingy in emotions, brought up in strictness and with the awareness of his mission, and even did not intend to abandon his ties with the married Camilla; she is direct, bright, mischievous, dreaming of an exemplary and happy family, much fantasized and unprepared for the grave cold of the Windsors, their mind-blowing stiffness. Diana and Charles both had unhappy childhoods in their own way - they lacked the love, affection, attention of their parents, they both wanted to compensate for this gap in the relationship, but he got it all from Camilla, and she suffered from dislike and loneliness.
Paradoxically, Diana, who was loved by the whole world, could not win the love of one person whom she really loved at first, and then, suffering, she began to seek love on the side. Her outlet was children, public appearances and charity. But even then she managed to infuriate Charles (and he was also annoyed by her depression; what did she think - to be upset with the fact that her husband demonstratively does not love!) - she was adored, admired, and heir to the throne was ignored. Unsure of himself, unable to dispose of others, he tyrannized Diana for being loved by everyone, believed that she was doing it on purpose, stealing his moments of triumph - even to such lowliness man descended.
Of course, a lot of this season was invented, embellished, accents were very deftly placed, the blows were applied directly to the target, but it seems that in terms of the atmosphere, the spectrum of feelings, all this was very close to the real story of Diana. And a great merit in this actors. Emma Corrin brilliantly coped with the role, conveying all the grace and hopelessness, beauty and sadness, charm and longing of Lady Diana, who fluttered all her life between the mob that deified her and her unfaithful and almost despising unfaithful husband. Purity, naivety, openness to the world, thirst for love and happiness - all this is in the look and appearance of Corrine, there was not enough, perhaps, some mischief, stupidity of Lady Dee. Josh O’Connor was very good as Charles – you feel sorry for him and you hate him. Both Emma and Josh are strikingly similar to their heroes, even in plastic, facial expressions.
Gillian Anderson played Margaret Thatcher well and it became clear why she was called the Iron Lady. Olivia Colman does not know how to play poorly - and her Elizabeth is not inferior at all, and most likely even surpasses the work of Claire Foy. Tobias Menzies is very similar to the Duke of Edinburgh.
This is a new series, because almost all the roles are played by new actors. And the Golden Globes grabbed the same and Olivia Colman (Elizabeth), and Emma Corrin (Diana), and Gillian Anderson (Thatcher), and to a pile and Josh O' Connor (Charles), well in 2021 and the series itself received this award. There is nothing to discuss or criticize. Undoubtedly one of the best dramatic biopic series. Excellent work with costumes and scenery, excellent selection of actors, the game is also at the highest level. Plot. Well, here, as often happens in such historical dramas, in the beginning throw more facts, and then everything begins to slide into the psychology of relationships and characters. Fortunately, not too began to let pink melodramatic snot. Maybe it's in the future. In the meantime, rare historical key moments and long Santa Barbara-style salines about how hard it is to live rich and famous. It's all whining. And purely spectator for the finale of season 4 less good impressions only from Elizabeth. Because it does. Most of them complain and suffer. Well, except for the youngest fervent son and husband Philip, who settled down.
But what really struck me was the reality of what was actually happening. I'm not a history expert, and I haven't delved into the nuances of British politics. A constitutional monarchy limited by the power of parliament. And I used to think that the Windsors were like museum artifacts with no real power that the British loved and kept. But as it turned out, it is unprecedented in civilized Europe, where absolute power in the state belongs to a single person - the queen. As such, there is no constitution in the UK and so the Queen can formally and practically do what she wants. It can, for example, dismiss ministers without any written order, start a war and enjoy absolute immunity. The state of Elizabeth at first glance is not so great. About £300 million. But it has a special commercial organization that deals with financial affairs and real estate business and provides a comfortable and luxurious existence for the entire high family. In fact, the state does not pay directly for the maintenance of the Windsors, but rather pays interest for the use of real estate of the royal family. The Queen is not required to report her private income. In short, a legal oligarchy at the government level gives every opportunity for corruption. Such soft totalitarian rule. And yes, most of the Windsor family does nothing good for the family or society.
So here is a fairy tale with an end that is unlikely to come quickly. I doubt the Windsors will give up power in their country so easily.
And in the series announced two more seasons and Diana is still unhappy, but still alive.
Yes, and immediately make a reservation that the data I presented is not verified and taken from Internet sources.
I enjoyed the series 'The Crown '. But not as a eulogy to the most expensive monarchical dynasty in the world, but as a frank and very detailed exposure of its meaninglessness. Exposure with elements of frank satire. In some places, ruthless. But since the Queen herself liked the series, it can be considered that it is true, and critical & #39; layer & #39; she simply did not notice. Or maybe, on the contrary, she saw everything, but made a good mine out of habit and kept silent? After all, from the film we realized that the main thing in ' activity & #39; this monarch is the ability to listen and remain silent. Very dubious dignity.
Here is the story of the life of Queen Elizabeth II. I confess that I have never felt respect in front of this special and her yard and after watching I was convinced that I was right. Since the numerous characters in this story do not cause sympathy or sympathy. Lies, pretenses, hypocrisy are the main things that determine the behavior of everyone. And also - complete indifference to the closest and dearest, whose interests can be neglected in favor of centuries-old traditions and rules, which are in fact nothing more than moral atavism.
One of the genre lines of the series is the interaction of the royal court with the British government and, as a result, the Queen's relationship with the Prime Ministers. I must say that the authors did not regret sarcasm for politicians. The most striking characters - Churchill and Thatcher are portrayed grotesquely. The first strikes not with clarity of thought (no one is surprised by this in the series at all), but with tearful, whistling shortness of breath. The second is not a depth of mind and political foresight, but a skewed mouth in spasm and personal interests in solving state problems. John Lithgow and Gillian Anderson, if they tried to achieve external similarity with their heroes, it is shaming. And I think it was far from accidental. There is no such thing as an accident.
There is a lot of talk about Claire Foy and Olivia Colman playing the Queen. Both, with a difference of two years, received even a Golden Globe, and for four seasons many other television awards. I don't know why. The lack of emotions can be played by anyone, even a person from the street. Foy's only facial expression is bulging eyes and a half-open mouth. And this is ' picture ' does not change either when solving domestic problems or when interacting with politicians. Oh-oh, not very complementary to the acting queen look. Ms. Colman, who I personally consider to be a much more talented actress, has not gone far from her. Same bulging eyes, same mouth. But the talent, as they say, is not going anywhere - in this case, after all, Elizabeth II turned out to be alive, despite the modesty of expressive means. But that is why she caused almost panic fear – Queen Colman does not even understand the full measure of moral defection, resorting to lies at every turn, hypocritical silence, neglect of the interests of the closest people. Br-r-r!
But what are the ultimate goals for which the family makes such desperate sacrifices? The only clear answer that the series gives is the preservation of the monarchy. Against all odds! But history teaches that progress brings with it a change of state formations. To preserve the system of management adopted under feudalism is nonsense. Even if you call it a strange phrase in meaning - constitutional monarchy. This is not for us to decide, but for the English people. If he likes the Windsors, he should.
The cast of the series is huge, but there are not so many successful acting works. First and foremost, Matt Smith as Prince Philip is a brilliant, attention-grabbing game. Another unquestionable acting success is Josh O, Connor as Prince Charles. I didn’t know much about this man, but the actor managed to arouse sympathy for him as another victim of royal rules. Vanessa Kirby as Princess Margaret was much more liked than the titled Hellen Bonham Carter. She showed a palette of colors - from love to despair. Whereas in the second case we saw only a grotesque with a constant slide into vulgarity. Emma Corrin was very interesting as Princess Diana. After the fourth season, the phenomenon of her influence on the crowd never became clear. And I would like – in the charisma of the not too kinship Diana Spencer was hidden the true secret of royal power – almost hypnotic influence on the people, the ability to evoke the love of the masses. While the rest of the Windsors appeared as a group of very limited people with very average abilities, almost completely deprived of some outstanding talent in the sciences and arts. I don’t want to worship like that.
If the film was really intended as a denunciation, and not a chanting (as it seemed to some), then it deserves.
7 out of 10
After reviewing the series again, I came to the conclusion that this, at least, a worthy work.
I could not understand the indignation of the audience about the 3rd season, because, in my opinion, it turned out worthy. Yeah, the actors changed. Yes, it may have become less interesting, but I personally remember the season with the appearance of a person like Prince Charles in his youth. Here's a really interesting person, like Phillip's mother, Princess Alice, for example.
If we talk about the series in general, it is simply amazing! This is the case when it is clear that the authors directly felt everything themselves. I was very happy with the story of Prince Phillip in Season 2. Thanks to her, you perceive and empathize with the character. In fact, I think every season has focused on someone in particular, apart from the rest of the Royal Family. For example, in season 1, there was a clear emphasis on Elizabeth, in season 2, on Phillip and Princess Margaret (which turned out just amazing!), and in the 3rd, probably Prince Charles (yes, yes). I really like him.
I think Season 4 is going to be one of the most exciting seasons, because we’re promised Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana. It will be interesting to look at her acquaintance with Charles and the development of their relationship, and the solo series, I think Diana will also get.
Anyway, the show is cool! Looking forward to continuing!
It was interesting to see the royal family and very frankly. Foy as Elizabeth is beautiful. We need to watch season 4. Then it will be a complete impression.
Does it make sense to write a review for the new season, if every post about “The Crown” is trivial and predictable reduced to truistic choking and indescribable admiration? I think so! After all, this is another reason to remind those who still criminally exchange their attention for a small serial caliber, somehow incomprehensibly ignoring the large-scale and detailed canvas about the reign of Elizabeth II.
The creator and main screenwriter of the series Peter Morgan does not have a talent in writing insanely fascinating stories from the life of a monarchical family. I do not know how plausible are the paintings of the behind-the-scenes and the purity of the dialogue air, but when watching each scene you can not inhale the scenario-staged oxygen, unconditionally believing in the author's liberties Morgan.
Each series is a story of extraordinary event density, despite the thoughtful slowness of the narrative and the thoroughness of the implementation. Only one episode with the coal mine disaster with its scale, staid emotionality and aching drama can give a head start to any Oscar full-length. "The Crown" continues to fascinate with the sharpness of the dialogue, the stunning beauty of the visual range, where the commitment of the production artists to the smallest detail is elevated to absolute (not for nothing every season costs Netflix approximately $ 100 million), and the virtuosity of acting. The central royal duo from Olivia Colman and Tobijs Menzies, who replaced the charming Claire Foy and the pretty Matt Smith, became a worthy acting replacement, appearing before us finally bronze monarchs, after a series of futile torments and searches who decided to bury their human nature under the blinding ceremonial brilliance of royal insignia. And from the uncompromising and majestic power of this process, breath sometimes spirals into the goiter. Yes, Colman in the image of Elizabeth Balzac age brilliantly proved his Oscar-winning status.
The indisputable acting success of the third season was the inimitable Helena Bonham Carter, who in her solo episodes played perhaps one of the most piercing dramatic roles in her career. Oh, and how charming Josh O’Connor as a young Prince Charles.
In general, Morgan continues to hold the highest bar of his serial offspring, shedding light on the hitherto taboo and little-known aspects of the existence of the Windsor clan. I look forward to the fourth season, where Gillian Anderson will appear as the Iron Lady.
Verdict: Kulik is delighted with this swamp!!
The series is definitely beautiful. Costumes, interiors, manner of holding and speaking, similarity of actors with their characters gives a very high-quality product. From a historical point of view, you can learn something new. For example, the Marburg Papers. BUT.
This series can hardly be called a series in the classical sense. There is no intrigue, drama, the plot does not develop throughout the series, making you think ' what next?' Each episode is like a mini-film. Pretty sluggish. There are no tricks, no flashbacks, for example. All the climax moments seem to be sucked out of a finger. So it can be perceived as a documentary, although it is also difficult to call it a documentary.
Many people say that the actors are cardboard. I agree with that. It is difficult to assess their acting, since if possible and according to the life scenario (ie, playing monarchs), they should keep all emotions to themselves. So throughout the 20 episodes, we're doomed to see the same facial expressions and bodies. Almost always frozen in cold-blooded nobility.
Watching the series is boring. So I give him 6 out of 10.
2. The script does not imply that you will imbue someone so strongly that you will empathize with him.
3. There’s no interest in watching each episode, no drama, no character development.
P.S. Did Philip always piss me off? I knew what I was doing. He kept showing off. He hit the crown and hurt Elizabeth and Charles. He has a difficult fate, of course, but masculinity often changed to childishness, tofu. And by the way, the most interesting episode, episode 9 of season 2.
6 out of 10
The Crown is a very high-quality and very British project about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, who reigns from 1953 (?) to the present day in the UK.
This series is planned for six seasons, and three have already been shot, and two are available for viewing. And every two seasons, the cast will change. So I look forward to seeing Olivia Coleman and Helena Bonham Carter as sisters Elizabeth and Margaret.
The scenery in this series is very realistic and expensive, and indeed - a lot of expensive details and rarity were shown in the series, so I am not surprised by the fact that this series is recognized as the most expensive in history.
The music in the series is pleasant to hear and always in the subject, so here I personally have absolutely no complaints.
The cast. Claire Foy is a brilliant actress, and looks a lot like a young Elizabeth 2. Vanessa Kirby is also a diamond project. I’m not surprised they both got an Emmy. I’ve loved Matt Smith since Doctor Who and I’m glad to see him on this show. And John Lithgow fit in so well with Churchill that I'm just ready to applaud him standing up.
Plot. It’s a bit British boring, but in general I don’t fall asleep on the project, and I don’t see any illogical moments in the series either. Everything is written very carefully.
In general, I want to thank Netflix for deciding to do such a great job.
10 out of 10
It is not so often that works of film production, and especially TV series, can boast that they have told the world something really new and important. These rare nuggets include the series "The Crown" - surprisingly smart, intelligent, beautiful, one of the most expensive TV projects not only in England, but also in the whole world (the budget, for example, the first season of 10 episodes was more than $ 150 million).
The plot "The Crown" is based on the life of the current reigning British Queen Elizabeth II (Claire Foy) from her wedding in 1947, to the present day. Elizabeth II has ruled the country for 65 years, and the series is conceived as a sixty-episode series, so that the first two seasons affect only the years of youth and early maturity of the Queen.
The fact that the life of a monarch is not sugar is not difficult to assume. But the British (and they, judging by the series, treat their queen with great respect and love) removed the fate of Elizabeth not just as hard work, but as a cross, as a feat, akin to monastic, as a heavy burden. While the world is rapidly rolling, not disassembling the roads, no one knows where, sweeping away the milestones of morality in his path, there is a person who for decades has kept these milestones and corresponds to them, despite any fashion trends, a standard man, an ideal person, a person of impeccable reputation, who gave up his own personality and beliefs in favor of the Crown, because being a queen means serving as a link between God and the people, carrying a feat that he did not choose, but is forced to accept by birthright. In our country, this attitude has long been lost, but in England, obviously, it is still alive, and it was amazing to really feel what we do not have - the spirituality of power.
Elizabeth is a great queen, whose era will later be referred to as the Queen Victoria era, but when there are no press and politicians around, she can afford to be like an ordinary housewife, cutting roses in the garden or smearing jam for toast. Only an ordinary housewife has more freedom of choice, and education is better.
The first season covers the ten-year period of Elizabeth’s life (1947-1956): the wedding to Philip, Duke of Eddinburg (Matt Smith), the birth of Charles, the death of his father, King George VI (Jared Harris), the refusal of his sister Margaret (Vanessa Kirby), against her will, in a marriage for love because of disagreements in Parliament, weekly meetings with the legendary Prime Minister Churchill (John Lithgow). The second season - from 1957 to 1964, the stories in it are told (and each episode is a separate episode from life) for the most part personal, although there are purely political (events in Egypt, Ghana, acquaintance with the Kennedy couple). If the first season was mainly based on the game of Jared Harris and John Lithgow, then in the second it draws (not without the help of Vanessa Kirby and Matt Smith) Claire Foy, whose heroine from a modest unambitious princess turned into a monarch “with ice in the veins when necessary.”
Next seasons promise in the role of Elizabeth II – Olivia Colman.
Definitely watch - 10 out of 10.
I'll just say the series to the amateur. The show isn't loud. For those who prefer wool synthetic, which may not always be good.
The plot is simple: the biopic is now living Queen Elizabeth. The first season is dedicated to her accession to the throne and the first years of her reign. The series is run by Stephen Daldry, known for the films The Watch and the Reader.
Which I would like to highlight right away. First of all, a beautiful ensemble, as always with the British. Second, a beautiful reconstruction of the era, and again, as always, with the English. Perhaps the only question is John Lithgow, who plays Churchill. In my opinion, the actor overdid it. In his version, the legendary politician turned out to be a contentious, tense and not so wise person.
Claire Foy (Elizabeth) - the very nobility and charm. The English rose, as they say. Without excessive pathetics, she simply and with dignity showed her character. Without trying too hard to idealize it. At times, her heroine even annoys with infantileness and lack of will. Of course, these qualities are only the outer shell, under which the rod still appears.
The real find of the series is an actor playing Prince Philip. Yes, even outwardly one in one - the husband of Elizabeth.
However, all these advantages are characteristic of most English TV series.
The most important and interesting thing about this show was to try to understand, not to idealize, but to understand and understand what it means to be a sovereign. How do you feel when you have the Crown on and all your attention is on you? The British often call the royal family a firm, accused of lack of human feelings and coldness. It is their duty and their job. First of all, debt. The burden is above everything. Above all, above yourself, your personality, your essence. It is often said in the series that the sovereign cannot afford individuality. He is a symbol, an ideal, not a living person. And not everyone is ready for it. It goes with blood. It is no coincidence that so much attention is paid to the abdication of King Albert in the name of love for a divorced woman. Is it possible to exchange the crown for personal happiness? You can. But for true kings there is no such choice. Only the Crown and the cross they must bear. However, it is not necessary to make heroes of kings. This is the case when the sacrifice is made largely out of the inability to recognize that the other world and your sufferings are in vain. It's impossible to admit it. After all, then you need to find new meanings for yourself, and how to do this, if you took this idea with your mother’s milk, every second you were prepared for such a fate. Poor monarchs. Every effort is made to do nothing noblely. Is this the only meaningless thing that exists in the world? It must be nice to have kings and queens out there in the palaces. Then things don't seem so ordinary. We have someone to look at, we have someone to worship. What kind of sacrifice does that make? Well, then. That's their job.
In recent years, many historical, although it would be more correct to call them near-historical, series have been released. And with rare exceptions, the more liberties with facts their authors allowed, the more dynamic history became. The authors of the same Crown took as a basis the biography of a still living person and tried very reliably to transfer to the screen the most important facts of her biography.
But Queen Elizabeth II lived in a relatively quiet time for the UK, and in the whole first season there are simply no significant events for world history. Of course, it was interesting to see how Londoners survived the Great Smog, but the authors did not want to cover the problems of the country that had just recently ended the bloody war. And in general, except for the cruise of the Queen in the Commonwealth countries, for foreign policy in the series was almost no place.
What annoyed me throughout the first season was the lack of interesting conflict between the characters. Well, I don't think the question of whether Philip should kneel at his wife's coronation is important enough to discuss his couple episodes. In the same way, I do not understand the authors’ attention to the novel by the Queen’s sister and one of the palace employees. And such domestic showdowns take timekeeping away from political affairs.
Perhaps the British, and just people interested in the history of Britain, the film will seem much more interesting than me. But for me The Crown became a very beautiful, qualitatively staged, well-played, but very long series.
When in 1957 it was necessary to save the Windsors from the impending collapse of popular support, the editor of one of the newspapers, John Grieg, found the only sure way out - to make the monarchy closer, simpler, more human, and on Christmas Eve the British received Elizabeth at home with the help of televisions. In a sense, the creator of “The Crown” Peter Morgan continues to follow Grieg’s logic, completely without trying to explain for the hundredth time that the modern constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom is a consequence of the adherence to many traditions ... (falls asleep) – instead, he sees first the heiress, and then the full sovereign as the bearer of the textbook British dichotomy of reason and feeling. The result of this scrupulous study is an unqualified victory for Buckingham Palace’s PR office (no one thinks such a series could have been released without permission from above, right?). – Elizabeth in an outstanding performance by Claire Foy surprisingly accurately translates the sacramental immutability of her position, which turns people of fairly average abilities into gods, and the key word here is “people”. Morgan shows exceptional delicacy and understanding, masterfully painting emotional crises with hints and silence: do not expect fat gossip about the infidelities of Prince Philip – you will guess about them against the background of the dissoluteness of his personal secretary, but you will not directly hear a word. The royal family is no stranger to curious onlookers digging into their underwear of varying degrees of freshness, but truly no one has done so with such dignity as Morgan.
However, it is a mistake to believe that the “Crown” aims solely to popularize the image and role of Elizabeth and her family in the life of the country – this family portrait in the interior with a budget of one and a half hundred million dollars has a background of the brightest historical events and personalities, which are spoken as honestly as the difficulties of the royal marriage. Britain’s shameful role in the Suez crisis, King Edward VIII’s criminal collusion with the Nazis, Churchill’s dreadful thirst for power – all these facts are commented on with the same polite detachment. The narration flirts with encyclopedic accuracy, moment-by-moment reproduction of certain events in a mirror reflection (for example, during the same Christmas address, Elizabeth sat on the left side of the table, in the frame - on the right, on a scandalous portrait shot by the future husband of Princess Margaret, she looks half-turned over the right shoulder, in the frame - through the left and such examples, the mass) or allowing herself certain artistic liberties in the form of fictional characters necessary to give great colors to the general palette, but the main course for the historical authenticity of the queen does not wait for the historical curiosity of Tadelsky. Every two seasons, the main castes will be changed for greater visual authenticity, and this venerable dedication with which Morgan undertook to bring the sixty-year reign of Elizabeth to the screens, making it more accessible, understandable and, whom we deceive, interesting to more people, may well one day honor him with royal gratitude like John Grieg (Morgan himself dedicated a separate episode to him in the second season).
10 out of 10