Showing posts with label Helen Mirren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helen Mirren. Show all posts
Monday, September 03, 2007
Helen Mirren - no lunch with the Queen
As I suspected the Evening Standard's claim in Londoner's Diary that Helen Mirren has lunched with the Queen is made up. Ken McReddie, who represents the actress, tells me this meeting has not taken place. I therefore doubt that much else in the piece is correct - see labels for original report.
Helen Mirren and the Queen: Did they?
The Evening Standard's The Londoner’s Diary gossip column reports confidently that HM has not seen The Queen – first shown on British TV last night. This contradicts my information – she viewed the movie some time ago and found it irritating in places but not entirely inaccurate – hence the warmth extended to her celluloid doppelgänger Helen Mirren through the media. The Queen will never endorse a movie beyond acknowledging Mirren's great success.
Asked by the Chicago Tribune on August 28 whether she thought the sovereign had watched Stephen Frears’ movie, Mirren said: “I don't know directly. I can't imagine that she didn't. I very, very much imagine that she did.” Anyone who knows the regal, onetime anti-monarchist Mirren would take that as a diplomatic “yes”. On set these days she’s more royal than Princess Michael of Kent.
Another surprise: I hadn’t realised Mirren and the Queen had had their lunch at Buckingham Palace, as reported in the Diary – this certainly went un(der)-reported. There’s no mention of it in the Nexis or Court Circular archives, but Arcati is fallible. I suppose it could have happened: perhaps someone will furnish some detail here. [They have not lunched - see above posting]
What did I think of the film? Comic in tone, content and spirit. No one in the establishment (except her sons) could give a flying fuck about Diana while millions of flower buyers bawled. It’s a very English, stiff-upper lip response to the real-life histrionics. The character most maligned in the film is Prince Charles - depicted as a snivelling, creepy egotist only concerned with his PR, post-Di. I liked the scene where HM scornfully switches off the TV the moment Camilla's name is mentioned. The film as a whole is not as affectionate as I had been led to believe by critics: it is a sweet satire that will sharpen as Diana's memory dissolves.
Asked by the Chicago Tribune on August 28 whether she thought the sovereign had watched Stephen Frears’ movie, Mirren said: “I don't know directly. I can't imagine that she didn't. I very, very much imagine that she did.” Anyone who knows the regal, onetime anti-monarchist Mirren would take that as a diplomatic “yes”. On set these days she’s more royal than Princess Michael of Kent.
Another surprise: I hadn’t realised Mirren and the Queen had had their lunch at Buckingham Palace, as reported in the Diary – this certainly went un(der)-reported. There’s no mention of it in the Nexis or Court Circular archives, but Arcati is fallible. I suppose it could have happened: perhaps someone will furnish some detail here. [They have not lunched - see above posting]
What did I think of the film? Comic in tone, content and spirit. No one in the establishment (except her sons) could give a flying fuck about Diana while millions of flower buyers bawled. It’s a very English, stiff-upper lip response to the real-life histrionics. The character most maligned in the film is Prince Charles - depicted as a snivelling, creepy egotist only concerned with his PR, post-Di. I liked the scene where HM scornfully switches off the TV the moment Camilla's name is mentioned. The film as a whole is not as affectionate as I had been led to believe by critics: it is a sweet satire that will sharpen as Diana's memory dissolves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)