Talk:The Queen (2006 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Link

The link to the screenwriter Peter Morgan is wrong, it leads to think that another Peter Morgan (who is dead) is the writer (and I guess he isn't). Sorry, I'm not aware of the technicalities of web editing, so I'm just posting the mistake here, and maybe someone else can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.208.97 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article should really say how accurate the film is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.173.6 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The sections dealing with public events (such as the speech, or the crowds) appear fairly accurate. As to the rest, I think part of the point is that, even at the end, the Queen "as a person" and her role as monarch remain seperate, so in reality we just don't know how she, or the other royals, actually felt about things. Something about that should probably be added. Daibhid C 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to wait, I guess, for someone to comment on the degree to which the imagined scenes seem accurate. There are aspects in the externally linked materials, and elsewhere here. The article on Cherie Blair mentions her reported contempt for the royal family, and it's sourced, so we can use that. Similarly, the linked Mirren interview in The Independent mentions in passing that "cabbage" is supposedly one of Phillip's terms of endearment for Her Majesty.

Perhaps I or someone could start a "realism" section similar to the (unsourced) one I included with The Devil Wears Prada. Daniel Case 05:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A "realism" section would turn out most hostile to the movie, I cannot conceive of that being a wise idea. It is fiction, and as such it may have a right - but anyone who has seen even the shortest private interview with Philip, Charles or Elizabeth knows that they could not possibly express themselves in the feeble language which the characters use in the film. ~Jjjjc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.23.67 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we ask The Queen herself? And good old Tony Blair while you are at it. Gautam ^Discuss 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stag

the plot leaves out the part about the stag. it isn't exactly part of the story arc but it provides an insight into the queen's character and takes up a significant part of the film, so i think it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.3.231 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should be included, but I think there should be seperated section - the hunt for the stag is sort of tool of storytelling, I don't know how it's called in english, but the opening and closing scenes also seemed to be such tools - they are not important for main action of the film, they outline details, like charecters, atitude, relationships and historical background.

P.S. I think it's very good film ---- Xil/talk 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the stag definitely needs to be included - it's an emphasized story within the story, and functions as a highly metaphorical plot device. 24.251.125.69 (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison photos

A strip of comparison photos of the actors in character and the real life people they play would be brilliant for this page JayKeaton 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one here: http://homepage.mac.com/gayrevi/iblog/C1528208335/E20050922104502/Media/mirren.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espazolano (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal responses

I would love to see a section on any feedback from the royals or the government on this film, if any is to be had. Gregwmay 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Queen herself apparently declared she had not seen the movie and did not intend to do so. 161.24.19.82 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.38.180.135 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Could we have a source for that statement? Also, what about other people--the Blairs for instance?--Jdavid2008 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Helen Mirram was invited to Windsor to meet with QE2 because of her performance in the film. She couldn't go because she was in the middle of South Dakota filming National Treasure 2 at the time. QE2 knows about the movie, even if she claims not to have seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.189 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stag scenes

Can somebody tell me what the story with the stag is all about? --85.182.76.122 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

—Avn001 - I went to see the show last night. I thought it was brilliant. Today, after church I thought about the scene again and in my mind the following picture played off. The Queen got stuck in the river. Then the stag appeared on the scene. The most beautiful stag the Queen has ever seen. This is a reflection of Princess D. The Queen heard a shot in the distance, and made a gesture for the stag to go away. Remember that the Prince Phillip had this obsession to kill this stag? To cut the story short and get you own mind moving, the stag was shot on another farm. This is Princess D getting out of the way of her home ground, going some where else (France) where she was wounded by all those who gave her a hard time, and eventually died. The Queen, I think, portrays the real feeling in this scene, af knowing that a lot went on without her intervention and had to see and feel that the wounded Princess was killed by her, the Queen not doing enough to stop the hate built up under her very own family. I would like to hear from you on what your thoughts may be upon my interpretation. Kind regards from South Africa. Contact me at [email protected]Avn001 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Andre van Noordwyk

They are stalking and hunting the stag to its death. Diana was stalked and hunted by the media to her death. Quite simple really! Paul75 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be engaging in this discussion on a talk page, but (imho) the stag def isn't an allusion to Diana. It seems rather an allegory for the traditional, conservative, and noble past the Queen seeks to represent, and one which is is threatened (by rampant capitalism, amongst other things, as acknowledged by the private client's shooting of the stag). Nicolasdz 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stag is the Queen. When she goes to see it, headless and all, she sees how the broker shot it in the face, and not in the heart. The Queen (of the movie) felt hunted up until that point in the movie. When she sees that the broker could not kill the stag, and professional hunters had to stalk it and kill it mercifully, she regained her strength. It's a metaphor. The Media and The People / Anti-Monarchists, could not bring her down. Sports movies and Action movies have similar metaphor moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.189 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I dont think 'The Queen' should re-direct here, if someone said that, you think of the person, not the movie. Viva43 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I tried 'The Queen' and was surprised it didn't lead to this page. If I was looking for the person, I would type something like 'Queen of England', because there are so many queens... Nicolasdz 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this film American?

Is this film considered an "American" film? I pose this question because of the recent Academy Awards event, which handed an award to Ms. Mirren. I have assumed that the film is British. I have also assumed the the Academy Awards are limited to American films, with the exception, of course, of "Best Foreign Film." These could be false assumptions. Can anyone lend any insight to this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.245.81 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a British film! The Academy Awards are not just for American movies, they are international awards. There is a section for "Best Foreign Language Film", for films in languages other than English Paul75 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure the Academy Awards are NOT only American? Just because they have ONE award for a Foreign Film DOES NOT make the Oscars an international ceremony. Think about Cannes when you talk or think international. Academy Awards are ALWAYS for Hollywood films. Gautam ^Discuss 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was directed by a British director, and the vast (if not all) of the cast was British, so I presume that makes it British. Does that also mean that the article should be written in British English entirely (except where other spellings would be applicable). For example, honor should be spelt honour. JGXenite 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a British and French film. The main production credits went to Granada and it was distributed by Pathé. KJNPBR 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't spellings therefore be British, not American? JGXenite 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English Cop 663 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on with changing the offending words :). JGXenite 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Going through best picture winners, wasn't Chariots of Fire a British film? Also Lawrence of Arabia, Tom Jones, and Bridge on the River Kwai. These films all had Hollywood studios as American distributors, but they were not produced by Hollywood. Most of the categories are supposedly open to films from anywhere. The regular ones tend to be dominated by English-language films, and English-language film-making tends to be dominated by Hollywood, but there have been British winners. And in terms of best picture nominees - Life Is Beautiful was Italian, Elizabeth was British, The Full Monty was British, Secrets & Lies was British, Shine was Australian, Il Postino was Italian, Four Weddings and a Funeral was British, The Piano was Australian, Howards End was seemingly British, The Crying Game was British, My Left Foot was, I think, Irish, etc. I think the only rule is that the film has to be released in the U.S. john k 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"King of England"

I think that the contention that this usage is invalid as there has been no such title since the Act of Union of 1707 is debatable. Many Scots in particular would argue that a union of two countries is exactly that, and hence a king of the United Kingdom is, by direct implication, also both the king of England and the king of Scotland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.33.59 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a king of England in as much as there's a king of Ontario; the monarch reigns in these places, but only as they are a part of a lager state over which the king is sovereign. Thus there's a King of the United Kingdom and a King of Canada, but no longer any separate King of Scotland, nor has there been a King of Western Australia. --G2bambino 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The British Monarch *is* the King or Queen of England, even if that's only a partial description. It's not inaccurate in any technical sense, just only partly descriptive, like Asquith's grave that states he was Prime Minister of England.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavolic (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The British Monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; England isn't a country any more than Scotland or Wales are. Thus, technically it is incorrect to refer to a King of England; such a thing hasn't existed for over 300 years (and I imagine the Prince of Wales, of all people, would be well aware of such a fact). --G2bambino 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other users. England is a country, so is Scotland, so is Wales. The Queen of each of them is Elizabeth. William is expected to be King of England. More importantly, even if the description is technically legally incorrect, which is at best debatable, it is irrelevant as a throway remark by Charles in the middle of the night in this movie. To highlight it at all in an article the size of this is unnecessary. --81.179.103.144 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now usually considered to be incorrect to use "Queen of England," due to sensitivities on the part of the non-English in the United Kingdom. However, the idea that "King of England" is incorrect does not in fact originate from 1707. For at least 200 years after 1707, "England" was frequently used as synonymous with "Great Britain" or (after 1801), "United Kingdom." Obviously, in situations where precise correctness was important, the term wouldn't be used, but it continued in common usage, and was not considered to be incorrect - simply less formal. It is only in the 20th century that this usage of England=United Kingdom began to be considered inappropriate. Moreover, obviously a lot of people still use "Queen of England," even if they know that England is not synonymous with "United Kingdom." There's really no need to discuss it in this article. john k 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

George VI was the king who famously broke up the Empire and made a separate crown for each commonwealth state. Therefore his complete title is pretty long e.g. "King of England, King of New Zeland, King of Canada, ......" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.69.106 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mechanic?

I was interested to hear the Queen mention in the film that she had been a mechanic during WWII. However, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom says, "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service ... and was trained as a driver." Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Military_career. Can anyone clarify her actual training and service? Thank you. -- 201.51.231.176 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's not technically incorrect as older cars did require extensive knowledges that only a "mechanic" rather than a "driver" of today has. Unlike a chauffeur, whose work she should know quite well, a "driver" that she had been did a lot more than merely driving a truck around. --Revth 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy vs. figures of speech

Two things are listed here as 'historical inaccuracies': Charles calling William "the future King of England" and the Queen Mother saying the monarchy has "an unbroken line going back thousands of years". These may be inaccurate but they are not necessarily 'mistakes' by the filmmakers: they are simply representing casual, normal ways of speaking. In real life, no-one would say "he's the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories" or "our family goes back 1,126 years in an unbroken line aside from 3 dynasty changes and a parliamentarian interregnum". The characters may be saying inaccurate things, but the scenes are only historical inaccuracies if it can be proven that the people concerned never said those things at that time. Right? Cop 663 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Private Secretary

"One inaccuracy is that Robin Janvrin is represented as the Queen's Private Secretary during the aftermath of Diana's death, but in fact that position was then occupied by Janvrin's predecessor..." According to the Script of The Queen, Janvrin is the Deputy Private Secretary in the film, not the Private Secretary as this article states Brian | (Talk) 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The Queen (film) → The Queen — By skimming the DAB page (Queen), this appears to be the only subject that uses the definite article in the title. —Reginmund 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The merge proposal was rejected. --bainer (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nominator Reginmund 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The solution proposed involves disambiguating purely by the presence or absence of The. While technically possible, this is undesirable. It is also not clear that this, on balance, serves our readers. Those who search on "The Queen" and do want the film will save a click. Those who search on "the Queen" and want any of the present queens will lose a click. I see no reason to suppose the first lot more numerous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Somehow, I doubt that anyone is dumb enough to search "the Queen" and expect to find a current monarch. It would be their own fault if they put in their search terms improperly. Wikipedia shouldn't adhere to those that adhere to laziness. Reginmund 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you said the present queen without qualification goes to show that some people will type that to find Elizabeth II. Charles 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mr Anderson's reasoning. Charles 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Would that person really be so Anglocentric as to expect that it would immediately direct to QEII? What about other uses such as The Prime Minister, The President, The Whigs, etc.? I also didn't say the Queen. I said a Queen so that doesn't show that some people would want to search for Elizabeth II. Reginmund 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's rather likely that people looking for queen regnant may (mis)type/copypaste "the queen/The queen/the Queen/The Queen/THE QUEEN". Same for Queen (band), a group that doesn't follow the ancient and honoured tradition of being called "The {something}", like The The. Also, however much we may regret it, we must accept the reality that many, many, wikipedia users are semi-alcoholised John Bull types that will trash their gentlemen's club in a fit of victorian imperialist rage upon discovering that "The Queen" is not even a redirect to Eliabeth II of England...
  So, as both the queen, the Queen and Queen are markedly more notable than The Queen, I strongly oppose the move request.--victor falk 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as the film is about EIIR, one would think that a person might want Elizabeth II. 132.205.99.122 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use rationale for Image:The Queen cd.jpg

Image:The Queen cd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sheen

I have cut down the references to Michael Sheen's various portrayals of Tony Blair in the opening paragraph. Whilst it is a point of interest that he'd played Blair before this film in 'The Deal', the plot details of that film are irrelevant here, as is the suggestion he'll play Blair again in a forthcoming project. Such details are fine on Michael Sheen's page, but this page is for the film 'The Queen'. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this (obviously again), as the article is about the film, not the film's stars. Winkelvi (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Film plot

I have tagged it as too long. I'm also concerned, sitting here reading it as I watch the film, that a lot of conjecture and details not actually contained in the film is presented. It seems too full of details that were not in the film. It needs to be properly rewritten with only the facts in the film, not reading between the lines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it lacks accuracy. For instance, "Hearing a distant gunshot, she shoos the animal away and decides to carry out Blair's recommendations." is not correct. In the film, her encounter with the stag comes before Blair's final recommendations. Only after taking his phonecall ('in the kitchen') and *then* talking to her mother, does she decide to give in. (Unless, of course, the DVD I have is a different edit from the one the writer of this outline has seen, but the article does not mention different cuts.) Radioflux (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Abdication

The film suggests abdication was a real possibility but was dissuaded by the Queen Mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical drama?

Does it actually make sense to describe this film as an 'historical drama'? In 2006 it was dealing with events less than a decade previous. All the central characters of the film are based upon currently living people (with one obvious exception). The Day of the Jackal, made in 1973, deals with events more than a decade before. Do we classify that as 'historical drama'?

The Queen is a dramatisation of certain events, that is all.Marcvanderloo (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Queen (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080502122934/http://news.scotsman.com:80/index.cfm?id=305312007 to http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=305312007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)