Fun Performances, Insufficient Plot Development

Rating: 7/10 (12 March 2007)

The Queen has some fascinating performances (and Helen Mirren's most sympathetic character in decades), but there's a LOT of missing information that's necessary to making anything of the movie's main idea, that Tony Blair "saved the monarchy" during the Diana 'crisis.'
As mentioned elsewehere the story, set in the early days of the Blair (Michael Sheen) prime-ministership, is about how after Princess Diana is killed by the papparazzi the royal family, together with the government, must determine how to respond in the face of mounting public pressure for some form of national obsequies.
I don't follow celebrities. As far as I could tell, Diana was a pretty blonde who passed through life in the pocket of one or other millionaire playboy. The movie certainly says nothing to dispute that, which leaves me sympathizing more with a family that resents her for dumping their anxiety-ridden son than with the extraordinary obsession the British public seems to have had with her. The royals themselves are presented as peevish and old-fashioned, but so what? The film, however, drops a number of hints that Diana had an awkward marriage with an unfaithful Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) and that the royals supposedly disliked her from the get-go, all of which demands a LOT more explication within the film.
This brings us to the "save the monarchy" pitch. To be honest, I don't understand what that even means. At one point, Cherie Blair (Helen McCrory) suggests that it costs the British government 40 million pounds a year to support the Windsors, but it's my understanding that not only are the royals multi-billionaires in their own right but that the supposed "subsidy" is actually a portion of the income the British government receives from managing royal property under an 18th century contract. It's like young marrieds Tony and Cherie, living in the in-law suite of the parental home, making part of their income from managing the parental retirement account, then suggesting cutting the parents loose! This would make Tony B's odd outbursts more comprehensible, but as far as the film goes, we just don't really know the reason. The movie, after first suggesting that Blair "saved" Queen Bess II out of a kind of protect-mom projection, later drops a loud hint that Tony's take on "the people's princess" was of big benefit to himself. What's lacking, once again, is info within the film's structure that supports any of this.
That should be integral to the sub-theme of the direction of the Blair administration. The film talks a lot about Blair's election as a "revolution" with goals of "modernizing" Britain, but here again I'm totally confused. I thought that Britain, formerly a failing industrial-socialist state, was "modernized" by She Who Must Not Be Named back in the '80s. My impression of Blair was a polo-shirt progressive pulling a Clinton to get elected; rolling over his out-of-touch civil-service conservative opponent with a platform of platitudes that thinly disguised his actual economic beliefs, which seem to be just a kind of casual-day capitalism. Seriously, help me out here. Am I way off, or is the film trying to fake up some kind of story that Blair was romanced out of 'real' progressivism by a fascination with The Queen?
Well, I'd still recommend watching this, 'cause in addition to Mirren, James Cromwell, Sheen, and Sylvia Syms are terrifically entertaining and the scenery is gorgeous - including Mirren's expanding and contracting legs. I wonder if they weren't considering showing 'em with hair in the barbecue scene? And the scene of the Queen Mum (Syms) learning that her funeral plan would be used for Diana is priceless! For plotting and character development thumbs down, but for the excellent acting, two pinkies discreetly up.