I'm very worried that some people might think this movie is a faithful depiction of recent history.
IT IS NOT.
What we have is a series of set pieces where some fairly good actors deliver lines of fiction. I am no apologist for the Royal Family but I am concerned that people may watch this film and, mistakenly, think they are being allowed to see what goes on behind the scenes at the Royal palaces and Downing Street. This is simply not the case.
The news reels are true and the beauty of the Scottish scenery is true but the rest is just made up. No one knows what the Queen and the Prime Minister discussed after Di's death and I would have preferred this to have been made clear at the start of the movie.
It struck me that the film was target at the US audience who watched this unfold at a distance. That may explain some of the clunky dialogue: Tony Blair: "Who is he?" Assistant (holding phone): "He's the Lord Chancellor - you're on your way to meet him at the airport." Come on. Massive signpost anyone?
Viewers outside the UK may not know that the Stephen Frears/Michael Sheen partnership have been seen before in a very successful UK television drama where Sheen played the part of Blair. Just because someone can do a decent impersonation of the British prime minister does not appear adequate justification for making a 97 minute film.
As I left the cinema I tried to work out why the film had been made. Couldn't come up with a single good reason.
IT IS NOT.
What we have is a series of set pieces where some fairly good actors deliver lines of fiction. I am no apologist for the Royal Family but I am concerned that people may watch this film and, mistakenly, think they are being allowed to see what goes on behind the scenes at the Royal palaces and Downing Street. This is simply not the case.
The news reels are true and the beauty of the Scottish scenery is true but the rest is just made up. No one knows what the Queen and the Prime Minister discussed after Di's death and I would have preferred this to have been made clear at the start of the movie.
It struck me that the film was target at the US audience who watched this unfold at a distance. That may explain some of the clunky dialogue: Tony Blair: "Who is he?" Assistant (holding phone): "He's the Lord Chancellor - you're on your way to meet him at the airport." Come on. Massive signpost anyone?
Viewers outside the UK may not know that the Stephen Frears/Michael Sheen partnership have been seen before in a very successful UK television drama where Sheen played the part of Blair. Just because someone can do a decent impersonation of the British prime minister does not appear adequate justification for making a 97 minute film.
As I left the cinema I tried to work out why the film had been made. Couldn't come up with a single good reason.