Peter Morgan commands respect, awe, even something like fear in the world of film and television. And perhaps such esteem is warranted. I have not seen any of his fictional screenplays or teleplays and so cannot comment on their merits. I can, however, say that docudramas such as 'The Queen', 'The Crown', 'Bohemian Rhapsody', etc., while perhaps clever, well-executed and even highly entertaining, are never indicative of actual brilliance on the part of anyone involved at any step in the production.
Docudramas are not history lessons, but they also do not qualify as "historical fiction." No matter how good they may be as entertainment, they are at best heavily derivative and often rather dishonest about their subject matter. That dishonesty can be as benign as tweaking continuity to craft a more saleable story structure than what real life would offer, but often it pushes the envelope into mockery and even calumny in order to say what the writer feels entitled to say.
There's no question but that 'The Crown' is superbly acted and filmed. And the large majority of episodes - at least prior to Season Five - are quite well-conceived scenario-wise, on their own terms. However, what Peter Morgan chooses to say with them suggests a man who is little more than an unimaginative cog in the machine of the Current Year's cultural establishment. Morgan's Queen Elizabeth II is accordingly sympathetic but not especially useful and - despite her sincerest efforts - dreadfully out-of-step with the times. Not, of course, so much as the rest of her family, but if her interactions with her mother, her sister and her children had been reduced in this tale to the strict minimum, she would have been more difficult to sympathize with because she only looks good by comparison.
Occasionally Morgan's worldview makes for some amusing - and ironic - foils. Few viewers will be surprised (especially after 'The Queen') that Princess Diana evolves into an arch-rival to Her Majesty for the hearts of the people and the incarnation of what it means to be British, but the series actually states this explicitly at one point. There are a number of such moments throughout the series when Morgan's thin imagination shines through and he just goes ahead and makes his point with a sledgehammer. But prior to the depiction of this "War of the Waleses," Morgan's need for a personal conflict of the 1980s has him pit the Queen against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by greatly exaggerating their differences and cooling, even frosting, the true nature of their relationship. Here, Morgan freezes a bit himself. Most laymen might intuit that as a former softcore republican (and only tepid monarchist convert), Morgan not only is a bit lukewarm on Her late Majesty but also probably doesn't care much for Lady Thatcher, a suspicion seemingly confirmed by his decision not only to cast his then-flame Gillian Anderson (whose activism does suggest a more avant-gardist brand of political views) in that role but also to instruct her to play Thatcher's movements and tone about ten to fifteen years older than they actually did in her time as Prime Minister. At the same time, determined to accentuate the lead-up to the Queen's "annus horribilus" (1992 is portrayed as the culmination of a disastrous preceding decade), he makes sure Thatcher comes across as the sympathetic one in the "cold feud" he portrays between them.
On the whole, 'The Crown' is (save much of season five and some of season six) very good television in terms of entertainment value and conduciveness to suspension of disbelief. The production and verisimilitude are commendable in the utmost. But Morgan's story is, as narratives go, a cop-out, and viewers should approach it with the same instinctive mistrust with which they ought to approach any docudrama, possibly more, for the reasons I have explained here. Sadly, I think far too many sheeple will come away deceived, as usually happens with this genre.
Docudramas are not history lessons, but they also do not qualify as "historical fiction." No matter how good they may be as entertainment, they are at best heavily derivative and often rather dishonest about their subject matter. That dishonesty can be as benign as tweaking continuity to craft a more saleable story structure than what real life would offer, but often it pushes the envelope into mockery and even calumny in order to say what the writer feels entitled to say.
There's no question but that 'The Crown' is superbly acted and filmed. And the large majority of episodes - at least prior to Season Five - are quite well-conceived scenario-wise, on their own terms. However, what Peter Morgan chooses to say with them suggests a man who is little more than an unimaginative cog in the machine of the Current Year's cultural establishment. Morgan's Queen Elizabeth II is accordingly sympathetic but not especially useful and - despite her sincerest efforts - dreadfully out-of-step with the times. Not, of course, so much as the rest of her family, but if her interactions with her mother, her sister and her children had been reduced in this tale to the strict minimum, she would have been more difficult to sympathize with because she only looks good by comparison.
Occasionally Morgan's worldview makes for some amusing - and ironic - foils. Few viewers will be surprised (especially after 'The Queen') that Princess Diana evolves into an arch-rival to Her Majesty for the hearts of the people and the incarnation of what it means to be British, but the series actually states this explicitly at one point. There are a number of such moments throughout the series when Morgan's thin imagination shines through and he just goes ahead and makes his point with a sledgehammer. But prior to the depiction of this "War of the Waleses," Morgan's need for a personal conflict of the 1980s has him pit the Queen against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by greatly exaggerating their differences and cooling, even frosting, the true nature of their relationship. Here, Morgan freezes a bit himself. Most laymen might intuit that as a former softcore republican (and only tepid monarchist convert), Morgan not only is a bit lukewarm on Her late Majesty but also probably doesn't care much for Lady Thatcher, a suspicion seemingly confirmed by his decision not only to cast his then-flame Gillian Anderson (whose activism does suggest a more avant-gardist brand of political views) in that role but also to instruct her to play Thatcher's movements and tone about ten to fifteen years older than they actually did in her time as Prime Minister. At the same time, determined to accentuate the lead-up to the Queen's "annus horribilus" (1992 is portrayed as the culmination of a disastrous preceding decade), he makes sure Thatcher comes across as the sympathetic one in the "cold feud" he portrays between them.
On the whole, 'The Crown' is (save much of season five and some of season six) very good television in terms of entertainment value and conduciveness to suspension of disbelief. The production and verisimilitude are commendable in the utmost. But Morgan's story is, as narratives go, a cop-out, and viewers should approach it with the same instinctive mistrust with which they ought to approach any docudrama, possibly more, for the reasons I have explained here. Sadly, I think far too many sheeple will come away deceived, as usually happens with this genre.
Tell Your Friends