She's SUCH a Queen

The film The Queen artfully and accurately portrayed the current British royal family, minus the late Princess Diana and the struggle for the monarchy-wielding family unit to overcome the most petty of British politics. Celebrity worship, to be sure, was a central component of the film especially regards to the depiction of Princess Diana who, in death, became glorified for her humanitarian deeds rather than her previous, perfunctory public and private mishaps.

Despite the overall serious tone of the film, I found some of the superficial details humorous. The manual-like procedures for addressing the Queen, rules governing all variety of conduct, etc. seemed laughable and oh so outdated. After all, the Queen is but a symbolic, empty-purse-clutching diplomat who is more celebrated for her signature awkward "wave," than anything remotely productive she has accomplished politically.

While I was not particularly fond of Princess Diana at the time, I find it retrospectively shameful how her tragic demise was politicized by particularly Queen Elizabeth. It is understood that stringent, archaic and largely symbolic protocol is to be employed in the realm of the Britons, but limiting Diana's funeral to a private event for only her family-despite her status as an internationally known public figure, seemed to be a blatant example of harsh "damage control," in the most public relations sense of the term. The haggling, too, between the Queen's demands and the wishes of recently-elected Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair was revealing and unfortunate provided the circumstances.

Sort of like the assassination of JFK, Princess Diana's premature death resulted in an almost overnight romanticizing of her ultimately vapid resume. Diana often brought shame, ridicule and scrutiny to the royal family. Only in her death, did her comparably diminutive service transcript become illuminated by those seeking to capitalize on the Princesses' legacy with books, movies, D VD's and other Chinese mass-produced merchandise.

While some of advocated for the elimination of the British monarchy, the Queen will clutch her position with an unwavering firmness. Why should people even concern themselves with the cornerstone of the United Kingdom? The Royal family remains the globe's most symbolic, aging relic and their intention or potential for accomplishing anything shattering remains as likely as Somalia transforming to a peaceful, law-abiding government tomorrow. In other words, the chance is nil.

It is fascinating that even a position like the Queen, devoid of any real power yet so powerful; continues to inspire the imagination and mystique of people around the world. Perhaps, the thought is that this particular position must be the epitome of "easy-living," being able to wield prestige, yet not being encumbered with the responsibility of those who actually make decisions.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Romanticizing Windsor

The legacy of many of these characters extends far beyond the princess, and I believe it sells them short if taken in the context of only a princess who was in the tabloids all the time and did a lot of charity work. Tony Blair brought England back in relevance something that England was struggling with at the turn of the decade after the Thatcher revolution and loss of their empire. He brought about change needed from technology to education while he did create a camera society in England and what many consider a nanny state. The man did much to bring England back into relevance and aligned himself with Bush and over saw a great economic boom throughout all of England. While I did not know until the movie that he was in power after princess Diana died I cannot say I even remember the event. I was only in the grade school, so it was interesting to see the way he handled it because Tony Blair is the man who fought along side us in Iraq. Queen Elizabeth saw the victory after beating the Germans in World War II and saw the commonwealth restructure along more republican lines. Both of these persons have done so much for the world and their own nations that I believe the princess’ funeral was nothing more then a blip on their screen. I might not grasp the magnitude of her death failing to remember it or her but in comparison with everything else they have done it would be surprising. Princess Diana was known for her charity work with Africa and many other diseases at a time when it was considered unsafe but was hunted my the paparazzi and played to them at times. She was a humanitarian and helped many causes out. Prince Charles look like just how I have always perceived him as a bit weak and another side dangerously arrogant. He looks like a man who wants what he wants; having a mistress for example and being scared when he is actually asked what he wants. The movie might have made him look weaker then he actually is and sure it was a difficult time for everybody but he just seemed sleazy. The man has always seemed like he is portrayed in the movie although I hope he does have more backbone then was given throughout the movie. I believe the movie was fair to all except Prince Charles who clearly got the brunt of a lot of the negative portrayals. I feel that during that time Tony Blair would have been seen as that favorable and the royals foolish.

Robert Foster

God Save the Queen!

Returning to 1997 is quite the uncanny experience. It seems so close, yet when we see a representation of what that world was like, we experience quite the shock. The film, The Queen, builds upon this feeling to the point where it makes us question our own memory. When we consider the legacy of Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Princess Diana, and then look at the film, we realize that we may have forgotten our own immediate past. It is funny that as calculating and political as Tony Blair is portrayed within The Queen, we are reminded of his relatively recent resignation from the position of Prime Minister. While Blair was able to control the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death, he was not able to control the United States’ foray into Iraq. 9/11 made life more immediate for the individual, and while there is still a surplus in celebrity worship, I do not believe that we could ever again witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth that surrounded the death of non-political, non-religious figure.

The legacy of the other three Britons has also shifted since the event portrayed within the film. There have been mentions to abolish the monarchy, but they will not gather steam as long as Queen Elizabeth is alive. Prince Charles is still portrayed as the dope that he was in 1997, but it seems as though people mistrust him more, at least with the conspiracy theorists that think that he killed Diana. If and when he assumes the monarchy, we may have reason to think that the monarchy will end with him. As short of a memory as people have, Londoners still remember Queen Elizabeth’s efforts during WWII, and they still appreciate that. Diana’s legacy, as explored within the film, experienced an immediate elevation. We no longer remember her as the floozy that the media portrayed her as, but rather for her humanitarian efforts.

I believe that the film was fair in its’ portrayal of the four Britons, as it seems perfectly reasonable that the events portrayed were the events which occurred. While some people may think that Queen Elizabeth was portrayed in a negative light, I think that the portrayal was beyond positive. The public was given a general understanding of how the Royals operate, and within this system we see that The Queen, even with all that she stands for, is subject to petty politics. I do not think that the film was unfair, but I think it cast a particularly truthful, ugly light upon the will of the masses. The grown men crying in the street after Diana’s death was a reality, a reality that we forgot about, perhaps wished to forget about. But it was there. It was there as the ugliest aspect of humanity, celebrity worship. People forgot what they were doing, and went to go “pray” for Princess Diana. We can only hope that this projection of worth onto celebrities will end, and maybe it did to the extent of Princess Diana, but I’m sure that another example will come along to show humanity at its’ most pathetic.

Jack Gustafson

Mr. Smith Gets to Filibuster

While I thought I would dislike "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," merely because I historically am not inclined toward black and white pictures, I absolutely adored it. Sure, the portrayal of a single, freshman Senator making an incredible difference is a bit far-fetched, but we have encroached on utter cynicism and over-seriousness if we cannot aspire to such a positive, populist depiction.

The film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," is the sort of wholesome, excessively patriotic and forthright portrayal of a single individual, well ahead of his time trying to make a difference. At the time the film was released, racial inequity and Hollywood's obsession with either excluding minorities or portraying them in menial roles, like "Mr. Smith," where the lone African-American is a shoe shiner, were prevalent. Mr. Smith, by all accounts, is a politically unidentified Senator but espouses rather progressive ideologies on themes of philanthropy and equity.

Rather than marginalizing the female character to the confines of "listening," to his policy ideas, the senator engages the women and seeks her consultation on how best to develop said polices. The women is, however, in an archetypal secretarial role but nonetheless by chronological standards is depicted rather favorably.

Certain pragmatic political theories can be derived from "Mr Smith." The idea of employing the filibuster, something that can be regarded as a necessary evil to 'check,' majority political power, is a mechanism unique to the United States Congress. Obviously, the conclusion of the film is predictable and in alignment with the expectation of a "feel good," film.

To those who question the validity of "Mr. Smith," and cast it as "unrealistic," I ask "Why can't we espouse the sort of equitable and wholesome political fight that Mr. Smith entails?"

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

If only it were as it used to be...

When we talk about Mr. Smith goes to Washington, I don’t know if much is outdated. I found it an amazing movie in its simplicity and candid nature about how politics is played in this country. It is a shame that this problem has been seen for so long and nobody has done anything about it. I loved the fact it was a simple American man who loved his country and tried to make it better and found it a different animal. The way it views the free press is right on and that is a shame because they are right they don’t get re-elected and so why print the facts or what really happens. With the discussion of the political machine that is what scares me the most because they are still around and cane be found in Chicago, San Francisco, New York and other cities. We do not have to look far for corruption just last year Jefferson City officials were being looked at. I believe the only thing truly out dated would be the cars and train. This movie was great it should what be idealize and what is written on marble but those in congress take it all for granted and believe it is for them to play around with. I found it perfect because you have a loving American going to Washington and what happened he sees what a mess it is and how the dreams of founding fathers have been left to die under the marble and poetic words. The ideas that the movie presents are all still relevant in today’s political theatre and we need to move as Americans to make sure our democracy is for us not subjugated to one person’s interests.

Robert Foster

Mr. Smith Goes to "Wewishthiswerethewayitwasville"

Jack Gustafson

There is a reason that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is still shown in classrooms today. This reason is because of the undeniable optimism that is voiced through the character of Mr. Smith. Even as ridiculous and over-the-top as the acting in the film was, the audience still understood the basic premise of the story: Why can’t we elect people who are more like us?

Now, when the term “people like us” gets thrown around in United States politics, it tends to translate as “white and Christian (preferably protestant)”, but as much as Mr. Smith really was just like the rest of America, he at least made attempts to mention people of other races and creeds. There were at least two incidents where Mr. Smith directly referred to people of other races, and spoke on how they should receive the same rights; this was in direct opposition to what most people thought in 1939 (particularly in Montana).

From this, it seems as thought Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was years ahead of its’ time, even if the lone African-America in the film was portrayed as a soft-shoeing Sambo. Hollywood was definitely wrapped up in the racism of its’ time, but the character of Mr. Smith seems to make up for it.

I would have to say that the only thing that is outdated within Mr. Smith would be the technical aspects, and the race relations. Mr. Smith, as a politician, was not revelatory enough of what his political issues were, in fact nobody in the film was; there was never a mention of Democratic or Republican party anywhere in the film. I think that the story still holds relevant because the idea is that the little guy is fighting the big guys to do the right thing. Of course, the film is representational, not realistic, and from this we are able to seek the politics of the film unfold.