http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/the-queen-movie/ An Emotional Toolbox Website Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:00:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/the-queen-movie/#comment-1390 ETB Screenwriting: An Emotional Toolbox Website Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:11:21 +0000 http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/?p=1#comment-1390 [...] Iron Lady Submitted by Laurie Hutzler on November 29, 2011 – 11:11 AMNo Comment I saw IRON LADY and Meryl Streep does give a tremendous performance– but the film didn’t work for me because there was no point of view. The film is just a series of vignettes. As a character she is looking back but there was no larger vision, greater perspective or sense of how that era should ultimately be judged. Lots of swirling riot scenes and flashing headlines but again vignettes. (Also no sense of what it costs the national soul to abandon those weakest and most vulnerable in favor a “self-reliance” not all can achieve– especially if they are very young children or very elderly). When I was in London during that era she was called “Margret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” because she cut nutritional programs in school for poor children). Also the film has very little character development. She wants to get elected, her first campaign is a failure, she does get elected, she rules and then she is deposed. It’s very linear and episodic despite the fractured structure of the film. We see clearly what she wants (and thinks) but we never see what she needs in the sense of a deeper human longing and we don’t ever see what it cost her to make the choices she does. A small cost is hinted at in her absent son but she’s very comfortable, with a dutiful daughter (whom she mostly ignores) and she is unrepentant in all things. IMO The Queen was a much better movie with an equally strong female performance by Helen Mirren. I saw IRON LADY at a WGA screening and Meryl Streep does give a tremendous performance– but the film ultimately  didn’t work for me because it has no point of view. The narrative is just a series of personal and political vignettes. . As a character she is looking back but there is no larger vision, greater perspective or sense of how that era should ultimately be judged. There are lots of swirling riot scenes and flashing headlines about the times but again they are just visual vignettes. . The film provides no larger sense of what it costs the national soul to abandon those weakest and most vulnerable in favor a “self-reliance” not all can achieve– especially if they are very young children or very elderly.  When I was in London during that era she was called “Margret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” because she cut nutritional programs in school for poor children. . Streep has very little character development to work with. Maggie wants to get elected, her first campaign is a failure, she does get elected, she rules and then she is deposed. It’s very linear and episodic narrative progression despite the fractured structure of the film.  Streep’s performance is a brilliant impersonation but doesn’t rise beyond that because of the script’s limitations. . We see clearly what the main character wants (and thinks) but we never see what she needs in the sense of a deeper human longing and we don’t ever see what it cost her to make the choices she does.  A small cost is hinted at in her absent son but she’s very comfortable, has the attention of a dutiful daughter (whom she mostly ignores) and she is unrepentant in all things. . The Queen is a much better movie with an equally strong female performance by Helen Mirren and a powerful narrative arc.  See my analysis of that film here. [...] [...] Iron Lady Submitted by Laurie Hutzler on November 29, 2011 – 11:11 AMNo Comment I saw IRON LADY and Meryl Streep does give a tremendous performance– but the film didn’t work for me because there was no point of view. The film is just a series of vignettes. As a character she is looking back but there was no larger vision, greater perspective or sense of how that era should ultimately be judged. Lots of swirling riot scenes and flashing headlines but again vignettes. (Also no sense of what it costs the national soul to abandon those weakest and most vulnerable in favor a “self-reliance” not all can achieve– especially if they are very young children or very elderly). When I was in London during that era she was called “Margret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” because she cut nutritional programs in school for poor children). Also the film has very little character development. She wants to get elected, her first campaign is a failure, she does get elected, she rules and then she is deposed. It’s very linear and episodic despite the fractured structure of the film. We see clearly what she wants (and thinks) but we never see what she needs in the sense of a deeper human longing and we don’t ever see what it cost her to make the choices she does. A small cost is hinted at in her absent son but she’s very comfortable, with a dutiful daughter (whom she mostly ignores) and she is unrepentant in all things. IMO The Queen was a much better movie with an equally strong female performance by Helen Mirren. I saw IRON LADY at a WGA screening and Meryl Streep does give a tremendous performance– but the film ultimately  didn’t work for me because it has no point of view. The narrative is just a series of personal and political vignettes. . As a character she is looking back but there is no larger vision, greater perspective or sense of how that era should ultimately be judged. There are lots of swirling riot scenes and flashing headlines about the times but again they are just visual vignettes. . The film provides no larger sense of what it costs the national soul to abandon those weakest and most vulnerable in favor a “self-reliance” not all can achieve– especially if they are very young children or very elderly.  When I was in London during that era she was called “Margret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” because she cut nutritional programs in school for poor children. . Streep has very little character development to work with. Maggie wants to get elected, her first campaign is a failure, she does get elected, she rules and then she is deposed. It’s very linear and episodic narrative progression despite the fractured structure of the film.  Streep’s performance is a brilliant impersonation but doesn’t rise beyond that because of the script’s limitations. . We see clearly what the main character wants (and thinks) but we never see what she needs in the sense of a deeper human longing and we don’t ever see what it cost her to make the choices she does.  A small cost is hinted at in her absent son but she’s very comfortable, has the attention of a dutiful daughter (whom she mostly ignores) and she is unrepentant in all things. . The Queen is a much better movie with an equally strong female performance by Helen Mirren and a powerful narrative arc.  See my analysis of that film here. [...]

]]> http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/the-queen-movie/#comment-793 Anonymous Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:50:22 +0000 http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/?p=1#comment-793 [...] Speech is very similar to that of his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, played by Helen Mirren in The Queen. (I’ve written about that film here) The monarchs in each film are reserved, formal and [...] [...] Speech is very similar to that of his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, played by Helen Mirren in The Queen. (I’ve written about that film here) The monarchs in each film are reserved, formal and [...]

]]> http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/the-queen-movie/#comment-161 ETB Screenwriting: An Emotional Toolbox Website Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:22:16 +0000 http://www.etbscreenwriting.com/?p=1#comment-161 [...] faith.  Read more about Power of Conscience leaders Nelson Mandela (as portrayed in Invictus) and Queen Elizabeth (as portrayed in The Queen) on my [...] [...] faith.  Read more about Power of Conscience leaders Nelson Mandela (as portrayed in Invictus) and Queen Elizabeth (as portrayed in The Queen) on my [...]

]]>