You might say that the feeding of 40 million square meters of land (without paying taxes) is at least worth the grievances of individual historical moments. Indeed, most of the Queen's compromises are the result of grievances. But just like the elk that went to other people's territory and was hunted by businessmen, does the Queen have a little apology for Princess Di, "I didn't kill Boren, but Boren died because of me"? After all, the deceased is already old. For the mother of the imperial grandson, even if she is not a "competent" mother, the queen still has some influence. "My education taught me to be deeply emotional and not expressive." I believe that the Queen's diary will not be as cold as when she told her husband about Princess Diana. Still, the card in front of Buckingham Palace was enough to make her sad. Times have changed, and the royal rules of life have also changed. It is necessary to use a political practitioner who is good at balance like Blair as a link to start a process of transition from tradition to modernity. Tradition needs to be adjusted, right or wrong, and the Queen knows that.
There are also fragments of speeches in the film. In "The King's Speech", the king wants to speak but cannot speak, and in "The Queen" he can speak but does not want to speak. At the same time, the current situation forced to give a speech. The difference is that the queen is much more reluctant than her father. Modern people are easily instigated, and in Blair's words, they cannot be "saved". It turns out that this problem is true in both China and the West. The weakness of human nature is magnified several times in the context of "many people", so there are aggressive people representing "modern", compromises representing "tradition", and opportunistic politicians like Blair who are like firefighters.
Although the film portrays Blair as the Labour leader of the Prince's faction, and even deduces an Oedipus complex for the Queen. But from a rational point of view, smart politicians don't do revolutionary things that are useless to themselves. Blair is sophisticated and tactful, and it is not a kind of prudent protection when he successfully resolves the crisis of the royal family. It can be said that the Queen, Charles, Blair, and the Minister of Royal Affairs in the film, none of them can be themselves, and it is impossible for politicians to wear masks without masks. It's just a bargaining chip. Eventually the queen relented, and a seemingly turbulent crisis passed. What did the angry people get, the comfort of Diana's spirit in heaven? The Queen's insincere performance? Sometimes I feel that your anger is unreasonable and unreasonable. The reason why politics presents hypocrisy, trade-offs, and compromises is actually caused by you. Seek benevolence and gain benevolence, and there is no need to blame the muddy water of politics.
View more about The Queen reviews
