Before talking about the movie, I would like to mention an experiment by an animal neuroscientist at DUKE University. There was a group of dying thirsty monkeys, and he gave each monkey two choices, one of their favorite cherry-flavored drinks, and the other to show them pictures of celebrities in the group. The result of the trial was that most monkeys chose the latter. It can be said that on a physiological level, our fascination with celebrity images cannot be restrained. The media chased them because readers and viewers couldn't see them enough, the pups were driven by huge profits to chase them at the risk of being beaten and shot, but also because their photos were successfully converted into circulation - in fact, ordinary people Celebrity infatuation is the most fundamental reason that threatens the lives of these celebrities.
The story line is clear and fluid, without dragging its feet. The royal family, the Blair government, and the film's antagonist Diana and the people who inquire about her - not "the people who love her," are set up from the start, and these people aren't reading some Diana lace on the tabloid news. The news is to see how she dresses on the cosmopolitan. It would be inappropriate for them to interfere in the private affairs of Princess Diana's family, or any celebrity family. But it is in this democratic system that they have the right to make any inappropriate demands - in this case the disclosure and entertainment of a family's private affairs.
Blair's character, both in film and in real life, is a representation of public opinion. For British politicians, the public support rate is like the ratings of TV people and the box office of filmmakers. Most of the people are their own parents, and they cannot accept it. When a small group of people took the lead in launching activities to commemorate Princess Diana, most people were led by media reports to gradually join the ranks, so the change of "public participation in commemorating Princess Diana" became a political pressure. The pressure was paid back by Blair's discreet and respectful tone to the queen who was as private as chastity. She grossly miscalculated the size of the political movement—as a woman, a mother-in-law, or a royal family, no doubt—and could not accept Diana's need to be worshipped by millions.
The film is also willing to violate taboos, unabashedly showing the harm caused by Princess Diana's media wars against the royal family in her early years. Historically, she was the initiator of the entertainment of royal privacy. Of course, it is completely understandable that Diana did this out of personal grudges, but it was precisely because of her outspokenness about the royal family that the media fell in love with her, and it was precisely because of this that it eventually led to her own misfortune. It cannot be denied that she has benefited a lot of people by taking advantage of her popularity, but as a result, these public welfare activities have also increased her popularity at the same time - this is the only weapon a little woman from humble backgrounds can use against the royal group, and her fragrance is a weapon of mass destruction. .
The Queen is adamant about maintaining royal privacy - it's a private matter for our family. The confrontation between the royal family and the public continues to heat up in the form of newspaper "questions". The dissatisfaction with the royal family by the "fans" of Princess Diana created by these media objectively threatens the British constitutional monarchy. Blair, as the manager of this system, is obliged to report the seriousness of the problem to the Queen in order to resolve the contradiction. At the same time, from a political point of view, Blair's speech to Princess Diana's commemoration was originally intended to gain the support of the general public, but objectively stimulated the public's mourning activities and further damaged the interests of the royal family, so it is reasonable to stand up for mediation.
But I appreciate that the film gives equal goodwill and understanding to characters of different beliefs and principles. Even Prince Charles, the film's most critical critic, gave audiences a sense of why he was submissive through the film's first act of family ties. Everyone wants to maintain their cherished things, and in the end, these noble royal families, whose dignity cannot be trampled on, have to endure their privacy and drown in the applause of public entertainment.
It can be seen that the reason why the British royal family still exists today is because the royal family knows how to adapt to the new political climate. Without the courage to be flexible and the perseverance to endure changes, it is impossible to continue to be loved and respected by the people. In the new era, the people are not asking for a real queen, but a more photogenic queen.
View more about The Queen reviews
