The Queen (2006)

Cast: Helen Mirren (HM Queen Elizabeth II), Michael Sheen (Tony Blair), James Cromwell (Prince Philip), Alex Jennings (Prince Charles)

Director: Stephen Frears

Genre: Biography/ Drama



I was never much into the politics of the Royal Family, nor interested in the doings and ramblings of Princess Diana. U.S. politics are enough of a burden and a headache. Why should I get concerned what those “Brits” are doing across the Atlantic. Still, I became eager to see this film as soon as I heard about its release. When I finally saw it- luckily it was playing close by to me as this movie was only showing in selected theaters- I was not disappointed. The acting and cinematography were outstanding. The casting was just as great. The "Royal" politics depicted were very interesting and even more so was how various characters alluded to the conspiracy regarding the Royal family's involvement in Diana's death. The movie revolves around the Royal family's reaction or apparent lack thereof- particularly on the part of Queen Elizabeth- to the Princess Diana’s death in 1997. Tony Blair had just been elected the British Prime Minister and his first task is an unexpected one. The Princess is killed in a motor caravan, which had been flocked by paparazzi. He has to console a Britain that is both grieving a loss and angry at their Queen for remaining silent towards the whole situation. He tries as best he can to get the Queen to make a public statement showing her sympathy. The Queen on the other hand claims the best way to deal with the princess’s death is with silent mourning and dignity. She claims such as the wishes of Diana's family. The Queen's refusal to make a public appearance seems based mainly on her resentment of the Princess. She falls into a sort of "tug-o-war" with Blair on one side hoping for a statement and her own family and best interests for her grandkids on the other side encouraging her to remain silent. All the while, she tries to remain serious and dignified in both the public eye and the eyes of those around her. There is so much truth and mystery in this whole story. As far as I know, this film is quite accurate with regards to the situations presented. It seems that it wasn't acceptable that Princess Diana was involved with the Muslim millionaire Dodi Al- Fayed. The possibility that she could have married him and become pregnant with his children- heirs to the throne- was completely deplorable for the Windsor family. That Muslim children could have claims to the throne through their mother was intolerable and for good reason, too. Hence, the speculation arises that the Royal Family was involved with Diana's death. In the film, the Queen makes the claim more than once that Diana was “no longer a member of the royal family”. It never did make sense how paparazzi could cause such a fatal car crash in a tunnel. However, this is the story that was presented to the media. In the film, various subtle allusions are made regarding the Royal Family's involvement but it is left up to the audiences to decide. There is just one question that came to me at the end of the picture. What did the Queen herself think of this movie? Was she amused at all? All in all, excellent film!

Silent Movie (1976)

Cast: Mel Brooks (Mel Funn), Dom DeLuise (Dom Bell), Marty Feldman (Marty Eggs), Sid Caesar (Studio Chief)

Director: Mel Brooks

Genre: Comedy/ Slapstick


I don’t think there is any genre of movie that Mel Brooks has not slapped around and put in its place. He made fun of Westerns with Blazing Saddles, took shots at classic horror with Young Frankenstein, he went from light speed to “ludicrous speed” in the film Spaceballs taking on the haughtiness of the “ultimate” sci-fi film. He even took on what I call “60’s Bible flicks” with his History of the World, Part 1” and kicked those in the pants. He left no stone unturned, no matter how old a stone, with Silent Movie.
To think that people can be staunchly against bringing back old school filming methods, thinking them to be outdated and no good, are definitely brought to their knees by this film. The title states exactly what the film is- a silent movie. This was the first silent movie to be filmed since movies went to sound 40 years ago. The story line is simple but the acting and improvisation speaks wonders. Mel Funn, Dom Bell, and Marty Eggs have a movie script that's destined to be a huge success. The film is to be a silent movie and the key to its success is not only its silence, but its huge cast of big-name movie stars. The big-wig movie producer, played by Sid Caeser, doesn't like the idea at first but when he hears its cast of big name hotshots, he agrees the film will be a big success and bring in enough money to save his studio from falling into the hands of the studio creditors, Engulf and Devour. So Funn, Bell, and Eggs set off to search for the stars. Marty Feldman is the funniest of the three. His goofy looks, which he is famous for, adds so much humor to the film. Who needs sound when you have so much more that can only work when dialogue doesn't get in the way. The best scene was of course Funn's fall off the sober band wagon to briefly become the ''Lord of the winos". The cast of celebrities is very entertaining. This is a great movie to watch with others. In typical Brooks fashion, the film does contain a few scenes with lewd humor and content. Otherwise, what makes it great is that you can talk during the movie and not worry about missing an important line. The film only has one word of dialogue spoken by a very unlikely source.

Wag the Dog (1997)

Cast: Robert DeNiro (Conrad Bean), Dustin Hoffman (Stanley Motss), Ann Heche (Winifred Ames)

Director: Barry Levinson

Genre: Political Satire



Political movies are always the hardest to show the public with the expectation that the film will receive a decent amount of attention. I often think that political movies have a limited audience even though their writers are probably aiming for everyone as an audience. Wag the Dog is about the only political film I can think of that has received a deserved amount of attention (JFK doesn’t count). Of course, it had a lot of indirect help from the Clinton administration even though it had nothing to do with Clinton. What makes this film stand out, other than similarities between the scandal of the fictional president of the movie and the Monica Lewinski scandal of Bill Clinton, is the thought the movie leaves the audience at the end. If one part of the story can actually happen, as Mr. Clinton proved to us, then what about the other half? I can't imagine anyone reading this blog passage, whether they're politically oriented or not, not ever hearing about this movie. There are only eleven more days until the Presidential election and the President has been caught with his pants down-literally. He has been accused of sexual misbehavior with a teenage girl in the oval office. A top presidential advisor contacts a Hollywood producer to help create a fake war between the U.S. and Albania in order to distract voters through the media in order that the President can appear heroic than horny and win the election. The director and presidential advisors go all out and cover all bases in order to get the public eye off the President's picadillos and focus on his heroic achievements in the phony war. A handful of Presidential advisors and one Hollywood director take the entire U.S. for a ride.
The whole film gave new meaning to the words "conspiracy theory". I really liked the attention it gave to the purpose of media. Not only was it timely with Clinton’s scandal, but it showed just how much the media fuels the public, who in return, fuel the media. The portrayal of media influence is straight forward, scary, and drives the movie’s audiences to anger. (Here I recommend the book MultiMedia Unlimited by Todd Gitlin- a Journalism Professor at Columbia University). Aside from a few rough words, this film is highly recommended, especially for the political science student.