Skip to main content

The Latest Season of The Crown: Not My Favorite

 





I recently binged my way through....

The Crown Season 5 on Netflix: Diana's interview, Prince Charles' breakdancing, and more. (slate.com)

It was very well done. As the show moves through the decades, the cast keeps changing. So for example the part of Queen Elizabeth II was played by Claire Foy when she was a young woman, seasons 1-2, by Olivia Colman at greater age (seasons 3-4), and now by Imelda Staunton in season 5. 

Staunton is best known, or has been best known until now, as one of the great villainesses of the Harry Potter books, Dolores Umbridge. 

Staunton has not dislodged Colman as my personal favorite of the Elizabeths here. It was Colman who played off against Margaret Thatcher (Gillian Anderson) in some epic scenes, and against the younger version of Diana, Princess of Wales (as played by in season 4 by Emma Corrin).  Those three actresses had a great dynamic triangle going in that fourth season.

The fifth?  Thatcher is gone. Neither John Major nor Tony Blair offers a dramatic foil of analogous weight. And  Elizabeth Debicki is not as stunning a Diana as Corrin was. 

Nonetheless, the material is gripping, even where some liberties are taken with it. 

Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltNovember 17, 2022 at 6:11 PM

    Yes. When life imitates art, there is room for forgiveness. When things go the other way 'round, there is too much room for misinformation and/or; historical revisionism. This evening, a local figure was on the News. He talked about political change. Where recently we may have seen or read commentary referring to scare quotes ('....'), this man called them: air quotes. I had not heard that before. Don't know where he got it. He has been in state politics for several decades.
    Maybe, too long?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more