The reason why the first two seasons were just such stellar television is because the entire audience was incredibly disconnected with that version of the Queen. Claire Foy had such ease because the oldest watching the show may only have slight memory of that era of her reign. As the series went on though it had to give oxygen to events that people were absolutely expecting to be discussed or at least brushed upon. And as soon as Diana was introduced all narrative focus was thrown away. The show fundementally forgot what it was about. Diana’s crisis seen through Elizabeth’s eyes would have been such a fascinating change and given us genuine freshness to both their stories. But you definitely would’ve seen many wonder why that story wasn’t given more screen time. It’s the burden of expectation and the writers truly succumbed to it.
I actually think that the focus on Diana later on was a clear example of what becomes of a person of the royal family that doesn't consider duty first. It is as said in the Video "(Diana) will bend or break." And I think it's clear that the Queen bend to the expectations while Diana ultimately broke down and was trying to find her own way - and both ways had an impact on people. And in that regard, it made sense to show the beginnings of Prince Williams and Kates relationship - and how he learned to try to find a balance, especially in this more charged public environment regarding royals and celebrities. But I have to dig a little deaper, have only seen the series once.
I think a large problem is just the time differences between the seasons. Keep in mind Queen Mary, Elizabeth’s grandmother, who only lived a year and a month into her granddaughter’s reign was in 5 episodes. And King George VI was in 6 episodes. This is more time than many of the characters who lived far more into the Queen’s reign ever got. There’s also the differences in the brushing over of the prime ministers as the series went on. Churchill got a load of attention and successive prime ministers got less, then Thatcher got a lot of attention, and her successors got squat. The show simply had to cover more years in less time as it went on. This is why the first 2 seasons are generally better, as they cover less years and more specific material.
That is very true. I just think that at the end of the day the creatives had the agency to choose their start and end points and how exactly they were to allocate the screentime to efficiently and properly tell the story they were telling [of course, one must acknowledge that there is still the matter of Netflix, as they do get to assert at least some control over their tv shows]. First two seasons, they did that very well, while in the four following seasons they didn't do that good of a job. It surely can explain why some things came out the way they did, but it is not exactly a viable defense.
@@andrewreviews Yeah. I suppose it also helps that there is just more literature and study of the older events since we today are just more disconnected from them. So the writers had less speculative material to work with? But as a historical drama, there isn’t really a reason they had such a difficult time filling in the gaps with the later seasons if they really had no problem being more disconnected from history. But as you mentioned, they were trying to tow multiple lines, hence the issue.
while I acknowledge and agree with your point of the show's constant inconsistency, I took the queen's different stances with regards to the common people when speaking to Margaret Thatcher and John Major as the hypocrisy and contradiction that often comes with billionares preaching about charity. yes, she did not want people to starve. yes, she cared about the plight of her people. yes, she wanted funds to be used to help her subjects. _until she wanted it more._ It doesn't imply that she went from caring about the people to being out of touch and cruel, it simply shows that while she may be benevolent, she loves her desires (the royal yacht) more. she loves her subjects but they are fundamentally still, in her eyes, _her subjects._
This is a take that I myself considered whilst writing the script for this video, and it is a valid point. What made me ultimately consider this as inconsistency, though, was the fact that the Queen has faced a similar type of situation before where finances were being brought up [and the royal yacht itself, in a line of dialogue]. This happened during the fourth episode of the third season, which starts off specifically by considering the financial burden on the taxpayer of the royal family. It is interesting in a sense that the episode never really displays the Queen having specific position on the finances, but rather passes off a specific stance to Philip [he is shown as consistently pushing for the royal family to be appropriately paid, which is in turn consistent with his characterisation during the first episode of the fifth season]. The episode sort of loses the thread of the finances by the end, but the conversation at the end between the Queen and the PM does indicate that she has sensitivity towards people's perception towards the royal family by questioning the PM about what people want of them. Again, she doesn't state a concrete stance on the finances themselves, but I thought she did seem at least somewhat conflicted towards the subject at hand. Of course, there is always the argument of "she became this type of person with age", but this, as I have stated, still requires a character arc in place in order to make complete sense.
@@andrewreviewsThat is a very fair assessment and I agree that the show more or less relies on us to fill in the blanks ourselves in regards to character arcs. As a narrative and character-driven series, it fails to depict so much in lieu of hitting story beats instead and that is something I've never quite been able to put my finger on until your video. Good job!
I find it very fascinating that this show didn't go hard in Diana's legacy once she was introduced in the show. Still, it was very entertaining to watch six seasons of the Windsors being....the Windsors.
I think they didn’t because of the 20 year rule. Diana has been dead for quite a while, but that length of time is 25 years. That means, give or take, the Crown had 5 or so years of post-mortem time to work with, but that also included the deaths of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother, 2 other very big events of the time.
Thank god someone pointed out how freaking awful the writing for Diana in season 5 was. No mention of her charity work or being beloved, just her being called a race-fetishist, paranoid, whiney and a traitor. Her revenge dress moment was framed as her being an attention whore that took away from poor Charles. I get trying to balance but that was just despicable, easily the worst season of the entire show.
So you’re just gonna ignore her charitable acts that was shown in S4 and how it showed how beloved she was? God forbid the crown show Charles in a good light for an episode.
@@bbybella9937yes it should be forbidden, he’s a piece of shit. Do you also think sex traffickers should be put in a good light and their victims portrayed as villains?
Re: the yacht - I don’t think the show was necessarily getting at Elizabeth having a particular emotional attachment to the boat as much as it was getting at Elizabeth’s, and everyone else’s, growing feeling that Elizabeth was obsolete. The boat was christened around the same time Elizabeth began her reign. So if the boat is out of date and “old”, so is Elizabeth. That’s why that episode also has the storyline about “queen Victoria syndrome” and Charles trying to convince the PM to side with him in getting Elizabeth to step down. Or at least that was my takeaway. Less sentimentality about the boat itself and more Elizabeth being compared to the boat.
I think there's a valuable addition here: discussion about Ken Burns. Ken Burns makes documentaries about the USA that essentially define how many Americans feel about certain subjects - the Civil War, jazz, The Vietnam War, baseball... These documentaries are fantastic, just about as good as anyone could make them, but they are still a single narrative, still biased. So the definitive history of these periods of history becomes the Ken Burns version; many people look no farther. Tell a story well and with confidence, and you can make people believe what you like.
As someone who was around from the 70's til now, I found myself mostly fascinated with the years before, believing most of first few seasons but later taking with a grain of salt. The personal discourses.
Same! Born in early 80's, but they were never really on my radar until Diana's death. So I found Seasons 1-4 absolutely fascinating, especially with the emphasis on England and its institutions under threat by modern times, the fall of the empire and all that.
This is well done. I find a lot of the points you make here are why so many hate Philips Gregory’s writings. I personally love shows that make me deep dive into a character barely mentioned, which you have identified as a faux pas. The issue I find with historical dramas from 1500 era to present day- queen elizabeth, is the relevance and amount of information available. It is easy to find the answers when seeking clarification. Whereas, the white queen for example, written by PG, many argue that there is too much deviation from fact and is mostly fiction over historical fact. My theory is we need creative liberties,as you have mentioned, to make a decent show, one that flows enough without requiring additional research to enjoy. However given the era, history is written by winners, and true fact will never been known, only interpretations based on evidence available. The crown lost me very similar to what you mentioned regarding the more relevant the events occurred, the harder Netflix did not try to make known fact present. As an example around Diana era, that is when it got into hot water, because of the huge controversy.
What is crazy is that almost always any time there is a departure from objective historical facts in this show, it is in the direction that makes the Windsor family more sympathetic, and they still are upset about the way it depicts them. Which really tells you everything you need to know about that family's obsession with propaganda/public image (call it what you will), and the state of UK's public conversation, or rather lack of, on the (lack of) merits of the monarchical systems.
There needs to be more video essays about The Crown, so thank you! It's one of the greatest Supervillain Origin Stories ever told. They just didn't quite stick the landing.
Thanks so much for this review!! Thanks for putting into words and showing proof as to the frustration I was feeling to the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth as “incurious” in season 6 when the first couple seasons showed us the exact opposite!!!! Also great points about how the writers didn’t properly introduce certain history points while overemphasizing others. Great job!!
People are inconsistent and conflicted, present a different face in different situations, in fact this is the MO of the royals. The relationship of Charles and Diana was reprentative of that. I see your critique of the show as a compliment for the show and how they portrayed the royal family.
Oddly enough, I quite enjoyed the ambiguous nature of The Crown's story-beats. I've had an above average knowledge of the royal family and the last century or so of the monarchy of the United Kingdom (and that is above average for an American, a far cry from what the average Brit would know). As such, most of the show felt like a natural progression from one major event in history to another, with plenty of liberties taken to help build a drama out of some otherwise dull moments. I definitely had to look up some events and people, dove down a few rabbit holes each season, etc, but that was the fun of it for me. I'm sure many people don't take to that too kindly when they aren't anticipating as much, and anyone who knows very little of the house of Windsor would have a lot of things flying right over their head. That aside, I think most people watching (whether they're familiar with the details or not) don't struggle to discern the dramatization that surrounds the general story of moments in history. I've enjoyed your perspective thus far, still watching through. Thanks for sharing your experience with the show.
I swear, before season 5 the writers got bribed or threatened about how they needed to write Charles and Diana. Season 5 is very "hey Shakespeare, remember that these are my ancestors so even though Bollingbrook is a usurper and mass murderer, make him look righteous" coded. If Charles wasn't currently king, I'd bet all the money in the world we'd have seen a more accurate portrayal of him (as a cheating whoremonger, spoiled brat, attention-seeking toddler crybaby). When one part of a partnership is universally beloved and the other can't get anyone to perform at his coronation and the very act of him becoming king shakes the foundation of the Commonwealth, I think public perception can be given some credit.
A great deal of the narrative gaps and glossing over that is done, especially in the later seasons, is due to the fact that The Crown is produced by the British for the British. If they had gone into further depth, the audience would have responded with: "Yeah, yeah, we know already...get on with it." The most annoying thing to me as an American old enough to remember the Diana hysteria from the engagement until her death, is the fact that younger viewers have no perspective to allow them to judge the War of the Waleses with the nuance it deserves. They view it as Diana= pretty and good, Charles=ugly and bad. What actually happened was so much more complex. And, so much of the portrayal of their relationship by The Crown is simply incorrect and historically inaccurate. But, younger viewers are accustomed to judging real events through the framework of simple optics. And, that is one of the major reasons that Dame Judi spoke out against the show.
On the contrary, the portrayal is correct and historically accurate. I remember it all and have read. Royal apologists act as if The Crown presentation of diana-charles relationship is unique, all made up for this show. Untrue "spin," attempting to make Charles look better. The Crown's version of the story is the same as what one sees and reads in many other sources. The talented Judi Dench was just sucking up to the spoiled royals.
Given that the Royal a family are still used in the UK to try to define a national identity and unify us, a disclaimer would be sensible. I’m pro-republic, and I still have been raised to have an intense fascination around these characters. They have been kept a strange mystery and anchor for us. We still relate to them in the way “subjects” of the absolute ruler would. Many people queue for funerals, weddings, major life events because of this relationship. To the audience in the UK, we need a disclaimer on anything related to the family to be able to keep in mind it may not be accurate. Otherwise, it becomes a type of propaganda, however accidental. There are still significant controversies and issues that the British public has, which have been hooked on a publicly known action of a member of this family. Our national conversation around ethics often hinges on these publicly known events, and descends into whether the person was right or wrong, and so our ethics become clouded by our loyalty to this family. It does not foster a healthy democracy. The democratic freedom of the UK could be better safeguarded by pointing out fiction “inspired by real events”.
14:30 counterpoint to the Andrew plot line not being well developed. The FACT that the Queen was so permissive of Andrew being so off color in her presence did the necessary narrative lifting. She showed a degree of permissiveness towards him that she doesn't show to the other people in her life. Which she wouldn't do if he wasn't, indeed, a favorite. It's also worth noting that these episodes came out within a year of Prince Andrew's stomach churning BBC interview about his connections to Epstein and the credible SA allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. So the showrunners had to walk a precarious tightrope in how they handled the Prince Andrew the character. How do you give him enough screentime to fulfill his narrative function? How do you give a nod to what we know about Andrew as of 2020, without it completely overshadowing the rest of the show? I don't think those narrative choices were about not having enough time, but not knowing how to strike that balance.
If you watch this and you do not know some of the so called name drops or the other uncles, then why are you watching this? This is a show made for people who have some idea of how the royal family works.
I think at least **some** these narrative oversights were a matter of unconscious bias on the part of the showrunners, not a lack of time. Everyone involved in the production of the show is British. They grew up with all these historical events being in the public zeitgeist. So they might not have an accurate barometer of what is and isn't already known to a non British audience. The IRA, for example, cast a VERY long shadow over British politics, much the same way ISIS and Al Qaeda did over post 9/11 United States. It may not even occur to the screenwriters that the IRA even needed to be explained. Perhaps if there were non Brits in the writer's room, those historical blind spots could have been identified.
I think there might have been interference in the writing room. The show seemed to become very Pro-Charles in season 5 and 6. The way they portrayed Diana was disgusting.
The thing about the demands for a disclaimer was stupid. If Netflix caved to this demand, what’s next? A disclaimer before Star Trek Discovery just “in case” people think Michael Burnham etc is flying about in outer space?
while I like your video I have to say that most of the criticism pertaining to the lack of context or proper set up provided by the show in moments like the yacht, Andrew and so on can be addressed by the something rather obvious to me, the fact that the crown had a very specific audience in mind. you even said so yourself - it didn’t have to create interest bc it’s subject matter created it in and of itself, but there are tons of ppl who don’t give a flipping fuck about Britain or the monarchy, and I’d argue that these ppl won’t pick up this show anyway. this doesn’t exactly excuse the show as you are right - you need to be somewhat knowledgeable about British history to enjoy the show - or at least it does help a lot, but I feel like the necessary level is quite low - I’m a Russian for whom British history is almost totally irrelevant in terms of culture (unlike say Americans), so I have a passing understanding of the crowns subject matter, yet it didn’t at all prevent me from engaging with the story, I just made assumptions and connected dots in various places. this isn’t a qualm with your video just an alternative perspective
I suppose the reviewer's complaint was that "The Crown" was presented in the style of a documentary - drama vs historical fiction but that it wasn't a stand alone creation - viewers had to work out their own footnotes & fact checks. Then again, making fact check videos of "The Crown" seemed to become a cottage industry on RU-vid
The importance of the yacht wasn't that she liked it and it was sentimental. The yacht was her legacy as a monarch. The theme of the monarchy ending and elizabeths feelings of failure are wrapped up in that boat. She thought that her son would be hosting diplomats aboard a yacht she built and it would continue to be a part of british history. All the while, the monarchy seems to be coming to an end all together. Im going to finish watching the video now though, this is really good.
I don't know 10:00 perhaps I come from a dysfunctional family - but saying something akin to "favorite uncle" when there is only really one uncle is a joke in my family. My brothers call me their favorite sister -even tho &/or because I am their only sister. Admittedly, nobody in this scene in "The Crown" laughed - so maybe it wasn't meant as a joke
Well if they got all the plot from newspaper stories going back to the 50s, even earlier, that would sort of work in the short attention spans of today. A whole series made from the talking points of each era.
Who watches the show with the impression that it’s factual? It’s obvious the writers took an artistic license. Overthinking the whole thing takes away from the fact that it is simply entertainment.
If you don’t know who the IRA are by the time you’re watching this show, you’re in the wrong place. The show respects the audience enough to not spoon feed you a history lesson. Maybe it’s just because I’m a half Irish Brit but I knew the score the minute the IRA showed up and lord mountbatten blowing up is a fucking insane piece of cinema.
Quite a lot of work went into making a video that fails to explain that a show like this actually should inspire further research as each episode is rooted in some truth, well research and well dramatised. Each episode is self-contained story that has an anchor in some facts. You just seemed confused about what you are watching. Some considerations. The Queen had many uncles but one was relevant to the story of the Crown - a very well documented fact. Your take on Andrew is even less plausible, considering his misgivings, still very much broadcasted today on the world press. I gave up on this video on the story of the royal yacht. So, let me get this right. Because you have not seen the yacht in EVERY single episode, you have dismissed the fact that the Queen resented the decommissioning of Britannia? A simple research online would have made you aware of the circumstances. It is interesting that you spent time to create a video of 1h 22 minutes and 3 seconds, yet did not feel the need to contextualise what you are actually watching.
I think you would find your comment is rather ironic within the context of the video itself if you actually listened to what was stated. And also ?? not sure what you are getting at with my "take on Andrew". My take on Andrew was that his relationship with Elizabeth II on the show, by the time he was titled a favorite, consisted of a single interaction and had no real proper set up for it. Again, rather ironically, nothing to do with what is known about this figure in real life.
@@andrewreviews you just proved my point. There is a lot of information on Andrew and his relationship with his mother. Context is crucial and you put this task on the production and not on you.
Because that IS the show's job. Sure, it absolutely can be a good starting point of getting into the history of the royal family, but it absolutely cannot be reliant on the supposed context that you try to bring up. Context outside the show doesn't matter in a show that poses itself as fictional. I doubt this much grace would be extended towards any other show, and I am not sure why the Crown should get such treatment. The viewing experience can certainly be enhanced by additional knowledge, but it is not an excuse to not properly execute characters and storylines.
@@andrewreviews if that were true, every series or books on the Nazi should be covering the whole story of the Nazi? I am surprised by the lack of interest in research and context but the vehement defence of the indefensible. As a lecturer, my team and I, push our students to get the context, not only the partiality. This is the tantamount of my lazy students not understanding why they failed when they only studied from my slides and ignored the context.
Now you are just hyperbolizing. I never asked for the entire story be presented. I am asking for the parts relevant to the story to be present, which is completely fair. If you are in the field of academia, you know that when writing anything, you have to think of what you write and how you present your material, and you need to explain everything in order to properly set up and actually argue your arguments. Same applies for everything - you cannot just state something and not explain it. In narrative terms, that is called telling instead of showing, which, in any other show, would be bad. Yet, you say that because this is The Crown, that doesn't hold true? Do you also ask people who watch House of the Dragon to read Fire and Blood? I understand that you are calling for critical thinking and for more research, but I am also calling for people to be critical of how something is presented from a narrative point of view. You seem to have headcanoned your way into saying I didn't do any research. I did, and I point out many times that things might be this or that way because of the context.
