ITS FAKE HISTORY: WHY THE CROWN SHOULD CARRY A DISCLAIMER. Richard Fitzwilliams, royal commentator and film critic, is available on 07939602749 www.richardfitzwilliams.com
The Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden has urged Netflix, which has made The Crown, to state on screen that the series is fiction. 29 million have seen all or part of the 4th Season of this series, the creation of Peter Morgan, which purports to follow the major events in the royal family and parallel these with political dramas, in the decades since the Queen, when Princess Elizabeth, married Philip Mountbatten in 1947.
Any docudrama cannot obviously be expected to stick wholly to fact, but its job is surely to capture the essence of what happened and portray its characters fairly and believably.
It has been proven by numerous commentators, especially the noted historian Hugo Vickers (see in The Times online & Facebook), that vast swathes of The Crown are simply fiction. Moreover, any audience, especially a younger audience is almost certain to regard them as fact.
What has characterised The Crown is the superb production values, the settings and the costumes, the scale of it all. Initially I thought it fascinating when Claire Foy was the Queen backed by a superb cast. The cast is now, with the notable exception of Emma Corrin as Diana, composed of caricatures. Olivia Coleman’s Queen is cold and uncaring, aloof and ill-mannered. So are they all, with Josh O’Connor’s Charles as a feeble, selfish nonentity.
There are 20 episodes to go as it gets ever nearer to the present day. Portraying the living as worse than members of the Mafia, who might at least be civil, is made easier when you know they cannot sue.
This Season features, to draw the crowds, the marriage of Charles and Diana and the clash between two strong women, the Queen and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, played by Gillian Anderson as a bizarrely frail Wicked Witch of the West.
The warning signs were there. In Season 2 Philip, portrayed as a womanizer throughout, is shown as being held responsible for his pregnant sister’s death in an air crash, all falsely. Season 4 ends with him appearing to threaten an unhappy Diana that it won’t end well if she “breaks away” which is also false. As is so much else. As Simon Jenkins wrote in The Guardian “Fake history is as corrosive as fake news”.
1 person likes this
No reason for the show to carry such a warning. Plenty of movies and TV shows are made that are historical fiction and none carry a warning. Whenever I see something that's historical fiction I get interested in reading about the actual events and do so.
Yeah, I struggle with series like this too. Sorry, but productions do have a responsibility here to at least acknowledge truth and hit somewhat closer to fact and believability, no? Specific to The Crown, its falsities are problematic and may be damaging in its false portrayals. Clearly calling it "fiction" is reasonable. However, in general consideration, I do agree with Lindbergh. Plus the idea of requiring a "fake" warning/disclaimer is going too far, is it not? Moving forward beyond The Crown, exactly what and who would determine a "fake" or "truth" label for a series or film? MPAA? Could be a slippery slope towards creative censorship, no?
Of course, the other side of this coin is the audience. Audience members have a responsibility here too. Be informed about what you are watching. Read books. Know history. Pay attention. Or... choose not to watch something. For me, unless there's an actor's performance or a director's work that I'm interested in seeing, etc, I tend to prefer documentaries when it comes to biographies. What I love is historical fiction horror/drama such as The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Terror, etc. :)
Lindbergh If the majority of the audience had your interest and diligence there would be no need for disclaimers but sadly they don't. When you are depicting real people and supposedly, in a docudrama, the essence of what happened, what liberties can you take? The answer here is that the series has varied enormously both in quality and in aim, with early episodes far less controversial. It will cover events up to 2002,Tthe vast majority of persons depicted will still be living and a huge number of lies, distortions and exaggerations have been shown as fact. The young certainly would think they were true.. The royals, who are portrayed as arrogant, ill-mannered and callous monsters, cannot sue. Helena Bonham Carter, who plays Margaret, has just agreed that a disclaimer is essential.
1 person likes this
Hi Nick
I think we all have this problem as you read in Lindberg & Beth’s posts. I did the same after The Trial of The Chicago 7. We all three have an interest in history, biography & documentary and research what we see.
The reason that this has become such a hot issue here, with the Culture Secretary & Helena Bonham Carter who plays Margaret agreeing, is that probably most of the 73 million who saw the first 3 Seasons & 29 million have already seen the fourth, will think it is true. It is brutal to the royals who are portrayed as cold, aloof, uncaring & duplicitous. Obviously Diana is seen as a victim. She was, but the series has a controversial take on so much which affects the living who are unable to sue.
I do think that this would be desirable as the truth, or what is understood as the truth (look at the new revelations about Panorama) is so often so dreadfully distorted,
Beth I wish the audience were as you say. Of course we don’t want censorship of any kind. But there is real outrage about this. If you check out the noted historian Hugo Vickers’s take in The Times Online.you would be shocked, I think. What makes it such a strange case I’d that the early episodes & Claire Foy’s portrayal of the Queen were so different to this. You are stronger than me as I dread horror movies! I do love the historical, always fascinating. The Crown is coming closer to the present day, another reason for the controversy.