Netflix The Crown Season 4

[Rove]

Snarky that is a great screen shot you currently have of Dallas and it also explains why I miss seeing this family on the small screen. It envelopes all the main players; Miss Ellie, JR, Sue Ellen, Gary, Lucy, Bobby, Pam, Ray and Donna. But of course looming large over televisions first family is the Patriarch...Jock Ewing. It has been mentioned by some how The Royal Family mirrors The Ewing family. Or should that have been the other way round?

 

[Crimson]

I've enjoyed THE CROWN enormously for the first three seasons, but we're now up to the era I've been dreading: Charles & Diana. Having lived through it -- while doing my best to ignore it -- I haven't been too enthusiastic about going through it again. (I was relieved when the second season of FEUD, focusing on the pair, was abandoned.) The whole era of both Charles & Diana, and Andrew & Fergie, was so tacky and tedious I'm skeptical that even the posh drama of THE CROWN can make it palatable. Season three pulled off the nearly unimaginable, making me sympathetic to Charles and his then-doomed relationship with Camilla, but four episodes into season four and I remain ambivalent to the show's portrayal of Diana and the relationship with Charles.

I'll refrain from overall judgement until I'm done the season, but the series has been one of gradually diminishing returns for me. The expanding cast of royals makes the show feel less focused. Claire Foy's vibrant, young Elizabeth was a commanding centerpiece, but Olivia Coleman is stuck playing a reserved dour-faced frump.

I remain iffy about Gillian Anderson's Thatcher. It's a technically impressive performance, capturing the look and mannerisms of Thatcher, but it's very actory. I'm never unaware that I'm watching an impersonation.

 

[Ukdallasfan]

I’m watching this now with a major sense of unease and I don’t know if I will go further than the last episode I watched and I’ll give the reasons why. We watched episode seven last night which was about the Queen’s cousins, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, who were born with a congenital condition resulting in learning difficulties. Sadly, they were institutionalised as young adults which was typical of that era.
The story about them was desperately contrived by Peter Morgan and almost certainly total fiction, having Princess Margaret finding out about them and trying to rescue them, which was utter nonsense as well as terribly cruel. Plus, it wasn’t entertaining and the theme, being heredity and bloodlines, didn’t gel. We felt that Morgan, a staunch Republican who has called the Queen an unintelligent person better suited to keeping horses, was just taking a sadistic pot shot at the Royal Family. We should remember that many of the family remain alive. They are human beings with feelings but don’t have the luxury to sue for libel, so they just have to take it on the chin.
William and Harry are having to bear the indignity of their parents’ lives being raked over not only in this show but also in terms of the allegations that are developing a head of steam about the conduct of the Bashir interview with their mother.
Let’s not forget that those boys suffered the tragic loss of their mother at very young ages and have suffered from the perspective of their psychological and emotional health ever since.
I’ve no doubt that they won’t watch The Crown, but others around them will, for example Mike Tindall. Also, it’s next to nearly impossible for them to avoid the extensive media coverage about the series. We just felt uncomfortable watching the episodes with Charles and Diana and with the cousins and much preferred the episodes which showed the Queen’s involvement in issues like the Falklands’ War, the unemployment scandal which led to Michael Fagan breaking in to the palace etc. Those episodes are, in my view, miles more valuable from a modern history perspective.

 

[Sarah]

I finished the whole thing in 2 days!!! Argh! Now the next series isn’t set to come until 2022!!

Overall bar the focus on the stag, I loved it. All the performances were outstanding and moving. I wish we’d get another series sooner. Feel sorry for us!

I actually hope it highlights that Charles and Camilla should have went elsewhere rather than have it all. He will never, ever be King in my eyes.

 

[Crimson]

Although I enjoyed the season and still consider THE CROWN to be above-average TV entertainment, S4 was my least favorite to date.

The main problem, as I feared: Charles & Diana sucked up all the oxygen in the room. They even loomed over episodes that weren't about them, or even appeared in. The show was self-aware enough to make it a plot point with other characters expressing bitter resentment at being upstaged, but it didn't change how off-kilter it made the season. Characters who were interesting in past seasons (Margaret; Phillip; Ann) and characters who showed some potential (Andrew; Edward) were largely reduced to tertiary players spouting exposition and caustic commentary. Worse, I don't think the show did a good job of handling Charles & Diana; for the first time, the series seemed to have no clear opinion on its characters or relationships. Episodes fluctuated sympathy back & forth between Charles & Diana willy-nilly, but seemed to conclude, I guess, that they were both shrill neurotics.

Even with its muddled central relationship, THE CROWN still works best as a glossy soap opera. As a historical drama it's very shaky, even taking into account that I have no expectations of a work of entertainment being factually accurate.

Olivia Coleman didn't leave as strong of an impression as Claire Foy, but I'm not sure how much she had to work with. Elizabeth moved into an undemonstrative frumpiness in middle-age that doesn't give an actress much to work with. Coleman brought some understated wit, but didn't have anything as dramatic as Helen Mirren had in THE QUEEN.

 

[Angela Channing]

Although I enjoyed the season and still consider THE CROWN to be above-average TV entertainment, S4 was my least favorite to date.

The main problem, as I feared: Charles & Diana sucked up all the oxygen in the room. They even loomed over episodes that weren't about them, or even appeared in. The show was self-aware enough to make it a plot point with other characters expressing bitter resentment at being upstaged, but it didn't change how off-kilter it made the season. Characters who were interesting in past seasons (Margaret; Phillip; Ann) and characters who showed some potential (Andrew; Edward) were largely reduced to tertiary players spouting exposition and caustic commentary. Worse, I don't think the show did a good job of handling Charles & Diana; for the first time, the series seemed to have no clear opinion on its characters or relationships. Episodes fluctuated sympathy back & forth between Charles & Diana willy-nilly, but seemed to conclude, I guess, that they were both shrill neurotics.

Even with its muddled central relationship, THE CROWN still works best as a glossy soap opera. As a historical drama it's very shaky, even taking into account that I have no expectations of a work of entertainment being factually accurate.

Olivia Coleman didn't leave as strong of an impression as Claire Foy, but I'm not sure how much she had to work with. Elizabeth moved into an undemonstrative frumpiness in middle-age that doesn't give an actress much to work with. Coleman brought some understated wit, but didn't have anything as dramatic as Helen Mirren had in THE QUEEN.

Great review of the season.

 

[Sarah]

I have never viewed Queen Elizabeth as frumpy, even in that era of her life so I am really unsettled by Olivia's performance too @Crimson

 

[Willie Oleson]

Who plays Koo Stark?

 

[Ome]

 

[Cutie]

Is it just me or does Diana look a bit psychotic in the series?
What’s up with those facial expressions? Lol

 

[Toni]

I have never viewed Queen Elizabeth as frumpy, even in that era of her life so I am really unsettled by Olivia's performance too @Crimson

I just finished binge-watching this. @Sarah, I thought of you when Olivia Coleman opened her mouth. So far, I had been watching it in English with subtitles, but I wanted to see this season with no more delay, and watched the Spanish-dubbed version. When the Queen opened her mouth, she speaks with the Spanish voice of...

​

This time I´m not kidding! She voiced Mandy in the 1989 dubbing of "Dallas" (the actress was beginning at the time). Her voice is not as sultry as Deborah´s but it´s still quite beautiful and sounds younger than Coleman´s. I guess that you (like moi) must think that this actress should have dubbed Camilla instead...



About the season, I did like it. There are so many things about UK that didn´t appear in the press in the 80s (though I still was young... and not interested in politics or gossip about the Royals). Everything that comes to be a history lesson, I find it very useful even to just start reading about it. The change of actors is very disappointing: I only love Tobias Menzies and Josh O´Connor to be honest. But even their characters have been turned into very unlikable ones, especially Charles. I liked Emma Corrin better than I had thought, and had no idea about her many problems. Re Mrs. Thatcher, let me tell you that I prefer her over Meryl Streep. Enough said.

 

[Sarah]

I just finished binge-watching this. @Sarah, I thought of you when Olivia Coleman opened her mouth. So far, I had been watching it in English with subtitles, but I wanted to see this season with no more delay, and watched the Spanish-dubbed version. When the Queen opened her mouth, she speaks with the Spanish voice of...

View attachment 30943
​

This time I´m not kidding! She voiced Mandy in the 1989 dubbing of "Dallas" (the actress was beginning at the time). Her voice is not as sultry as Deborah´s but it´s still quite beautiful and sounds younger than Coleman´s. I guess that you (like moi) must think that this actress should have dubbed Camilla instead...



About the season, I did like it. There are so many things about UK that didn´t appear in the press in the 80s (though I still was young... and not interested in politics or gossip about the Royals). Everything that comes to be a history lesson, I find it very useful even to just start reading about it. The change of actors is very disappointing: I only love Tobias Menzies and Josh O´Connor to be honest. But even their characters have been turned into very unlikable ones, especially Charles. I liked Emma Corrin better than I had thought, and had no idea about her many problems. Re Mrs. Thatcher, let me tell you that I prefer her over Meryl Streep. Enough said.

BEHAVE PIGGY!

I am eating!!!!

 

[Barbara Fan]

Olivia Coleman as the Queen left me cold and I just couldnt warm to her in the role and thought she was rather over rated and not sure why she won awards for it- and for one the Queen doesnt have brown eyes she has lovely blue eyes.

Claire Foy was just perfect and so believable and a hard act to follow

Also Imelda Staunton as the next QE2, she is an actress rthat I have always thought had "very cold eyes" and again I cant see a warmth there,

Nothing will top the casting of S1 and 2
for me, Matt Smith was perfect as was ? Vanessa Kirby as Princess Margaret

 

[Karin Schill]

I'm finally getting to watch this season now. So far we have watched the first three episodes and already I am having problems with Charles and Diana's story as it is not accurate to what we have heard happened before. Like for instance I think in Diana her true story it was claimed that Diana saw the bracelet that Charles gave to Camilla. In the Crown she saw the sketches only. Also Charles and Camilla spent the night in the royal train. But in the Crown it was at Highgrove.

I think little details like that being changed makes the show seems less realistic somehow.

Still I'm looking forward to watch the rest of the season. I am trying to watch one episode/week so the season won't be over too fast.

 

[Sarah]

I'm finally getting to watch this season now. So far we have watched the first three episodes and already I am having problems with Charles and Diana's story as it is not accurate to what we have heard happened before. Like for instance I think in Diana her true story it was claimed that Diana saw the bracelet that Charles gave to Camilla. In the Crown she saw the sketches only. Also Charles and Camilla spent the night in the royal train. But in the Crown it was at Highgrove.

I think little details like that being changed makes the show seems less realistic somehow.

Still I'm looking forward to watch the rest of the season. I am trying to watch one episode/week so the season won't be over too fast.

It isn't supposed to be bang on accurate though? It's a dramatization and all these shows will take dramatic licence. It happens with almost every single true life drama.

As I said early on, the Queen's eyes are blue but are blatantly portrayed here by an actress whose eyes are brown. You just have to let these little details go, as annoying as they can be.

 

[Angela Channing]

I agree with you. There's a good example in how The Crown portrayed the Charles and Diana engagement interview with the media. Most people will know when they are asked if they are very much in love Diana replies "Of course", Charles says "whatever in love means" to which Diana responds "yes" and give a nervous laugh. In The Crown, after the "whatever in love means" line Diana says nothing, she just looked worried and troubled. I think this is a legitimate change to make to indicate that Diana had concerns about Charles's commitment from early on in their engagement. It's not factually accurate but overall it is consistent with the state of mind of the characters and got that over to the audience very succinctly and powerfully.

 

[Sarah]

You cannot expect it to be exactly the same because at the end of the day as @Angela Channing says, we only see the media side of things and only ever have other people's words to take for it.

 

[Karin Schill]

Well I've read a lot of books about them too. Including "Her true story" which is the closest Diana ever came to giving out an autobiography book. I've also watched several Tv movies about Charles and Diana before. So it is a story that we know well and therefore the creative license when they change things are easier to notice than when the storylines centered around stuff that happened in the 1940s - 1970s that I've never seen dramatized before.

 

[Sarah]

Me too, and it can be annoying but it's just the way dramas are. There can also be legal reasons for changing things. If it was bang on spot totally accurate, there'd be a warning to say 'sorry we can't portray Charles and Camilla as lying ratbags but...'

 

[Karin Schill]

Well I did find the lunch with Diana and Camilla pretty interesting to watch even though I doubt it happened like that.
But yes it must have been pretty unnerving for Diana to realize just how close Charles and Camilla were with their special nicknames for each other etc.
Also how Charles had spoken to Camilla on the phone from Australia and not even bothered to call Diana. If it really happened like that it's a wonder she even went through with the wedding.