The Crown, A Royal Affair with Gender Role Reversion.

‘Give me a German or an Italian Modernist. What does an Englishman want to change?’

Winston Churchill, The Crown Episode 9.

          Television viewing habits have changed as the internet provides the capacity to binge watch whole season’s worth of shows; this has affected how we consume visual products and the way these formerly serialized texts were meant to be seen. Since we can now watch a whole season in a manner of hours, producers have responded by developing new products which do not rely on old tricks – like cliffhangers – to keep the viewers’ attention or to stretch plots out. The new norm means showrunners can develop and maintain a continuous flow of the visual narrative which in turn means viewers will not be waiting weeks or more to tune back in. This requirement also implies the viewer is expected to be a more attentive one who will watch the show in a continuous form and will not need to be kept up or reminded about certain facts. This new form has ramifications as can be observed when confronting a product such as Netflix’s new hit series The Crown. The British have a special relationship with their monarchy which to them represents something unique; something that raises them above other nations and adjudicates them a divinity which fueled their imperialistic ambitions for centuries.

The Crown is a Netflix production which in of itself is a huge departure from the more established network or cable station products. It has incredible production value as the post WW II period is faithfully recreated to the last detail; the cast is also composed by many recognizable actors and newcomers all who play their parts with great skill – especially Claire Foy and Matt Smith who almost eclipse greats such as John Lithgow and Jeremy Northam. The series works through pairs to contrast power in different relationships and positions; through parings it recreates a picture of a different time and society; and it also posits possible reasons why events unfolded the way they did. There are many more pairs that move the story along, but the following are those which present the most fascinating possibilities for analysis of the time and the social circumstances that surrounded the end of the George VI’s reign and the beginning of Elizabeth II’s own. The other major theme explored is loneliness; the loneliness of power, of age, of love, etc. The visual text shows many ways in which loneliness manifests itself as part of the lives of the shows protagonist who are public figures and known by the world around; yet, when in the privacy of their own homes or away from the light, are shown to be imperfect like common people.

Elizabeth and Phillip

‘I have nothing to hide from you. Nothing. Porchey is a friend; and yes, there are those who would have preferred me to marry him. Indeed, marriage with him might have been easier. Might have even worked better than ours. But to everyone’s regret and frustration, the only person I have ever loved is you and can you honestly look me in the eye and say the same? Can you?.’

Elizabeth to Philip, Episode 9

          An unconventional love story only in the sense of the role reversion that the responsibilities of the crown impose on Elizabeth. The future queen is portrayed as a resourceful young woman whose strong will helps her fight through her family’s disapproval over Philip – this will be the only time when she truly defies the family expectations. This is a character trait which will be a defining part of her journey through the early years as queen; it will also feed a constant struggle between the duties of a sovereign and her wishes as a woman. Philip is portrayed as something of a cad, constantly sulking, and defying his wife in subtle ways. There is heavy implying of marital dysfunction and cheating on Philip’s part which is either a character fault – in a more modern morality look – or his own lashing out at the power imbalance of the relationship. The truth lies somewhere in the middle: Philip is always shown – even before the queen’s ascent – to be a very flirtatious man who enjoys the party lifestyle of a high society British playboy. All of this would cement the idea of a man who is shallow. The prince consort was famously ill equipped to deal with the protocol of his position; the show only allows for one such instance in which he makes fun of a Nigerian King’s crown. The marriage suffers through the tension of having to invert the roles of gender; when traditionally Elizabeth should have been a stay at home Lady caring for estate and children, it falls on Philip instead. He is very quick to complain to his wife about the fact many times during the show. One example of such reversal is his overseeing the Clarence House renovations with the expectation of living there; when Elizabeth’s job requires her move to Buckingham – as to avoid being seen in similar light to her uncle David, the former King Edward – he is quick to show his anger and remark that he is being treated like some woman. One extremely important issue was the dynastic name; this upset him due to the circumstances surrounding the fall from power of Philip’s family in Greece and his lack of a last name – he took his uncle’s Mountbatten when he became a British citizen, so as a child he had none. It further emasculated him that his children would never carry his own family name.

Of course, this inversion of the spheres of influence is not felt in every environment. The bedroom is one place where viewers can still see and feel Philip’s power – due to Matt Smith’s magnetic charm which he manages to envelop with a meanness and disdain – and Elizabeth is nothing more than the cliché 1950’s house wife; the quiet woman who resigns to seeing her husband leave and doubting his fidelity while she herself is not allowed even a miniscule chance for blemish. Some of Claire Foy’s most emotive scenes are of her laying on her side over the conjugal bed; she communicates all her fear, insecurities, and loneliness with just a look in partial shadows while showing her back to the side her husband should be occupying. There is only one scene where viewers can see the couple fight, though we are not privy to what words are used to combat. We do see the devastating effect on Elizabeth, just one more sign of her unwavering loneliness.

          In the end, it must be said the relationship of these two was affected by the obvious disdain the Royal Family had for the young Greek-Dane prince. This disdain extended to the courtiers and others in contact with the family; this can be offered as an additional explanation for the malaise Philip showed.

Elizabeth and George

‘And lonely?’

‘Sometimes, which is why it is important to have the right person by your side’

Elizabeth and George, Episode 1  

This is one of the most compelling mirrored pairs presented by the series. By juxtaposing part of the story of George’s own ascent to power in the wake of his brother Edwards – David – we viewers can get a small sense of the effects this responsibility has on others thrust into a similar position as Elizabeth. Her father was not prepared to bear the weight of the crown – a fact that is remarked upon many times. Small snippets of family life show George was the best option to represent the British as a monarch during the difficult war years. His amicable relationship with Churchill and stoic appearance – he was seen as a family man himself, the opposite of his philandering brother – helped keep moral up and overcome the German offensive long enough for the Allies to offer help.

This relationship is best defined by the words Margaret and Elizabeth exchange in the series final episode, “Elizabeth is my pride but Margaret is my joy.” This quote of the old King holds two distinct views of each of his daughters; of Elizabeth, it specifically states how he sees her as his heir yet by using the ‘but’ he implicitly states he understands she is not his. He understands that first child belongs to the kingdom, as she is not his in the same sense Margaret is. The performance Jared Harris gives in the role punctuates this message perfectly when he sings Bewitched with the King’s youngest daughter; he shows the King’s vulnerability but, at the same time, shows the more affectionate side he is allowed with Margaret. On the other hand, his defining moment with Elizabeth revolves around a red briefcase. The red briefcase carries papers meant for the King’s eyes only, but he shares them with the eldest daughter – knowing she is soon to succeed him. He also answers a question, on loneliness, knowing she will feel the same too.

They entered their respective reigns under completely different situations; they could connect and share with each other something that only David could also understand – and was the reason he renounced to power. They hold a position few ever have or will; in sharing this, they were able to share part of the burden and make viewers understand the very real loneliness of power. Foy performs delicately, never overselling her performance, in moments such as when she has to tell Margaret how she cannot permit a marriage with Peter Townsend – even if she understands as a sister – because it would destabilize the image of the Royal Family.

Elizabeth and Churchill

‘I’ve ordered tea, or something stronger perhaps?’

‘Oh dear, did no one explain? The sovereign never offers a Prime Minister a refreshment or a chair.’

Elizabeth and Churchill at their first meeting, Episode 3

          A battle of wills or of the dignified versus the effective as Walter Bagehot would put it. These two had, per the show, a sometimes-contentious relationship but one which was always based on admiration and respect. It encapsulates the changing of the guard much more than the struggle between Churchill and Eden, as it posts two diametrically different characters as representatives of their respective times. This of course, does not stop Churchill – played by John Lithgow almost as a parallel to his dance-prohibiting preacher from Footloose who similarly overreacts and clings to ideas from the past - from hiding information or intentionally misleading the Queen in attempts to hold onto power. He rationalizes his actions, such as lying about his strokes and the precarious health of Anthony Eden, as necessary to protect the government and the monarchy from the communist threat looming in the east.

This pairing offers the Queen the chance to cement herself in the eyes of the political class, her dismissal of Churchill was something necessary and inevitable. Churchill is presented as being past his prime, yet still a very capable political operator who manages to use the press to stop the Queen from requesting him to step down. Due to his almost obsessive interest in the communist regime in the Soviet Union, he neglects to take the necessary measures to diminish the effects of the Great London Fog of 1952; this fog was a result of ineffective policy over coal use and specific meteorological conditions which resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. As mentioned, he avidly uses the press to present himself as the only man interested in helping the people after his secretary is hit by a bus.

In the end and after Churchill’s second stroke, the Queen – emboldened by her tutor – gives a dressing down to the Prime Minister and demands he make way for Eden to assume power. This ushers a new era for conservative politics, though one which would suffer its own issues. As will be mentioned later, Eden suffered his own health and addiction problems which the series imply affected his actions as Prime Minister during the Suez War. That moment is her final break from vestiges of her father’s reign – Lascelles will still be a factor according to the show – and her own epoch.

Churchill and Eden

‘At some point, every leader must ask himself whether by staying in office, he is giving to the country, or taking from it. Helping or harming. And I would suggest that for some time now you have been taking and harming.’

Eden to Churchill, Episode 9

          Here we see a pairing that does not include a royal in any way, but is nonetheless the most important to the political sphere. Churchill - by the time of the passing of the crown - is a living legend whose utmost concern is the communist menace rising from the east under Stalin. He is portrayed as old and disconnected from the more pressing problems of the people; John Lithgow’s performance in the role offers a broken man at times, one who refuses to accept his time is gone, and who is clever enough to outmaneuver his adversaries. Eden on the other hand, is a rising conservative politician who is being groomed by Churchill to eventually succeed him; he is shown as a man of many facets such as soldier, scholar, and politician though he does err on more than one occasion in the latter – for instance when he tries to unseat Churchill through King George or when he fails to foresee Nasser’s behavior considering the coming Suez War. Both characters get personal lives treatments which shed a light on their respective failings; Eden is shown as a man deeply affected by his health to the point where he becomes addicted to morphine which would later affect his behavior during one of the more dramatic periods in British history; while Churchill is shown in a more positive light as a man who fails in his battle against age.

One major story point in the series is on Winston Churchill’s 80^th birthday painting by George Sutherland. The arc shown in episode 9 serves to humanize the statesman, and in of itself is one of the pairing – Sutherland/Churchill – that works on more levels which are not seen often the show such as the non-Royal families and art as a personal form of expression or therapy. The painter and his subject are shown as very different; but as their interactions continue, it becomes apparent how much they are alike and how the painter is one of the few who really sees him as he is – also, is the one who is not afraid to tell him so. He helps Churchill confront his loss to age through the portrait he crafts, and understand Churchill’s own obsession with art over the loss of his child – a tragedy which they share.

There are many more parings to explore in the series such as the Queen Mothers, the Queen’s secretaries, the courtiers, etc. The most interesting aspect of the show is how it reveals a different facet of the Windsor family, how the known scandals or issues affected them in the private sphere, the differences in society and how important the symbolism of these people to a whole nation, and the hidden part of politics at the highest level. It also lets us 

Commies, Kids and Pirates; A Critical Look at The Goonies’ economic and political circumstances.

Amblin Entertainment is a production company created by Steven Spielberg and other big Hollywood names. It has been a very successful endeavor with hits such as The Goonies. This movie narrates the story of a group of children who went searching for a pirate’s treasure; their intention was to save their families’ homes in an area called the Goon Docks in Astoria, Oregon. This essay aims to critically view elements of the visual text and through a socio-economic and political lens discern the commentary the creators are conveying with it. The intersection of elements such as location, children protagonist, family relations, class interaction, etc. espouse a complex adversarial class interaction which enables the escapades of the protagonist in the film and comment on the social concerns of the time.

The story centers on a group of children which includes Mikey, Mouth, Chunk, Brand, Andy, Data, and Stef. Brand and Mikey are brothers, the former being the oldest, who are the leaders of the group; they are also the main instigators of the adventure as the map and artifact used to find the hidden treasure was part of a collection of items belonging to the museum where their father worked. Each child has a personality largely described in their nickname: Mouth is a fast talking, windbag who does not think and is supremely offensive though fluent in Spanish; Chunk is the quintessential fat kid who is also prone to exaggerating things – a fact which will be important to the plot and to a funny metatextual moment involving Gremlins; and as for Data, it would appear is a second generation immigrant whose inventiveness comes in handy or backfires for comedy relief, he is unfortunately played as an asian caricature with a thick accent and creator of gadgets made out of trash which are comedically exaggerated with little practical use. On the other side, the girls are portrayed to represent two specific tropes: Andi is the girly-girl and girl torn between the rich boy, Troy, and the poor one, Brand; and Stef who is the tomboy and smart mouth. These characters all show some sort of growth through the end of the film and represent a positive look a humane capitalist society, one where ingenuity can take you far but similarly makes light of the fact luck plays a huge part of the kids’ success.

With a general idea of the characters who participate, additional background in the form of a short description of the social-political-economic circumstances around the time of production to support these arguments and better understand the ideas this text goes over. The movie was released in 1985 as the United States was slowly coming out of a very difficult economic situation; the end of the Carter bid for re-election was brought on by an oil crisis and hostage crisis on the international front; this was compounded by a recession and inflation back home. Thus, the road was paved for Ronald Reagan and his promise of lowering taxes to boost the economy which did not pan out initially; excessive deregulation brought a savings and loans crisis which affected the housing market and deepened the economic drought. Major rollbacks on tax cuts were finally able to boost the economy and deliver on the promise of improvement. This situation unfortunately left a bitter taste in the mouths of many middle and lower class Americans who felt Washington’s deregulation just served to help the rich in detriment to the rest of the country. The decade saw many visual texts which reflected this reality such as Wall Street which showed rapacious capitalism at its worst and Trading Places which showed the utilitarian nature of capitalism through comedy. This background informs the critical view the movie takes on society in the small town of Astoria.

Location – of the element which compose the visual text – is one of the most important as it is a significant of ideas such as the economic situation of the children and their families (and by extension of the country), and the quaint town hiding a deep secret (in this case, pirates with their hidden treasures and Italian-American criminals played as bumbling idiots); the neighborhood called Goon Docks in Astoria, Oregon offers an uncanny place where Americana and mystery clash so that a group of children may save their families’ homes. The Goon term is used by most residents of the community as identifying of those who live there, and its use has great implications for the story. Its meaning is one which evolves as the story progresses. We hear the term first used by the children protagonists who refer to having to leave their neighborhood and consequently their friends. On the other hand, we hear Troy – the son of the banker who is heading the effort to expropriate the neighborhood’s homes in a scheme to expand the local country club – use the term in a derogatory way when he calls the boys, goonies. The movie came out in 1985 and therefore the word goon can be traced to two sources which can inform the derogatory use implied by Troy. The first is the original newspaper comic run of Popeye the Sailorman, which had an odd and misshapen race native to Goon Valley. They are called goons – simple, unsophisticated, and not brutish thugs – who act in a strange way: They do all the things done by civilized people but in the opposite way; this means they eat plates instead of the food on them or thieves give people money instead of taking it. From this point, it can be said the term goonie is used on someone who is considered inferior and lacking. The second inspiration which can be connected to the text comes from British radio comedy’s The Goon Show. The Show was considered a milestone for many comedians as it played around with the medium, sounds, language, and concepts to,

“Question the rules and authorities that controlled their lives. Onto this scene burst The Goons with a quick fire, irreverent brand of humor that mocked those in establishment and offered a different farcical view of the world. What made The Goon Show different was its attitude. The comedy was edgier than it contemporaries and it used mad characters, satire and ground breaking sound effects in a surreal way unlike anything had done before,” (thegoonshow.net)

In a similar way, the children are cartoonish characters who mock their own place in Astoria’s socio-economic paradigm. The initial scene where Chunk goes to Mikey and Brand’s house is an excellent example of how this plays out in-text. From the moment Chunk is required to do the Truffle Shuffle (a move which only exist to force him to show his gut), then the Rube Goldberg machine – with its exaggeration – and the occasional sight of an old Errol Flynn pirate movie do the same work of taking advantage of the medium for laughs. The children take the name on their end as a badge of courage; indeed, bringing both ideas of the term together to subvert the cultural significance of the pejorative term goonie. In this way, they break the cultural oppression of the capitalist class (for his father is a banker, of course) represented by Troy. By the time the boys finally meet One-eyed Willie, when Mickey calls him the first goonie, they effectively own the term and their status as outsiders.

          After defining the more child centric concepts which the text contains, the next point of analysis is a social, economic, and implicitly political consideration of the setting Astoria, Oregon; this look will touch upon the class differences contained within the text and their services as detonators of the protagonists’ actions, while also discerning the way it is reflected by these characters and others in the text. The problem which sets off the children has been mentioned, their parents lack the money necessary to pay off mortgages and are facing foreclosure. Viewers are not privy to the circumstances which force the parents to stop payment, but through the Walsh family it can be understood: these families rely on dual income as we see both Mr. and Mrs. Walsh work. Taking this further, seeing the children have no real supervision – there is no other parent in sight until the end – we can extend our understanding to include all families. This would imply an economic imbalance between the capital holders – as in Mr. Perkins and the other banker, the country clubbers, etc. – is great as to affect the family lives of the Goon Docks residents. This lack of supervision allows the children to embark in their latest adventure, this is clear because Chunk tries to assert himself and tells Mickey, “I don’t want to go on anymore of your goonie adventures.” (The Goonies) This statement has two implications, the first being how common it is for them to embark in crazy treks while also implying they have tried dangerous stunts before. Even Mrs. Walsh reminding Brand to keep an eye out for his brother this time carries the former entwined in it.

          The socio-economic reality these children endure is not alien to them. Mickey, when he shows concern for Mouth messing around with Brand’s new bicycle (as he states it cost him over 300 mowing jobs), is a prime example of how they understand the economic realities of their family. While this makes them desperate enough to embark on their adventure, they are shown to have some values connected to class which highly differentiate them from those similar to Troy or even the Fratelli clan. The Fratelli are the comic foil for the children, they serve as the antithesis of the children’s outsider status. They are also from the wrong side of the tracks, but while the children are restrained by the morals imposed on them by society and their parents, the Fratelli where raised by Ma Fratelli who lacks any form of compassion or empathy. As poor Francis felt during childhood, there is nothing this woman cares about; because of this and the way Chunk showed him love, he switches allegiance to the kids. The Fratelli also serve to re-enforce other important qualities of the middle class besides a strong moral compass, such as family, empathy, respect, ingenuity, and love.

          On the topic of the other outsider, Guille El Tuerto as he is called, readers can also discern interesting ideas. The pirate is himself a type of capitalist in the Marxist purview, as he does not produce but instead hoards capital or consumes it wantonly. They do not participate in a constructive way of the economic paradigm of capital and production and in such a way are extreme agents of a rapacious capitalism which is similar to the way the bankers are portrayed in the movie. What does set them apart is the class or group who are the victims of their raids. The bankers are shown to prey on poor families and take joy in disenfranchising those of lower economic standing, while the pirates take from those who have in excess. Viewers can tie the pirates more closely to the kids through their similar use of clever contraptions – the kids in the machine to open the door, the pirates with their traps to protect the treasure – and through their shared sense of adventure. Indeed, the pirates just like the kids, would have never embarked on their journey of adventure if they came from a class of money and comfort.

          As in any good 1980’s movie, the rich are depicted as being spoiled, obnoxious, and uncaring; this unflattering portrait a result of the increasing class separation similar to the one existing in the Gilded age. The government’s actions in the aftermath of the 1970’s economic crisis also aided in this chasm which the movie depicts through the interactions of children and the social-economic situation of their families which motivates them to embark in an adventure. The critical stance the film takes reflects a historical materialist view of its contemporary time in producing and engrossing children’s movie. But it also offers a reclaiming of the language through the children who refuse to accept the contempt of the higher-class Troy and take ownership of the language used to disparage them in what is a twist on the bleak historic materialist look. As with similar film texts which under scrutiny show ideas not easily discernable, it offers depth which belies its designation as a child film while being an effective entertainment tool.

There is a certain type of person, one who most of us will or have met, one who comes into our world to cause a change, and one who will leave once that happens.
The truly difficult and sad part is when you constantly find yourself being the passer-by, the never-here-for-long, the just-on-the-way, and you get used to it.
You start to see people with expiration dates on them, relationships become somewhat meaningless, but you still cultivate more of them; especially because you know they will not require nurturing and can just be cast aside when the time comes - time which you have already accepted will be sooner rather than later.
It is very sad to think of this as the new normal.