A Royal Scandal (1945): A Review

A ROYAL SCANDAL

Who better to portray the lusty Czarina of All the Russias than the outrageous Tallulah Bankhead? A Royal Scandal makes a good go of trying to be a screwball comedy amidst the Czarist Court. It did not quite hit the mark. However, it barely squeaked by. 

There is perpetual intrigue within the palace halls. Chancellor Nicolai Ilyitch (Charles Coburn) wants nothing but a firm treaty with France. General Ronsky (Sig Ruman) wants to install his idiot nephew Boris (Grady Sutton) as the new head of the Palace Guard. Captain Sukov (Mischa Auer) wants nothing more than to have the West Gate secured. 

Czarina Catherine II (Bankhead) is a bit mercurial when it comes to everything and everyone. She has only one friend, her lady-in-waiting Countess Anna (Anne Baxter). A surprise friend is the dashing Lieutenant Alexie Chernoff (William Eythe). Fanatically loyal to "Mother Russia" (a term that Her Majesty winces at), he storms his way into a private audience to warn her of a plot. Fortunately, Catherine and Nicolai already knew of the plot. However, the lusty Kate takes a shine to the luscious officer. That he and Countess Anne are engaged is not important to Her Majesty.

The poor French diplomat (Vincent Price) is kept forever waiting while Alexei and Catherine find themselves working on very intimate terms. Eventually, Anne becomes so enraged that she defies Catherine to her face, bringing about an exile. Alexei, full of youthful vigor, proposes a series of reforms to the empire. These reforms appall the Chancellor. However, Ronsky, no longer tied to his dimwit relation, looks to Alexei to seize the throne. Catherine has elevated him higher and higher, and now is the head of the Palace Guard. Who will Alexei side with? Will Catherine keep her crown and her head?

A Royal Scandal was originally meant to be directed by Ernst Lubitsch. He, however, became ill and had to withdraw from directing the film. Lubitsch is listed instead as the producer. A Royal Scandal, this intended screwball comedy, was directed instead by Otto Preminger. I struggle imagining that there could have been a worse choice to direct a fast-paced witty film than the man who brought us such films as Laura, Anatomy of a Murder and Exodus. Granted, the last two were far into the future. However, Preminger seems wildly out of place directing what I figure was intended as some kind of madcap romp.

Edwin Justus Mayer and Bruno Frank's adaptation of the play The Czarina gives the actors a lot of lines that are meant to be funny. "That's the trouble with France, too many Louis!" Chancellor Nicolai observes early on. Later on, Nicolai takes umbrage at Alexei's offer to give him access to Catherine in exchange for money. "You can't bribe the Chancellor of Russia!" he exclaims. Doing a quick double take, Nicolai adds, "Not with fifty rubles". 

Alexei and Catherine discuss his ideas for improving the lot of the peasants. "They are the backbone of the nation", he says. "Yes, I know. There's nothing like a good peasant", Her Majesty replies. Catherine is astonished to find one of Alexei's proposed reforms in the trash. Commenting on this "Edict 52", she asks what it is about. "I don't know, Your Majesty. I didn't read it". "You didn't read it?! They when did you throw it away?" she exclaims. He replies instantly, "I read the other fifty-one".

These lines, and others, indicate that A Royal Scandal was intended to be fast-paced, zippy and full of quips. The actors delivered them the best way that they could. However, it was always a bit off. The pacing was just a beat off. Somehow, it played as if it were a play. One almost suspects that Preminger expected laughter from the audience and made room for them on the screen. However, the efforts to be a bit deadpan ended up making A Royal Scandal a bit dead itself. 

This is reflected in some of the acting. Vincent Price had a small role as the French ambassador. Sporting a French accent that makes Inspector Clouseau sound like Alain Delon, it leaned way too heavily on farce. It was a good thing that Price was not much in A Royal Scandal. He was not terrible. Instead, he seemed rather forced in his efforts to make the ambassador funny.

More surprising is how Anne Baxter leaned into the broadness that pushed A Royal Scandal down. She seemed forced and exaggerated in her scenes with Eythe. She was much better when working with Bankhead and Coburn. There did not seem to be that much stiffness there.

William Eythe was pleasant enough and handsome enough as the courtier who turns Catherine's head. He was fine. He was not great. He was not terrible. 

The two standouts were Charles Coburn and Tallulah Bankhead. Coburn made a great effort to make the Chancellor funny. Preminger did not direct him or anyone well, but Coburn acquitted himself respectfully. Tallulah Bankhead never became a film star. Here, however, she made Catherine into this somewhat scatterbrained figure. She was no bellowing tyrant. Instead, she was haughty, sometimes unaware of how things sounded. She came as close as anyone to capturing the attempts to make A Royal Scandal witty and fast-paced.    

A Royal Scandal has nice sets and costumes befitting this type of film. It also has a very jolly score from Alfred Newman. In many ways, everything in A Royal Scandal is there to make it a sparkling comedy. However, something was missing. Maybe it was the Lubitsch Touch. The film ended up playing like a weird imitation of a Lubitsch film. 

A Royal Scandal is not bad. Tallulah Bankhead and Charles Coburn do lift the project, however, slightly. It is barely passable and leaves one wondering what could have been if it had a better director. 

DECISION: C+

CATHERINE II FEATURE FILMS & TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS

The Scarlet Empress (1931)

The Rise of Catherine the Great (1931)

Young Catherine (1991)

Catherine the Great (1995)

Catherine the Great (2019)

The Great (2020-2023)

Catherine the Great: The 2019 Miniseries

CATHERINE THE GREAT

In truth, the Russian sovereign Catherine II was not Russian but German. History, however, has intertwined this minor German princess as Catherine the Great, Czarina and Autocrat of All the Russias. She has been the subject of many films and television projects. In 2019, Dame Helen Mirren returned to her own Russian roots to portray this legendary historic figure. Catherine the Great has a lot of sex and appears to want to shock with its four-letter words. It is not bad but far from what it could have been.

Two years after the coup that brought her to power, Empress Catherine II (Mirren) still has to contend with forces that could bring her down. There is the mysterious "Prisoner Number One", who may have a legitimate claim to the Russian throne. There is the mysterious soldier, Mirovich (Lucas Englander), loyal to Prisoner Number One. 

Then there is Count Grigory Orlov (Richard Roxburgh). He is one of the men who helped her overthrow her loutish husband, Peter III. He is also Catherine's current lover. Grigory and his brother Alexei (Kevin R. McNally) always remind her that they put her on the throne. The suggestion is that they can pull her off. The Orlov Brothers scheme and scheme away, making snide remarks about everyone out of earshot. That includes the newest member of Court. It is another Grigory: Grigory Potemkin (Jason Clarke). Brash, daring and belligerent, Potemkin is quickly besotted by our Autocrat. 

That does not stop him from schtupping her BFF, Countess Bruce (Gina McKee). Eventually, Potemkin bends the royal ear. He also bends other things for both Mother Russias. One person who cannot bend is the frustrated heir, Prince Paul (Joseph Quinn). He still hero worships his late father. He also detests his mother and is the only man in Russia who does not see that his wife, Natalia (Georgina Beedle) is screwing Paul's best friend, Count Razumovsky (Phil Dunster). 

Orlov soon becomes indispensable to Her Majesty inside and outside the royal bedchamber. He leads her armies to triumphs in Crimea and against the Turks. He also is imperious, haughty and prone to anger against all his enemies. The Orlovs are bitter foes. He is able to outmaneuver them. The Czarevitch is another enemy, though to be fair Paul is a very bitter boy, trashing about hither and yon. As Catherine continues her struggle to stay in power over Russia and the various men in her life, she fails to see how her need for power has made her abandon her early liberalism. The woman who once corresponded with Voltaire now burns his books. Personal tragedy hits this great love story of Catherine and Grigory, but will she get the heir that she wants or the one who manages to stay?

I think Catherine the Great thinks itself daring with all the sex scenes and f-bombs going off all over the place. I figure that Catherine and her Court were not immune from letting out a torrent of vulgarities and bed-hopping back in the day. However, Catherine the Great seemed oddly fixated on the sex and swearing and less on the political machinations within the Winter Palace.

Screenwriter Nigel Williams and director Philip Martin have a very surface level look at this debauched world. Episode One of the four-episode miniseries ends with a drag ball. The sight of the Orlov Brothers in dresses and wigs while Catherine and Potemkin are cutting a little rug to Russian music is a sight to behold. It is a curious sight though, not helped by an effort at a Barry Lyndon-like cinematography.

It is curious that Catherine the Great is dominated by a lot of voiceovers of Mirren's Catherine and Clarke's Potemkin reading their letters to each other. We get many such scenes and the added scenes of riders passing those letters to and from our lovers. 

Somehow, Catherine the Great does not seem all that interested in things outside the nocturnal. Events like Pugachev's Rebellion or the killing of the unfortunate Prisoner Number One (Czar Ivan VI) do not seem to register. They happen almost because they have to. The miniseries just does not spend much if any time on them.

Take Pugachev (Paul Kaye). He pops in for a bit in Episode One, then a bit more in Episode Two. In what I figure Catherine the Great intended as a great moment Her Majesty appears before Pugachev's followers while he rants in a cage. Here, the peasants suddenly began to kowtow to the Czarina. Why? It does not matter. 

Catherine the Great is worth only what Dame Helen Mirren brings to the role. She brings a great mix of haughtiness and vulnerability to our Mother Russia. She is coy and playful when Matushka (Grigory's pet name for the Empress) is with her Grishenka (her nickname for Potemkin). She can also be ruthless with him when needed. "I own you. Don't forget that", she reminds her paramour, enraged at having been essentially scolded before her council. Mirren shifts so well into the Czarina's mercurial nature. She makes her efforts to build a rapport with Paul and her grandson Alexander believable, even as she plots against the former. 

The rest of the cast is not terrible. They are just hampered by their one-note roles. Jason Clarke is an interesting choice as the brash, arrogant Potemkin. I thought all he did was shout and bluster. Granted, that is how the character was. After a while, though, that grows boring. The same goes for Kevin McNally and Richard Roxburgh as Alexie and Grigory Orlov. Almost all their scenes consisted of Alexie telling Grigory not to f-it up. Whether it was Grigory's stud status or a political negotiation, it was pretty much the same. Joseph Quinn's Czarevitch Paul was better, but he too did nothing but skulk about and whine. 

Again, I get that is how the role was written and directed. Again, it gets rote.

Catherine the Great does have some beautiful moments. The battle of Ushakov is a standout. The costumes and sets are nice. 

Ultimately though, Catherine the Great failed to live up to its title. It was more Catherine the OK. 

5/10

CATHERINE II FEATURE FILMS & SPECIALS

The Rise of Catherine the Great (1934)

The Scarlet Empress (1934)

A Royal Scandal (1945)

Young Catherine (1991)

Catherine the Great (1995)

The Great (2020-2023)

Wallis & Edward: The Television Movie

WALLIS & EDWARD

Helen of Troy was referred to by Christopher Marlowe as "the face that launched a thousand ships". Wallis Simpson was referred to by His Majesty Edward VIII, later the Duke of Windsor, as "the woman I love". Long seen as a scheming adventuress who tried to sleep her way to being Empress of India, her generation's Meghan Markle gets a more sympathetic portrayal in Wallis & Edward. Respectably acted with smooth pacing, Wallis & Edward shows Mrs. Simpson as a victim of her circumstances.

Life seems like a bowl of cherries for Wallis Simpson (Joely Richardson) and her second husband, Ernest (David Westhead). The Simpsons are welcomed in British high society despite their American roots. One person who soon takes a shine to the couple is Edward, the Prince of Wales (Stephen Campbell Moore). The happily unmarried heir to the British throne is currently involved with his latest mistress Thelma, Viscountess Furness (Helena Mitchell). 

It is not long, however, before the Prince Edward looks upon the brassy American as more than a friend. Wallis is conflicted. She loves Ernest and the security that he provides. However, Edward is besotted with her, and she soon falls to his charms. Wallis' aunt Bessie Merryman (Miriam Margolyes) advises her niece to not let His Royal Highness' attention and affection go to her head. Wallis is convinced that her liaison will be a temporary thing. Edward, she knows, will find a younger and prettier woman to romance and perhaps marry.

Wallis, however, had not counted on the Prince of Wales becoming bewitched by her, body and soul. She had done nothing to encourage his growing obsession. Worse, she is horrified at what the romance is doing to her reputation. Ernest confronts Edward about his intentions. Ernest also confesses that he has been having his own affair with a mutual friend. With that, the Simpsons agree to a divorce.

The timing of the Simpson divorce could not have come at a worse time. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (Richard Johnson) is both aghast and alarmed at Mrs. Simpson's arrival. If everything goes according to the now King Edward VIII's plans, there will be just enough of a gap between Wallis' divorce and his coronation for them to marry. The prospect of a twice-divorced American as Queen of England brings about a full constitutional crisis. The government is prepared to resign en masse. That would trigger a general election where the potential Queen would be the issue. A marriage, even morganatic, would be bad enough. Edward's offer to abdicate is more horrifying. 

Wallis does not want Edward to abdicate. Baldwin does not want Edward to abdicate. Edward's brother Bertie, Duke of York (Bill Champion), does not want Edward to abdicate. What will the future hold for our thwarted lovers?

Wallis & Edward has a major plus in Joely Richardson as the Duchess of Windsor. Richardson is part of two legendary British acting dynasties (Richardson and Redgrave). Despite her origins, Richardson's Southern tones never sounded forced or exaggerated. I do not know if they would convince Baltimore natives that her Wallis was indeed one of their own. However, Joely Richardson sounds just American enough to make it believable that she is not British.  

That is on the technical aspect. On the dramatic side, Richardson does well in portraying Wallis Simpson as someone caught up in this scandalous situation. The impression most people have of Wallis Simpson, I believe, is that she engineered so much of her affair with Edward to try and become Queen. Wallis & Edward, as written by Sarah Williams, argues that she in reality was horrified that things had spun so out of control. Had it been up to her, if Wallis & Edward is to be believed, Mrs. Simpson would rather have stayed married with Ernest. I believe that she at one point tells Ernest "Just because he's the King doesn't mean you have to hand over your wife". 

Wallis & Edward has a wonderful scene between Joely Richardson and David Westhead when he brings up the subject of divorce. Richardson's Wallis looks genuinely stunned at both the prospect of a divorce and Ernest's admission of his own adultery. Richardson makes Wallis into an almost innocent figure, someone convinced that her liaison is both unserious and fleeting.

I think Stephen Campbell Moore, curiously enough, is too handsome to be believable as Edward VIII. That being said, he also does well portraying Edward's growing obsession with his American mistress. When he claims that he will kill himself if she attempts to leave him, one does think that His Majesty is slipping into dangerous waters. Wallis & Edward also gives Moore a wonderful scene where he shows Edward's common touch. After giving a brief speech to working-class people, a young child's soccer ball accidentally goes towards the King. Instead of being startled, His Majesty begins an impromptu soccer match, bounding and kicking the ball in a friendly manner. It shows how Edward connected to his people and why some of his subjects fiercely opposed his abdication. 

Credit should also go to David Westhead for having, like Richardson, a very convincing American accent. Clifford Rose and Margaret Tyzack as King George V and Queen Mary also do strong work. Rose's declaration to Richard Johnson's Prime Minister Baldwin that "after I'm gone, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months" works well.

Miriam Margolyes has a smaller role as Aunt Bessie. She is also British, but she does her American accent well too. She is the voice of reason and comfort to the besieged Wallis.

I think a lesser appreciated performance is that of Bill Champion as Albert, Duke of York, who must succeed his elder brother as George VI. His scene where he silently breaks down sobbing on hearing Edward's abdication speech is quite effective. Less effective is Monica Dolan as Elizabeth, Duchess of York. She is portrayed as a bit elitist. Elizabeth is genuinely puzzled over why Mrs. Simpson's husband would have to work. This is a very strange tact to take given that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, while hardly a coal miner's daughter, was more aware of society than her Windsor in-laws. 

One particularly ghastly moment in Wallis & Edward has nothing to do with the acting or David Moore's direction. It has to do with a horrendous error in Sarah Williams' screenplay. Winston Churchill (David Calder) is portrayed as Edward's greatest champion and friend. He and Moore have a wonderful scene where Churchill urges him to remain on the throne even if it means giving up Mrs. Simpson. Edward remarks that if Winston were asked to give up his wife and children for the throne, would he do it, leaving their pause to answer the question. 

The error is when Churchill, at the ball that Ernest and Wallis essentially crashed, addresses Edward as "Your Majesty". George V was very much alive at the time of this scene. He was the monarch giving the ball. As such, addressing the then-Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" would have been more than incorrect. It would have been almost sacrilegious, suggesting that George V was either dead or overthrown. A devoted monarchist like Churchill, well-versed in Court etiquette, would never have called Edward, Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" but instead as "Your Royal Highness". Granted, I'm one of the few who would notice such a thing. I am surprised that the British cast and crew did not notice that gaff. 

Wallis & Edward is a well-acted and produced production. It is sympathetic towards the Duchess, which is rather rare in how Wallis Simpson is usually seen. The television film ends at their wedding, so we do not get the story of their long exile. "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance", the Duchess of Windsor once observed. Wallis & Edward makes for a good quick primer on this story, be it one of the twentieth century's greatest love stories or one of its greatest tragedies. 

Edward, Duke of Windsor: 1894-1972
Wallis, Duchess of Windsor: 1896-1986

7/10

Becket: A Review

BECKET

Losing a friend can always be difficult. Accidentally or perhaps deliberately having him murdered does seem a bit extreme. Becket chronicles the collapse of a friendship, but one with great historic and religious consequences that reverberated for centuries.

Lusty English King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) is aided and abetted in his drinking and whoring by his Saxon BFF, Thomas Becket (Richard Burton). Despite being Norman, Henry holds Thomas above all other men in the realm. This displeases his Norman barons, who see Becket and his fellow Saxons as inferiors. Henry's Queen Eleanor (Pamela Brown) and his mother, Empress Matilda (Martita Hunt) also detest this Saxon upstart. However, there is nothing anyone can do about Henry naming Becket Chancellor of England.

Thomas Becket is a capable man, steady, sober and intelligent. These are three qualities that his friend and Sire does not have. Henry also does not have Becket's morals. He does not shrink from taking Becket's beloved Gwendolen (Sian Philips), a Welshwoman in exchange for a Saxon wench that Becket had saved from Henry's clutches. Gwendolen, the only woman Becket seems to genuinely love, kills herself rather than submit to Henry's desires.

This is a minor wedge between the friends. Becket serves Henry loyally, helping him reconquer his French possessions with little actual warfare. Young Saxon monk John (David Weston) sees Becket as a traitor to his people. Despite an assassination attempt by the hotheaded friar, Becket takes Brother John under his wing when Henry uses his position to appoint Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Henry thinks that with his best friend as the head of both the temporal and spiritual English governments, he can do as he wishes. Henry, however, did not count on Becket having a spiritual awakening. He has embraced Christianity and will not stand by as one of Henry's Norman barons has a priest murdered. The priest may have been a criminal, but that should have been decided by the ecclesiastical courts, not by Norman whims. This clash between friends now becomes a battle royale. Both men use the tools of their authority to get what they want. Becket is at one point forced to flee to the Continent, taking temporary refuge with France's King Louis VII (John Gielgud). 

Eventually, a rapprochement brings the two men together. However, the wily but hurt Henry asks his barons, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?". Whether the question was literal or rhetorical is unimportant. It leads to a blasphemous act, one so shocking that all Christendom is outraged. Henry II must humble and humiliate himself to save his kingdom from a dead man.

Becket holds an interesting place in the annals of Academy Award history. It has one of the lowest nominations to wins ratio. Becket received 12 nominations yet walked away with only 1 Oscar for Edward Anhalt's adaptation of Jean Anouilh's play. Had Becket lost Best Adapted Screenplay, it would have gone down in history as the film with the most nominations without a single win (The Turning Point and The Color Purple both currently tied for that dubious honor having gone 0-11 nominations). Becket is also one of the seven and eight failed nominations for Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole respectively. Both actors were nominated for their performances in Becket, both of which were warranted in my view.

We see a curious double-act with Burton and O'Toole in Becket. The former is mostly calm, cool and collected as Thomas Becket. The latter is mostly wild and raging as King Henry II. The film is a showcase for both Burton and O'Toole, the latter interestingly enough reprising his role as Henry II in The Lion in Winter. Burton and O'Toole balance each other well, allowing his fellow actor's manner to work for both actors.

Richard Burton is quite calm and contemplative as Thomas Becket. Even when assisting Henry as they galivant through various British beds, there is something serene and contemplative within him. Burton's standout point is when he prays to Christ after his appointment as Archbishop. His voice is steady as well as melodious, Thomas' sincerity and conversion deeply affecting. He has another strong scene while living in a French monastery. Here, he talks to God and wonders whether the joy he feels is too easy a burden. Burton does an excellent job in showing a man transformed by faith to follow his conscience whatever cost personal or professional.

Peter O'Toole is in top form as Henry II. He rages with abandon and with glee. He also has some of the sharpest lines in the Oscar-winning screenplay. As he berates his wife and children for being awful, Queen Eleanor chides him for being a bully. Henry is having none of it. He points out that she would love to be Regent to an upstart Henry III.  "No wonder I shun your bed. It's not amusing to make love to one's own widow!". When conspiring with the Bishop of London (Donald Wolfit) to frame Becket for embezzlement, Henry becomes enraged when Bishop Foliot speaks against this "Saxon guttersnipe". Henry begins strangling the startled cleric. "All I confided to you was my hate, not my love", an angry and conflicted Henry tells him. 

It is a credit to director Peter Glenville that he drew strong performances out of all his cast. He managed to make the differing manners of O'Toole/Henry II and Burton/Becket work together as opposed to clashing with each other. He also kept Becket moving in a surprisingly steady pace. Despite being almost two and a half hours long, I never felt Becket ran long.

The film is also sumptuous in its art direction, costumes and cinematography, all of which were also Oscar-nominated. Laurence Rosenthal's score, which too received Oscar recognition, is appropriately grand but also amusing when needed. 

Becket does have a few issues that I think hold it back from true greatness. John Gielgud received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his Louis VII. I found it a strange choice given how brief his screentime is. He was fine in the role. I just wonder why Gielgud was singled out for one scene. Yes, technically two scenes, but he was so insignificant to Becket that he could have been trimmed or cut out altogether without it being much of a problem. David Weston's Brother John was fine, but his death scene was a bit overdramatic to almost comical. Both O'Toole and Burton had one slightly off moment (Becket's death scene, O'Toole's shock at Gwendolen's death) that might have cost them the Best Actor Oscar. 

That discussion, however, is for another day.

Becket does have some awful rear-screen projection sequences that I think would have been laughed at in 1964, let alone now. 

I think Becket is a strong historical epic. It moves relatively fast (though I would have cut or trimmed some scenes). It has strong performances from Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. The film is grand in its telling. It also has a strong story of how good friends can grow apart. Becket is worth seeking out.

Circa 1119-1170

DECISION: B+

Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After. The Television Movie

CHARLES AND DIANA: 

UNHAPPILY EVER AFTER

When the now-King Charles III and his first wife, the late Diana, Princess of Wales were first married, the public was treated to two television movies. The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana and Charles & Diana: A Royal Love Story were fairy tales. I do not believe that Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is accurate either. Oddly more interested in the York saga than the Wales one, Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is curiously quite kind to our battling couple.

The royal romance of Charles, Prince of Wales (Roger Rees) and his new bride, Lady Diana Spencer (Catherine Oxenberg) seemed to be born out of genuine affection. Charles does try to guide Diana into her new life and responsibilities as the Princess of Wales. He even brings her orange juice after she made a faux pas of going into the kitchen, shocking the kitchen staff with her informality. However, cracks start emerging.

The biggest crack is Charles' dear friend, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Jane How). He enjoys Camilla's company more than he does Diana's. It does not help that Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II (Amanda Walker) is not sympathetic to Diana's plight. Diana fortunately has an ally in Sarah Ferguson (Tracy Brabin), who soon becomes Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York. Sarah is all about having fun. Diana, who is married to a stick-in-the-mud like Charles, is also just a girl who wants to have fun. Charles for his part loves being a father. He also detests the popularity that his wife has achieved. 

Sarah makes a spectacle of herself when photos of her "consulting with her financial advisor" come to light. Will the Yorks outdo the Waleses in embarrassing headlines and a failed marriage? Will Diana be able to confront his husband's mistress?

There were at least two elements in Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After that I found curious. The first is how for a film supposedly centered around the Waleses, the film gave a great deal of attention to the Yorks. The film, I think, pretty much ends on Sarah and the now-Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Benedict Taylor). My sense is that the production crew found the tawdry antics of Fergie to be more interesting than those of the near-saintly Diana. 

One almost feels for Sarah, Duchess of York. Poor Tracy Brabin had very little to do other than talk endless about how she wanted nothing but fun. I think that except for her final scenes with Andrew and Diana, the word "fun" was used every time that Ferguson was on screen. What Fergie's toe-sucking tricks have to do with Charles and Diana one can only guess at. 

A lot of attention was paid to Sarah Ferguson. People walking into this might be confused if told that it was about Charles and Diana. 

The other element is how surprisingly sympathetic Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is to both of them. Rees made Charles into a mostly kind and loving husband. He starts out as someone who encourages and supports his wife. Other film and television projects about the Wales marriage show him as quick to anger, seething with rage and at many times verbally abusive towards Diana.

Not in Unhappily Ever After. He helps Diana in learning and speaking Welsh. He brings her orange juice after she moans that all she wanted was orange juice. For most of the telefilm, Rees' Charles is actually a pretty pleasant fellow. He can be jealous and thoughtless, but did I mention that he brought her orange juice?

He also is shown as one under immense pressure by his disapproving parents. Even at his son's baptism, he is warned against Diana's growing popularity. It must be hard to be told by your father at your son's christening how wrong you are. 

Nancy Sackett's screenplay also does something that I had not seen before in a Charles and Diana biographical production. In all other versions, Diana deliberately threw herself down a flight of stairs in an effort to cause Charles harm. Unhappily Ever After, conversely, had the fall be an accident. In this version, Diana tripped down the flight of stairs after an argument with Charles. Here, Charles at most did not stand with Diana in her firm opposition to giving birth at Buckingham Palace which was the expressed wish of Her Majesty. 

Near the end of the telefilm, Charles is openly enraged but apparently with good cause. He has seen newspaper photographs of Diana dancing the night away with men. It is a mix of public embarrassment and private hurt that upsets Charles. It might not have been the television movie's intentions. The end result, however, is a production that likes Charles.

Turning to the acting, I find a unique situation. Catherine Oxenberg, daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, is a second cousin to now-King Charles III. She also has the rare distinction of having played Diana, Princess of Wales more than once. She had played the young Lady Diana in The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana a decade prior. Now, she is back in the role. 

I found Oxenberg to have somehow devolved from her first go-round. Her voice was rather breathy and light. There was little to suggest that Diana was evolving into a strong woman. Even her confrontation with How's Camilla came across as a bit flat.

Roger Rees did much better as Charles. He did not look nor sound like the then-Prince of Wales. However, he made Charles into a dignified man, who tried to do right no matter what. He did look early on as someone who was in love with his wife. As such, his liaison with Camilla did look a bit like it was in Diana's imagination. 

It does not help that I kept confusing Jane How's Camilla Parker-Bowles for Charles' sister, Anne the Princess Royal (Cate Fowler). I think that is because Jane How did not come across as a mistress. She barely came across at all. 

Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is a bit of a misnomer in that they did not end up staying unhappy ever after. I get the pun in the title. It just did not work. Still, the telefilm was serviceable if not particularly insightful into the War of the Waleses. Pity that they did not go with what appears to have been their real desire and made an Andrew & Fergie biopic.

6/10

Henry VIII: The 2003 Television Miniseries

HENRY VIII

Despite having only five monarchs in its dynasty the Tudor era is fascinating to film and television productions. Out of those five only two ever get those two productions. When was the last time anyone saw an Edward VI or Mary I biopic? The long reign of the lusty King Henry VIII continues to be big entertainment. Henry VIII, the 2003 television miniseries, perhaps spends too much time with one of our unfortunate Mrs. Tudors to the detriment of her successors. However, good performances and production design lift up Henry VIII to solid entertainment. 

The first part of Henry VIII is dominated by the love triangle at the heart of "The King's Great Matter". Henry VIII (Ray Winstone) is desperate for a male heir. His loyal wife Catherine of Aragon (Assumpta Serna), widow of his brother Arthur, has managed only one daughter, Mary (Laura Belmont). Mindful of his father's warning to bear a son to keep the dynasty and power going, the King despairs. He also despairs for the attention of the beautiful Anne Boleyn (Helena Bonham Carter). Mistress Anne will not, however, become Henry's mistress. She is also enraged that her own betrothal was overthrown by Henry's chancellor Cardinal Wolsey (David Suchet).

Mistress Anne, however, is too much for Henry to resist. He will discard Catherine for Anne, even if he has to destroy his kingdom and tear Christendom in two to do so. While Woolsey ultimately fails in his mission, Henry is still able to split from both the Catholic Church and Queen Catherine. Sadly, Queen Anne manages to pop out only yet another daughter, Elizabeth. With that, her time is up.

The second half is taken up, minus one uprising, by the fates and fortunes of Mrs. Tudors Three to Six. Jane Seymour (Emilia Fox) manages to pop out the long-awaited son, Edward. Apparently, Henry had to smack Jane around a bit to do that. Jane dies, leaving a vacancy for Queen of England. Henry's loyal chancellor Thomas Cromwell (Danny Webb) finagles a wedding to German duchess Anne of Cleves (Pia Gerard). This German heretic gets probably not even ten minutes of screentime, and I think I'm being generous. Next up is Catherine Howard (Emily Blunt), the tartish niece of Henry's courtier the Duke of Norfolk (Mark Strong). Catherine is no virgin on her wedding night, but Henry is too much in love/lust to notice or care. She will be his second spring, until he discovered her liaisons with handsome courtier Thomas Culpepper (Joseph Morgan). Howard's fall means the imprisonment of Norfolk and Cromwell's execution. 

At last, Henry turns to respectable and twice-widowed Catherine Parr (Claire Holman). She is witty and a good companion for the ailing King. She is also a tool of the Seymour brothers, courtiers who are also Prince Edward's uncles. They bide their time for two things. The first is to position themselves as regents for the future Edward VI. The second is for one of them to marry Catherine Parr, which he had always wanted. How will Henry VIII close out his reign?

Henry VIII is entertaining, with sumptuous costuming and sets that befit our noble subject. Rob Lane's music is also appropriate. It is grand and elegant.

A lot of the acting is quite solid in Henry VIII. This is one of the first if not the first major appearance of Emily Blunt. She makes Catherine Howard into a tragic figure. Catherine Howard is, like Henry, a lustful figure. However, she is also a pawn in the various machinations of her powerful family. She is quite desirous when having an affair. Yet, her end has Blunt give a deeply moving portrait of this foolish, tragic young girl. As she stands on the scaffold, making her final statement, I think audiences will feel genuine sympathy for this misguided strumpet.

Helena Bonham Carter is an old hand at costume dramas. Here, her Mistress Anne is feisty and strong. She is able to stand up to just about everyone. Anne is able to stand up to Henry, up to a point. She also shares sharp words with Serna's Queen Catherine. Like Blunt, Carter excels in showing Anne's courage against her accusers. She is even able to show dismissiveness towards their cavalier and arrogant manner. When facing her own execution, Carter again like Blunt, is moving in her performance.

Serna herself has several strong moments. Of particular note is when she is made to appear before the kangaroo court set to declare her marriage illegitimate. Defending herself as a good, loyal wife, Serna also showcases Catherine of Aragon's quiet strength.

The men are not short-changed either. David Suchet, best known as Agatha Christie's master sleuth Hercule Poirot, does fine work as Cardinal Woolsey. He is cold and unfeeling when torturing Charles Dance's rebellious Duke of Buckingham. He also shows how he is both able to match wits with Carter's Anne Boleyn and see that she is more than his match. Suchet's final scene where he pleads for his life as the guards take him away show Woolsey crumbling.

In a subplot, Sean Bean pops up as Robert Aske, a formerly loyal lieutenant outraged at the Disillusion of the Monasteries and the ensuing violence. We open the second half of Henry VIII with the violent reprisals against the monks and nuns by the state. This arouses Bean's Aske to act against this brutality. Bean expresses that fire and righteous anger. It makes the ultimately false show of friendship by Henry all the more tragic for Aske's final fate. Mark Strong's arrogant and scheming Duke of Norfolk shows his villainy and manipulation. 

In the central role of Henry Tudor, I am of mixed opinion. I struggled initially to see Ray Winstone as our virile young or even middle-aged monarch. He seemed a bit too working-class to be imagined as a regal figure. He did grow on me in the role, however. I think his large frame felt more natural as Henry grew older. However, his gravelly voice did seem a bit at odds with how I see this not-so-merry monarch.

Where I think Henry VIII does go wrong is in where it chooses to focus on. The saga of Henry and Anne Boleyn has been chronicled so many times that one wonders if Henry VIII could have done one of two things. I imagine focusing exclusively on the second Mrs. Tudor would have been old hat, even if Helena Bonham Carter made for a good Mistress Anne. The second choice, to give her story less prominence, might have been better. 

That is because the second half of Henry VIII felt almost rushed into a frenzy. I think that there was exactly one brief scene where we saw the fourth Mrs. Tudor, Anne of Cleves. She disappeared so fast from the program that one would not be blamed in wondering whatever happened to her. We learn via Derek Jacobi's voiceover at the end that Anne of Cleves outlived all the other wives. We do see her pop up at Henry's funeral. However, what she was up to all those years, or how Henry got rid of her, Henry VIII does not answer.

Jacobi's narration also seems a bit meanspirited towards other characters who were virtually invisible. Peter Morgan's screenplay refers to Henry's oldest daughter as "Bloody Mary", adding that she died "embittered and unloved". It seems unfair to trash Mary I so hard. Granted, burning people is not the best thing to do. However, Princess Mary was stripped of her title after Henry dumped her mother for his bit of fluff. She was forced to declare that she was a bastard. She was forbidden from seeing her mother, even from attending her funeral. That would be more than enough to make anyone feel embittered.

These bits of historical fudging of facts seem more editorializing than necessary to move the plot forward. It might make for good drama, but showing Henry beating up the pregnant Jane Seymour seems so odd. This is especially odd given how Henry was so desperate for a male heir. Showing that he came inches from forcing a miscarriage again seems so bizarre. 

As a side note, I figure that Aske and his Pilgrimage of Grace were needed to set up the Jane/Henry conflict. I do think, though, that the entirety of that subplot might be better suited for a miniseries of its own.

Despite some quibbles, Henry VIII does an overall good job covering this most fascinating of historical figures. Good performances and sumptuous production (albeit with some dodgy CGI castles) elevate this Henry VIII to a higher level of viewing. 

7/10

William & Kate: The Television Movie

WILLIAM & KATE

The romance of William and Catherine, the current Prince and Princess of Wales, can now be seen as a departure from that of William's younger brother, Prince Harry. While not without its ups and down, the courtship of Catherine Middleton by William Mountbatten-Windsor had less drama than that of Meghan Markle and Henry Mountbatten-Windsor (or Henry Sussex, if Meghan is to be believed). While Harry & Meghan have a trilogy of television films covering their courtship, marriage and flight from the Royal Family, poor Wills & Katie have a mere two films on the same subject: their courtship.  William & Kate is pleasant enough, not well acted but nothing as horrendous as anything in The Sussex Trilogy.

Young Prince William of Wales (Nico Evers-Swindell) is now off to university. His father, Prince Charles (Ben Cross) is today like any other father, worried that his son will find university life difficult. Charles is not the only one who notices the handsome young second in line to the British throne within their midst. Friends both male and female come to help Wills get his footing. Ian Musgrove (Jonathan Patrick Moore) offers to be his wingman. Posh student Margaret Hemmings-Wellington (Tribly Glover), who has run in royal circles, all but declares that she will be the next Mrs. William Wales.

One student who is not particularly impressed is Catherine Middleton (Camilla Luddington). William is not her type. She also has a boyfriend already, so why would she want any other man? As it turns out, William is assigned to Catherine's study group. She would prefer sending everyone emails rather than have individual telephone numbers. Wills wants to transfer universities, but Charles is adamant that he finishes what he started. It is Catherine who persuades William to merely change majors rather than universities. 

Inevitably, William starts developing feelings for Catherine. These feelings are both romantic and erotic, the latter after Catherine makes a splash at a fashion show. "SHE'S HOT!" Willis declares. Eventually, William and Kate move in together, with two other flat-mates. But what started out as friendship has grown stronger between William and Catherine, and they soon begin an affair. William also develops a bond with the middle-class Middletons, who are a solid family unit. What will it take for William and Kate to finally get together in marriage?

When William & Kate started, I saw that Charles Shaughnessy was in the cast. I became very alarmed. Mr. Sheffield had played Prince Charles in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal. I was terrified that he would play Prince Charles in William & Kate too. I would have to endure some kind of crazed shared universe between the Waleses and the Sussexes. It did not help that Shaughnessy was absolutely abysmal as Prince Charles. To be fair, he was given absolutely lousy material, but he was still bad.

Fortunately, Mr. Sheffield was not Prince Charles. He had what was essentially a cameo as William's flight instructor. The now-King Charles III was played by Ben Cross. I think that he was slightly embarrassed to be there. Cross did his best to get some of Charles' mannerisms, particularly the pulling on the cuffs. He also tried to match Charles' speaking voice. However, I think Cross was cross as Prince Charles. It was a paycheck, and a chance to play royal to American audiences. It was not a convincing performance.

It was infinitely much better than Justin Hanlon as Prince Harry. Poor Hanlon does not look anywhere close to Harry in this or any other alternate universe. Hanlon also did not sound anything like Harry. In perhaps a curious criticism, Justin Hanlon looked far too young to play Prince Harry. He looked like he was an overgrown twelve-year-old versus a twenty-seven-year-old man. In Hanlon's defense, his "Harry going through puberty" performance towers over the simply godawful Lifetime movies of the current Duke of Sussex in the Sussex Trilogy. He at least had a personality.

Less so were our leads. Neither Camilla Luddington nor Nico Evers-Swindell look or sound like Catherine or William. Evers-Swindell is pleasant but nondescript as Wills. He is pretty but there is nothing extraordinary in his performance. I think, however, that he played the part as written by Nancey Silvers and directed by Mark Rosman. Evers-Swindell's William was a bit shy, pleasant, eager but there was nothing special about William. 

I think William & Kate attempted some moments to humanize him. Of particular note is when he attempts to win her back by singing karaoke to her. It does make him look slightly goofy. However, it is not a dealbreaker. At times, though, he was bad. His efforts to argue with Catherine looked almost funny. It did not help that Evers-Swindell is quite hirsute. For a moment, what I thought were burn marks on his neck turned out to be excessive chest hair. 

For better or worse, Camilla Luddington matched Nico Evers-Swindell in the "pleasant but nondescript" department as Catherine. She did not make Catherine into either strong woman or the much-abused "Waitie Katie". To be fair, Luddington did have a few good moments such as when the paparazzi are besieging her. She also worked better when she was with her Middleton family. Luddington looked more relaxed and informal, as if she was with people. Her struggle to come across as human were not due to being in close proximity with royalty. She was a bit awkward with her supposed friends too.

In what I think is either stunt casting or a wild coincidence, Serena Scott Thomas plays Catherine's mother Carole Middleton. Thomas had played Diana, Princess of Wales in the television movie Diana: Her True Story in 1993. It is a very interesting twist that Serena Scott Thomas played the mother of the future King and future Queen of the United Kingdom. She was actually quite good in the role, as was Christopher Cousins as Mike Middleton, Catherine's father. They were helped, I think, in that they did not try to be royal or dignified. Instead, Thomas and Cousins played the Middletons as pleasant, ordinary people who just happen to have the potential future monarch staying with them for breakfast. 

I do wonder if the music was at times too cutesy for its own good. Never was fornication so cute with the pretty music playing as William and Kate kept slipping in and out of each other's bedrooms. 

As I look on William & Kate, I find it overall inoffensive and harmless. It is not good. The final scene where William gives Catherine the engagement ring is filmed in a very amusing green screen that we are supposed to believe is Africa. Most of the acting is not good, though I would not say it was terrible. It was decent enough. William & Kate does not give us any insight into these people. It does say much. However, it is short and doesn't embarrass itself. That is not something to dismiss.  

5/10

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace. The Television Movie

HARRY & MEGHAN: ESCAPING THE PALACE

I often say that a Part III will be either a disaster or the harbinger of a greater disaster. The third and final part of the Sussex Trilogy more than lives up to that idea. Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace is one of the worst things ever to be broadcast in human history. This love letter to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It has nothing insightful or intelligent to say about our runaway royals. No one should watch Escaping the Palace, with the possible exception of psychological torture.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (Jordan Dean) is still haunted by the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales (Bonnie Soper). It is to where when he dreams of his mother's fatal car accident, it is not Diana whom he sees crumpled. It is, rather, his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Sydney Morton). All that Meghan and Harry want to do is make the world a beautiful place. Unfortunately, all criticism against them is based purely and solely on racism. Harry is enraged that his brother William (Jordan Whalen) will not release endless statements against the racists who criticize Meghan. For his part, William is at most noncommittal on the subject.

Meghan, for her part, is collapsing emotionally. The strain of the never-ending racism, sexism and anti-Americanism within and without the British Royal Family is torturing our illustrious empowered woman. The endless and unwarranted criticism from all sides is leaving her emotionally spent. Just like his mother, Meghan is on the verge of a total meltdown. Soon other resentments come the Sussex's way. Harry is displeased at the criticism that they get for spending three million pounds on their small Frogmore home while William and his wife Catherine (Laura Mitchell) can spend five million on their more lavish digs. On their trip to Africa, Harry realizes that they have to leave The Firm. Surprisingly, it is Meghan who thinks this is wrong.

Nonetheless, the blocks against all the good that the Sussexes want to do leave them no choice. The Firm will not grant them permission to have a "Sussex Royal" brand that they can market. The petty Windsors will not even let them have a Sussex Royal webpage. Harry is desperate to get out. Dropping a bombshell on his father, Prince Charles (Steve Coulter), the Duke of Sussex gives the Prince of Wales a ten-minute warning before announcing what was dubbed "Megxit". 

William is quietly enraged at his younger brother. Harry is more popular than William. William is jealous of his sister-in-law. William lacks all of Meghan's qualities: her intelligence, her class, her compassion, her kindness, her grace, her charm, her immense popularity. The so-called Sandringham Summit did not please everyone, but now Harry & Meghan will now be free. At last, they in their California exile can speak "their truth" to Oprah, a final mirror between Harry's mother and wife.

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace premiered on August 6, 2021. Oprah with Meghan and Harry premiered on March 7, 2021. This is an important, if not vital detail. I figure that the two previous Harry & Meghan Lifetime films were rushed into production to cash in on the wedding and anniversary. This five-month difference, however, is a surprising turnaround time. I figure that you need time to cast, write a screenplay, gather your crew, make the film and edit it before releasing it; five months to my mind seems an incredibly fast production.

As such, I am highly, highly suspect that Escaping the Palace was de facto Sussex propaganda. It is so openly and shamelessly pro-Harry & Meghan that at one point I did ask, "Who produced this, Harry and Meghan?". Everything that Harry and Meghan did was good. Everything that everyone else did was bad. I do not know a production where the protagonists were painted in such a way that you end up surprised that you did not see them literally walk on water. 

As a side note, I cannot help noticing that in the Oprah interview, Meghan gets top billing. I do not know why that detail stands out to me. It just does.

Escaping the Palace went out of its way to showcase that the villain in this drama was none other than Prince William. I'm genuinely surprised that screenwriter Scarlett Lacey and director Menhaj Huda did not give the-then Duke of Cambridge a mustache to twirl. I'm also surprised that Lacey and Huda were not taking literal dictation from Harry and Meghan about what to put in the film. It would not surprise me if it ended up that Lacey and Huda collaborated with the Sussexes the same way that they allegedly collaborated with Omid Scobie, a British reporter who cowrote Finding Freedom, which is seen as favorable to them.

William's scowl, his lack of sympathy for the almost divine Meghan Markle, his refusal or reluctance to welcome our bright light of California sunshine, all show him as a cold man. If Escaping the Palace is to be believed, William comes dangerously close to agreeing with all the racists who mock his sister-in-law. This William is a cold, emotionally disengaged figure, one who will not bend on anything. He, for example, refuses flat-out to have lunch with his brother prior to the Sandringham Summit. William does not even want to go and would like to see them cut off entirely.

The villainy of Prince William is such that on their final official engagement, he very pettily had the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's names removed from the program. He also had them sit with Commonwealth officials rather than the Royal Family if memory serves right. All this one-sided animosity, from what I understand, is driven by William's blinding jealousy towards Meghan. Meghan, if Escaping the Palace is to be believed, is the real star in the House of Windsor. She will be the new People's Princess. William, for his part, will have to live under Meghan's magnificent and benevolent shadow. 

I cannot help but think that Escaping the Palace had almost a vendetta against the-now Prince of Wales. "You're a disruptor," he tells Meghan to her face when the Sussexes learn their names were stricken off the program. Honestly, it would have been easier if Escaping the Palace had shown William literally shooting Meghan point-blank. 

Come to think of it, I marvel that Escaping the Palace did not show the now-Prince of Wales firing a bazooka at Meghan right before it showed Jesus Christ descend from the clouds and bow down to Her in worship.

Even if all that Escaping the Palace showed was true, the entire production has such cringe to it that it was genuinely painful to watch. The film has some truly awful bits of dialogue. No actor could have made them sound anything other than pretty groan-inducing. Meghan has been made guest editor of British Vogue magazine, where she will profile history-making women. Ever professional, we see her typing away, laser-focused on her work.  Harry comes in to see his wife looking admiringly at the various females who will be profiled as Forces of Change. "All these women are going to bend the arc of history," Meghan wistfully notes. Harry, looking like a besotted puppy, adds, "Just like you".

It is a pretty nauseating moment. I do not know of any husband who would make such a statement short of coercion. Many things will Meghan Markle, or Sussex, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg & Gotha will do. "Bend the arc of history" is not one that comes to mind. Become a failed podcaster, she will do. Host a lifestyle show where her guests will praise her, she will do. Sell jam online, she will do. Bend the arc of history, though?

As if that was not laughable enough, we get this monstrous bit of dialogue when news of them stepping back as senior royals hits the headlines. "Megxit. Like it's all your doing. Like you're the wicked witch, stealing their beloved prince because he's no mind of his own". Thus spoke Harry, and that bit is all kinds of wrong. I understand that this is meant to communicate what Harry thinks is the public impression. However, it is too on-the-nose to be believable. It suggests less genuine thought than it does the production's perceptions about the public's perceptions. 

Jordan Dean's delivery of this nonsensical dialogue is comatose. It sounds as if he is learning English for the first time. Yet, I digress.

Escaping the Palace has so many awful bits of dialogue. Perhaps the nadir of all this is when they go on that African tour. Surprisingly, it is not Meghan's lament of the Firm pushing against Meghan's insistence on reminding people that she is a woman of color. "I couldn't even speak my truth without all these caveats", she bemoans. It is when Harry decides that they must leave the Firm. As portrayed in Escaping the Palace, Meghan is the voice of reason, urging her husband against even the mere suggestion of stepping away. He insists that he is leaving the Firm, not the family.

"But the Monarchy is a family," she says. Harry responds with "So is the Mafia". It is a ghastly thing to say. Had I been Prince William, I would have been incensed that my brother was comparing my family to a criminal organization.

Escaping the Palace hammers hard on making Meghan the new Diana. We see constant flashbacks and flashforwards between the two, whether suffering breakdowns while pregnant or speaking candidly to the press about their troubled lives inside the Palace. Oddly, the effect is not to make one sympathetic and see the parallels between the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Sussex. It ends up coming across as calculating on Meghan's part, attempting to force a parallel in the mind of her very stupid husband.

There are no performances in Escaping the Palace. I want desperately to believe that Jordan Dean can actually act and was not cast because he is a pale man with bright red hair. Again, the dialogue would test the skills of any actor. However, there were times when I genuinely wondered if Dean was trying to make Prince Harry Scottish. He and Sydney Morton are our third Harry & Meghan, and both are awful. Simply awful. Morton is so blank as Meghan that one would have liked for her to go on a rampage just to see her be anything other than saintly.

We do have some returning cast members from past Sussex films. Jordan Whaley is back as Prince William, making him the greatest screen villain in film since Hannibal Lecter. Laura Mitchell completes the trilogy as Catherine Middleton. She still looks more like Sarah Brightman than Catherine, Princess of Wales to me. She also made Catherine this bit of a dimwit. One scene has her having her nails done while Meghan discusses important matters. 

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace is as close to pro-Sussex propaganda as one can find outside Sussex Squad fanfic. Terrible in every way (acting, writing, directing, the sappy score), this is enough to make one yearn for the evenhanded tone of With Love, Meghan. As I conclude this Sussex Trilogy, I never figured that each succeeding production would get progressively worse. Then again, perhaps that is a reflection of how the general public sees Harry & Meghan now.

-10/10

Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal. The Television Movie

HARRY & MEGHAN: BECOMING ROYAL

The second part of the Sussex Trilogy came a year after Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance. They, like the world, were still in the honeymoon phase of their love affair with regards to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal manages to outdo its predecessor in sheer awfulness on every conceivable level. 

It is six months before the wedding of the millennium between His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales (Charlie Field) and sparkling American actress Meghan Markle (Tiffany Smith). They are passionately in love. They are also passionately besieged by all sorts of people. There are the obnoxious hosts of Good Day UK, Caspian Sharp (Noah Huntley) and Briget Dover (Louise Bond). They make snide remarks, almost always about Meghan, with Caspian being the worst of the two. There is also the less than warm welcome by Harry's brother Prince William (Jordan Whalen) and his wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (Laura Mitchell). 

Both of them would probably struggle with such things as having a black preacher and a gospel choir at the wedding. They most definitely struggle to understand why the Me-Too Movement is so important. Someone who most definitely struggles with the future Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor is Sir Leonard Briggs (James Dreyfus). He is openly disdainful of this American showgirl and her independent ways. He might be part of the conspiracy against her for speaking out for women. Meghan is upset over why she is discouraged from wearing a white gown or having the emerald tiara she had her heart set on.

Even more struggles come Harry and Meghan's way. Her father, Thomas Markle has worked with the paparazzi to get favorable photos, leaving Meghan devastated. Fortunately, she does have some allies. There is her mother, Doria Ragland (Melanie Nicholls-King). She will watch after her Flower. Also on her side is His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales (Charles Shaughnessy). They even have Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Maggie Sullivun) on their side. Eventually, even Sir Leonard comes around, shifting from enemy to loyal ally. 

The now-Duke and Duchess of Sussex finally marry, but there is still half an hour to go. Meghan pushes for a cookbook to help the victims of the Grenfell Fire. The palace and Sir Leonard suggest a book cover featuring the dishes. Meghan, ever wise, ever strong, ever empathetic, ever progressive, insists on recalling the published copies to change the cover to feature the black and brown women wearing headscarves and hijabs. This upsets the Palace and William in particular, who sees the revamped cookbook covers as pushing a pro-immigrant agenda. Sir Leonard calmly reminds the Sussexes that St. George, symbol of Great Britian, was not actually British but Turkish. He, like Meghan, fought for religious tolerance. 

A pause for a moment to consider that in Becoming Royal, Meghan Markle is compared to a literal saint.

A year now gone, and Meghan has changed the world. It is to where Good Day UK cohost Bridget finally stands up to the smug Caspian, calling him out as a miserable, racist, chauvinist pig for criticizing and mocking Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. With that, Good Day UK not only has learnt its lesson, but like the Windsors, has embraced diversity, equity and inclusion by having a black cohost, Sebastian Zink (Robel Zere).  

Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance was by no means good. However, frankly I'm astonished that the same writing and directing team (Scarlett Lacey and Menhaj Huda respectively) could have come up with something even worse the second time around. Perhaps it is due to how Lacey worked on the screenplay alone (IMDB crediting A Royal Romance to her and Terrence Coli). Becoming Royal is filled with such awful bits of dialogue and scenes that one at times comes close to gasping at the ineptitude on display.

After Meghan is seen as difficult for insisting on using her voice to speak out on important causes, the tyrannical Sir Leonard is sent over to her. Becoming Royal already established that Sir Leonard is a stickler for protocol and is not fond of Meghan's manner. He comes in and, in a huff, sneers to the stunned Meghan, "THAT old Queen sent THIS old queen to keep you in line". This does feed into the narrative that Harry and Meghan insist on, that no one at the Palace was helping Markle navigate the labyrinthine world of Court life. 

It was probably due to racism or opposition to a strong woman. If Becoming Royal is to be believed, there was nothing about Meghan to criticize. 

That is on the oddball part. There is another aspect in Becoming Royal that is more stunning in its silliness. It is on how laudatory to downright worshipful the film is about Meghan. The television film is filled with downright laughable scenes. Meghan and Harry continue to be the brunt of criticisms and comments filled with racial animosity (because that apparently is the only motive people have against them). Hotheaded Harry wants to strike back hard against those who would speak against Meghan.

"Some people react to violence with violence," she says. "But our retaliation is putting good into the world". This Gandhi-like reaction to being unfairly bashed by smug television presenters like Caspian Sharp brings this reply from Harry. "Every time I think I understand how strong you are, you astound me once again". One does not know whether to cringe or break out laughing at such a line. Charlie Field's near-comatose delivery does not help. 

Perhaps it was his way of stopping himself from actually breaking down laughing at having to say such pompous things. That, somehow, was not the nadir of Becoming Royal's pomposity towards the historical significance and importance of one Rachel Meghan Markle. That dubious distinction goes to Melanie Nicholls-King as Doria Ragland, who is one of the people reprising her role from A Royal Romance. 

As they ride out towards the church in a luxurious automobile (I cannot recall if Meghan was prevented from riding in a carriage as she had hoped to), Doria offers her insight into how groundbreaking her daughter is. Doria and Meghan converse as they look upon the crowds of well-wishers. "They're cheering for the centuries of history being overturned today. This beautiful wedding is breaking so many stereotypes and pushing so many boundaries. A whole lot of people are going to be lifted up." To put a coda on this bit of gibberish, Becoming Royal focuses on a pretty little black girl among the crowd looking on. She, presumably, is one of those people that are going to be lifted up.

It is to where I wondered if Lacey was literally taking dictation straight from Meghan Sussex about the importance of Meghan Sussex to human history. One can watch only in stunned, stoney silence at Doria's absolutely insane pep talk. I got that similar feeling when we saw morning show Bridget finally tell off her smug cohost. To be fair, we did see something of an evolution to Bridget in that her originally snide and snippy comments about Meghan started to be less snide and snippy.

However, her live on-set meltdown was there to drive home the message Becoming Royal seems to push: all criticism about Meghan Markle is based around her race and her gender. It has nothing to do with her as a person. It has everything to do with two parts of her background that she has no control over. She flat-out calls him a racist, chauvinist pig. Sebastian was obnoxious, cartoonishly so, but I do not recall him making any overtly racists comments about Meghan. Again, Becoming Royal put a coda to the suggestion that Meghan Markle made the world better when we see Bridget with a new cohost, who just happens to be black.

Becoming Royal brought back some of the cast from A Royal Romance to reprise their roles. As mentioned, Nicholls-King came back as Doria, forever watchful over her Flower. She was actually good in the role. I also should give her extra points for not openly breaking out into laughter at her "Centuries Being Overturned Thanks to You, Meghan" monologue. Any actress who could deliver such nonsense and try to make it sound reasonable deserves credit.

Also returning are Laura Mitchell as then-Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. She still looks more like Sarah Brightman than the former Catherine Middleton. She also still continues to play Catherine as a bit dim and disinterested in things, with a breathy voice to speak with. The big surprise of our returning cast is Sullivun as Queen Elizabeth II. There was only a year's gap between the first of eventually three films on the Sussexes. However, I was shocked at how fat Queen Elizabeth II looked. Sullivun made Lilibet look so heavyset that one wondered if she thought that she was playing Queen Victoria instead. Timothy Temple as Prince Philip was so insignificant that I did flat-out ask while watching, "Who is that geezer next to her?". Temple looks nothing at all like Philip. He contributed nothing to the story. I wonder if he just wandered onto the set and decided that he would do.

The newcomers were stunningly worse than the original cast. Becoming Royal's biggest name actor is Charles Shaughnessy as Prince Charles. A running gag in The Nanny (where most people would know Shaughnessy from) was how his character of Mr. Sheffield had turned down the chance to produce Lord Andrew Lloyd-Webber's musical Cats. Even a dolt like Mr. Sheffield would have turned down Becoming Royal. Shaughnessy embarrasses himself as Charles. You do not even see him, but hear him utter, "You're so good at charades, Mummy", when the family gathers for Christmas hijinks. He says it like a dimwitted five-year-old. He makes Charles look clueless and a bumbler, unaware of how to behave around people.

Jordan Whalen takes over the role of Prince William originally played by Burgess Abernathy. Whalen is a slight, slight improvement over Abernathy in terms of looking and sounding like Prince William, but not by much. Whalen could pass for Prince William if one squinted from about a thousand miles away. He had little to do except scowl and be crabby towards just about everyone.

Our two leads though were just beyond terrible. When casting Charlie Field, I got the awful sense that the casting director was told, "Find a redheaded man who can speak and understand English". His Harry was flat when he was not angry about the attacks on Meghan. I might owe Murray Fraser, the first Harry from A Royal Romance, an apology for saying that he was bad. At least he was able to display two emotions. Field, I think, topped out at one. 

Tiffany Smith, taking over for Parisa Fitz-Henley, was downright disastrous as Meghan Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. She looked nothing like the Duchess of Sussex. That was already bad enough. It was her acting that was dreadful. There was what was meant to be a heartbreaking moment when she calls her father about him working with photographers and selling the pictures. As acted by Smith, it would elicit more laughter than tears at how awful Smith's acting was. Becoming Royal was filled with bad acting all around. Tiffany Smith just happened to be the worst of the lot.

When deciding to approach the Queen about having a black preacher and gospel choir at her wedding, she remarks that she wants "things that are true to my heritage". This is a curious thing for someone to say who went to Catholic school and who, to the best of my knowledge, has no particularly strong connection to any denomination. Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal is good only if one wants to deliberately listen to bad dialogue performed with bad acting.

Who knew that Becoming Royal involved twerking at nine months pregnant to induce labor? Nothing says "breaking down so many stereotypes and pushing so many boundaries" like gyrating in a hospital room for all the world to see. 

1/10