Royal Wedding 2011

AOG, London

I just spent the better part of my weekend traipsing all over London. I would like to say that you can't help but notice that there is a Royal Wedding in our midst….but I’d be lying.

Regent Street

London’s West End was, for once, not at all interested in Royalness. 

This may, and probably will, change by Friday. 

But if you walked around Oxford street, you’d be forgiven for thinking the wedding had been and gone. 

Until you turn into Regent Street that is. Once there, you do get a feeling of, not Royalness, but Britishness. Why? 

Only because they have Union Jacks flying from one side of the street to the other all the way from Oxford Circus to Picadilly Circus. But that’s about it. 

Here and there, some stores had either a union jack “motif” on their window, or something alluding to the happy couple. But little else.

Further afield the West End, for example on the train back to the airport, you could see some towns had one street with bunting and union jacks. But not much else.

However, this is not to say that the wedding is not having an impact on sales. Many shops (Ted Baker, Paperchase) have some sort of Union Jack/Royal regalia object or product for sale to commemorate the event.

As do the tourist stands which pepper all of the West End. You know, those places which entice you to purchase a mug with the portrait of the Queen or Prince Philip, or a postcard with some royal plastered on it, or any other "royal" kitsch paraphernalia.

 Or the ubiquitous Union Jack with a portrait of Kate and William. These are bestsellers they told me.

To be fair, most of the people I spoke with are happy they are getting married but not so happy about the financial state of their country. The wedding is reputed to be on the Queen’s bank account. That is to say, the British “people” are not paying for it. 

Except that not many people believe that and, of course, no one will even know the true cost of the affair.

However, officially, her majesty is paying as are Miss Middleton’s family –who, by the way, are millionaires (you didn’t think he was going to marry somebody poor did you?). 

Certainly the Royal family is paying for the dress and the receptions at Buckingham palace (where some food will be served but not as much as you think!*).

But what I think they are not paying for is the cost of policing the event, and the clean up afterwards.

As it is, London Police are inspecting manhole covers, drains, traffic lights, and lamp posts along the parade route. Overall, the security operation is expected to cost £20 million ($32.6 million).

However, it is worth saying that many people can’t help to look back to that other royal wedding, the fairy-tale one, when the heir to the British throne married a certain Lady Diana Spencer, mother of this year’s groom.

If you need your daily Royalty fix, look no further than this blog by the BBC.  

*A few years ago, the Palace uncovered an alarming statistic about guests attending the Queen's annual garden parties. Rather than just nibbling on one or two snacks, they were consuming, on average, 14 sandwiches, cakes, ice creams and scones (I mean, how dare they those plebs!). The palace has come up with an ingenious solution — they  have reduced the size of the treats on offer!

The King's Speech

AOG, London

I just saw the Oscar ceremony, and I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the election of The King's Speech as the winning movie. As the best movie of the year. 

I had a hard time picturing this film as a contender for the crown in the first place, and given the competition, it is surprising that it won.

I saw it a few weeks ago and I remember leaving the movie theater feeling a bit... well, a bit like nothing had really happened. 

No great climax, no interesting insights, no great idea. 

The story is simple enough, the next in line to the  British throne, the future George VI,  has a speech impediment and an Australian speech therapist (played by  the great Geoffrey Rush) helps him to speak well. 

There you go, that is the whole movie right there. 

You'd think that being a British film (and this is the reason why it won, because in the US, anything British and Royal at the same time is a surefire winner) they could have done a bit more work on the plot. 

But no, in fact, poor Mr. Firth, who is a very good actor, and now one with an Oscar under his belt (yes, though we all know the Oscar is really for his performance last year in A Single Man) pretty much carries the weight of the whole movie on his shoulders.

Helena Bonham-Carter, as the future Queen Mother, is good at, well, at being Helena Bonham-Carter playing a royal person, not at actually playing the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother herself. I saw a similar performance of hers in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland a few months ago. Less manic, but just as "royal".

All this time, when people have asked me about the movie, all I have been able to muster has been that it is a "nothing film". And that is all it is. 

A pretty (though it could have been more spectacular), simple (though it could have been slightly more complicated), very well acted movie based on a few stories concerning King George VI, himself a very interesting character (the last Emperor of India, the last King of Ireland  &c.). 

And it is odd that no more was made of his life, that all that mattered was that one speech problem and that all else was superseded to it. And believe me, there was more. Of the relationship between  George VI and his brother, King Edward VIII. 

Of the strained relationship with Wallis Simpson and what she meant for the future of the monarchy -sadly played by Eve Best, a British actress playing the infamous American divorcée -credited for coining the famous boutade "You can never be too rich or to thin". 

To say nothing of the awful performance delivered by Claire Bloom as Queen Mary. Yes, a miscast. Or perhaps not well directed. 

I remember that whenever she popped into the screen I would try really hard to make myself believe that she was Queen Mary, and not just an actress in period costume. She was too young to play her perhaps. Too...unroyal, if there be such a word.

But I don't want to kill the movie completely. It does have some very interesting performances. Derek Jacobi, for one, is amazing in his part as Archbishop Cosmo Lang. Evil, and nervy, he is a very memorable character. 

As is the  wonderful aforementioned  Geoffrey  Rush as Lionel Logue. 

The movie has a few moments of hilarity here and there, but they, in my humble opinion, were not fully exploited. So, I'm glad it won, it is not a bad movie, but, as I said, it is just a 'nothing film'. 

I would have given True Grit the Oscar. But then, I am slightly biased...