Skip to main content

Mobile Ads

Netflix's The Crown should begin episodes with a fiction disclaimer, says UK Culture Secretary

Britain’s culture minister thinks the Netflix TV series The Crown should come with a disclaimer: It’s a work of fiction.

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden weighed in amid criticism of the historical liberties taken by the drama about the British royal family.

“It’s a beautifully produced work of fiction. So as with other TV productions, Netflix should be very clear at the beginning it is just that,” Dowden told the Mail on Sunday newspaper. “Without this, I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact.”

Dowden is expected to write to Netflix this week to express his view. Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

Questions of historical fidelity were not a major issue during earlier seasons of the show, which debuted in 2016 and traces the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, which began in 1952.

But the current fourth season is set in the 1980s, a divisive decade that many Britons remember vividly. Characters include Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose 11-year tenure transformed and divided Britain, and the late Princess Diana, whose death in a car crash in 1997 traumatised the nation.

Former royal press secretary Dickie Arbiter has called the series a “hatchet job” on Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne, and his first wife Diana. The troubled relationship of the couple, played by Josh O’Connor and Emma Corrin, is a major storyline in the series.

Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, has also said the show should carry a notice that “this isn’t true but it is based around some real events.”

“I worry people do think that this is gospel and that’s unfair,” he told broadcaster ITV.

Some Conservatives have criticised the program’s depiction of Thatcher, played by Gillian Anderson. Britain’s first female prime minister, who died in 2013, is portrayed as clashing with Olivia Colman’s Elizabeth to an extent that some say is exaggerated.

The Crown creator Peter Morgan, whose work also includes recent-history dramas The Queen and Frost/Nixon, has defended his work, saying it is thoroughly researched and true in spirit.

In a 2017 discussion of The Crown, Morgan said “you sometimes have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.”

Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, said the suggestion that The Crown carry a disclaimer was “reasonable and yet pointless.”

“It invariably doesn’t have an effect,” he said. “There are studies that show that people believe fiction when it’s presented as fact — even if you tell them it’s not fact.”

Fielding said it was no surprise that Charles and his allies were annoyed with the heir to the throne’s depiction as “a bit of an idiot.” But he said making a fuss about it only amplifies the attention.

Historians are used to railing at inaccuracies in dramas such as the Academy Award-winning Darkest Hour, which included an invented scene of Winston Churchill meeting ordinary Londoners on an Underground Tube train during World War II.

“Mixing historical fact and fiction has been around since Shakespeare. This is not new to films, it’s not new to TV,” said Fielding, co-author of The Churchill Myths, which examines Britain’s wartime leader in popular culture.

“I don’t recall the culture secretary complaining about the ridiculous presentation of Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour,” he said. “Because it went with the myth, with the idea of Churchill the hero, nobody complained.”

“Nobody’s bothered if fact and fiction are all mangled up, so long as it’s saying nice things,” he added.


by The Associated Press

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oscars 2021 adds in-person UK hub for international nominees amid travel concerns during pandemic

With less than a month until showtime, the 93rd Oscars are taking another pass at the script. Show producers Steven Soderbergh, Jesse Collins and Stacey Sher remain determined to have an i n-person ceremony on 25 April in Los Angeles but told nominees on Tuesday in a virtual meeting that they’ve added a British hub after some backlash from nominees about international travel restrictions. The main event will still take place at Los Angeles’ Union station which will include a red carpet component but they are planning something special for the UK location. The show is also working with local broadcast affiliates around the world to provide satellite links for other international nominees. They said they are not totally ruling out Zoom but are hoping it doesn’t come to that. Although plans and requirements remain fluid, attendees have been told they’re expected to quarantine for 10 days prior to the show. And everyone is being told to bring a mask, even if the show is being designed...

Nayanthara, Vignesh Shivan to marry on 9 June; here's all you need to know

Filmmaker Vignesh Shivan and Nayanthara are all set to get married tomorrow, 9 June. Shivan made an announcement about the same on Tuesday, 7 June in an interaction with the media. Talking about their wedding venue, Shivan informed that the wedding will take place at a private resort in Mahabalipuram . Shivan also spoke about the change in the wedding venue from Tirupati to Mahabalipuram. The filmmaker said that the couple wanted to get married in a temple but due to issues in logistics, it was difficult to bring their families to Tirupati. So, they decided to change the wedding venue to Mahabalipuram. He added that the wedding will be attended by close friends and family members. The rumours regarding their wedding began after the duo was clicked with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and reports claimed that the couple had gone to invite the Chief Minister for their special day. Nayanthara and Vignesh Shivan had met each other in 2015 for the first time during the nar...

In conversation with Christopher Doyle, cinematographer of Wong Kar-Wai cinema: How we react to spaces energizes the film

The New Yorker critic Anthony Lane described the cinematography of Christopher Doyle as “a snake — savouring the air of the streets.” Across the Atlantic Ocean, on BBC , he is credited with “changing the look of cinema”. Doyle’s “anti-Hollywood” aesthetic, associated with the streaks of thick, luminous paint in Wong Kar-wai’s films, have a striking and lasting visual vitality. It has often been described as “post-modern” — though what that means exactly is everybody’s guess. My guess is the reliance, in his images, on feelings over narrative, on style over substance — the kind that skyrocketed post-World War II artists like Mark Rothko into fame. Rothko would just paint fields of colour, and people would stand and weep in front of his large, enveloping canvases. The effect of Doyle’s imagery is not much different.  For all his artistry, Doyle is flippant, moony, and charming. During an e-mail exchange produced below, edited for length and clarity, Doyle warns, “I think you s...