LouHomey
From my favorite movies..
Dynamixor
The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
Freeman
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Enoch Sneed
This is certainly one of the best historic dramatisations ever made for television. Based on a deeply researched book and with the technical advice of the author, Simon Raven's scripts succeed in 'showing' us the story rather than simply 'telling' it.The character development of Wallis Simpson is a fine example of this. At first we see her as quite obviously socially ambitious, determined to work her way into Edward's private circle of friends. Once she has achieved this, she ensures the former lovers who helped her are excluded (and we see their hurt feelings). Having got her feet well under the table she begins to take over Edward's life, to the extent of getting him to neglect his official duties for her benefit. Finally her victory is complete: on vacation someone asks the King his plans for the next day and he says "Wallis, what are our plans for tomorrow?" She has taken control. Both lead performances are flawless.The supporting cast is a superb ensemble of British character actors who play their historical roles excellently. Some highlight David Waller's Baldwin, but John Shrapnel's increasingly frustrated (and disgusted) equerry Major Hardinge is equally compelling.Compared with today's 'historical' series about 'The Tudors' or 'Rome', this is highly intelligent and thoughtful drama. Only the technical aspects make it seem a little dated with studio scenes shot on video and exteriors on film (standard for UK television in the 1970's). Still, this is excellent viewing and well worth watching.
selffamily
I have long wanted to see this series, having only read Royal Feud so far as background. I watched the first half, then as there was a delay in obtaining the second half, I read the book written by the Duchess of Windsor, The Heart has its reasons. Now I have just finished the second half and feel that I have had a well-rounded view of what went on. I did feel (contrary to what previous reviewers have said) that maybe it missed a few things and could perhaps have been longer!I have always felt instinctively that Wallis Simpson had a raw deal. She has been cast by history as a manipulator, a gold-digger and a not-very-nice kind of woman. Well history is always written by the victors as we have long known - Richard III's story is evidence of that - and there is nothing to really support that. I feel sad that so much power has been wielded by churches over the centuries, (I'm not the first as Henry VIII shows) because without the censure from the Archbishop of Canterbury maybe some other way could have been found. However, this man loved this woman and made a grand gesture, and we hope, lived happily ever after. It was a huge burden to put on one woman's shoulders but she bore it with dignity to the end of her days. The series was extremely well-done, the acting faultless and the writing most likely very accurate to historical fact. (I did think that some of the furnishings looked a bit shabby). I am British and I remember being told by older family members what a shocking and awful thing Edward/David had done. I don't agree - sometimes you have to do what for you is right, and he did. I admire him for that. Ironically, the late Queen Mother was rumoured to have fancied Edward/David first unsuccessfully; well if she wanted to be queen, then she got her wish. Just shows you should never wish for anything! With the perspective of the 21st century, it's good to see that society has slowly become more accepting and less judgemental. Thoroughly enjoyable to all who enjoy history being brought to life.
treeline1
The scandal that brought down a King is examined in detail in this 1978 English miniseries. We meet Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward Fox), who eschews royal responsibilities and propriety in favor of a rather hedonistic life style. He'd had a string of affairs before he met Wallis Simpson (Cynthia Harris), a once-divorced, married American woman in 1931. She is shown to be a calculating spider, he the willing fly. When he becomes King and insists upon marrying her, his actions threaten to destroy the monarchy.Edward Fox is perfectly cast as the spoiled and boyish Prince; it is a pleasure to watch him completely inhabit the character. Cynthia Harris, on the other hand, is never believable as Mrs. Simpson; none of her lines sound spontaneous and her stiff acting weakens the show. The supporting cast, including Peggy Ashcroft as Queen Mary, is wonderful, but the scenes where Edward's advisors endlessly debate the sticky situation are tedious.Still, it's a fascinating story despite its faults and it's fun to watch the Royals' private lives.
train464
If you watch this TV movie you will get a slow, gentle insight into the pre-World War II period. It is beautifully done: the sets, the costuming, the acting all blend to be the late 1930's. It is a touching story, but some of the actual meaning has been left out, leaving us with a one-sided, positive feeling about the lead characters. It was a noble thing for a king to abdicate for his love, no? Well, perhaps, but the truth is that he was forced out without his fighting for the crown. (Lots of anguish, yes, but no fight.) The character of Wallis Simpson was overly simplified to make her appear to be more blameless than she was in reality, less manipulating, and attractive. I don't recall any of the rumors of her German leanings being mentioned, which may be just as well since they have been heavily discounted and are probably not true. Barring this one flaw of not presenting Mrs. Simpson as she has become known to be (and was rumored to be at the time), the movie is excellent. Schedule several days to watch it and don't try to cram it into one session. It takes a little settling time between episodes. (The documentary accompanying the movie must be seen after watching the movie. Don't watch it first!)
