Bertie and Elizabeth (2002)

This television film shows a lot promise despite the historical inaccuracies. It's problem is the fast paced progression through history that provides little opportunity for character exploration and more in depth look at how George VI become one of the best loved and most respected of English Kings. Otherwise, the performances are quite good and the writing in certain scenes is first rate. It's worth a look despite it's obvious flaws.American Audiences might find the portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor a bit harsh after years of romantic conditioning but as Russell Baker notes in the segment that is shown after the film on the DVD it represents a more accurate picture of how those in the UK came to view Edward VIII.

I just watched this movie on PBS and didn't know it actually came out in '02. It is an enjoyable enough piece of Masterpiece Theatre-ish production about the English royals. Not overly familiar with the events and characters the film portrays, I was reasonably entertained. I do, however, have some problems with the casting, especially of James Wilby. I've seen his star turns in Maurice and A Tales of Two Cities and I do think he is a mighty fine actor. Unfortunately, I can't get over the distraction that, at the time of the production, he was 44 and he simply couldn't play a man in his 20s. Bertie first met Elizabeth when he was 25 and married her at 28. The scene when Elizabeth accepts his proposal and Bertie jumps up and down joyously is a good indication of what I'm talking about. It is painful and rather embarrassing to watch James acting like a gen-xer when he obviously looks much, much older. Ditto the scene when the brothers were rough housing in the garden party. I hate to say this, but he is not aging gracefully. Less distracting is the age difference between Juliet Aubrey who plays Elizabeth but still you wonder if the characters are in their thirties in the early scenes. Charles Edwards who plays Edward 8th has the reverse problem. The actor was 33 at the time and when his character goes back to meet with Bertie at the end of WW2, Edward should be around 50, yet he hasn't aged a day and he always looks younger than James Wilby no matter what time period they are in. I was just very bothered by this casting problem, another than that, it is an okay telepic.

If you want historical accuracy, look elsewhere. Fact, distortion, omission, and plain fiction are so interwoven in this picture that I almost wanted to see a disclaimer at the start of the film.However! If you can chuck all that aside and just focus on the film itself, it's a charming, sweet, no-brainer movie with uplifting moments tossed in.The portrayal of the struggles between David and Bertie, who'd always been close, after the arrival of Wallis, is the most "poison pill" version I've seen. David is portrayed as a flat-out cad, while Wallis is a scheming, grasping "rhymes-with-'itch.'" The devastation of Bertie and the poise of Elizabeth are in sharp contrast to the "bad couple."This is just one example of how the writers used elements to highlight the tremendous tension between public and private royal life in the 20th century, and how personal feelings *must* be sacrificed to duty. Obviously, this dynamic still plays out in the 21st century.What shines through above all in this picture is the love between Bertie and Elizabeth. As such, it is a charming romance film with some lovely costumes and sets, and some moving historical references thrown in. The steadfastness of B & E's relationship, and how it allowed both of them to survive some of the most crushing episodes of their lives, is inspiring to watch. And then one wants to grab a book to find out what *really* happened. :-)

Apparently, not too many people are watching PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" anymore, and most likely aren't that interested in Britain's royal family. The scandalous affair between England's King Edward VIII (Charles Edwards) and Wallis Simpson (Amber Sealey; a very ambitious, American woman) isn't exactly hot gossip today. Although British royals had become quite snooty by then - and Edward VIII was a modern man - the movie didn't really bring-out that the "Elizabeth" (Juliet Aubrey) in it was a commoner, no doubt from a prominently wealthy family. Edward DID remind his brother (who had become King George VI) of that fact, and the scandals in their ancient family certainly were more notorious than a monarch marrying a common, divorced woman. One of those scandals was the changing of the family-name to "Windsor" from their German name during WW I. My comparison of the two actors was, George VI - the younger brother of Edward VIII - looked older ! Here is a perfect example of how close siblings become completely estranged.......We are all aware the young "Elizabeth" in this movie is still on England's throne........veddy proper monarch (which makes me wonder how she is portrayed in the 2006 movie "The Queen"). History has recorded that Edward VIII (The Duke of Windsor) was given an allowance of 25,000 lbs-per-year, spending much of his time in The Bahamas, where Princess Margaret did a lot of her paryting - and it was a LOT of partying....she knew, as we have seen, Elizabeth II wasn't/isn't about to give-up the throne till she croaks. Since there was little chance of her ascending the throne, Margaret lived-it-up. Most popular of the long line of "royals" (although she was a commoner) was Elizabeth "The Queen Mum" (until 2002) was quite a character. This movie does not show enough of how light-hearted and fun-loving she was. Another pique to me was the movie did not mention that Queen Whilimina (of The Netherlands) was the world's wealthiest woman during the time she had her "court-in-exile" in England, escaping Hitler's hordes.An interesting fact that perhaps few people in the world today know is that Buckingham Palace - the seat of British royalty - was once a "townhouse" in London. It was purchased in 1761 for George III's wife - the same one the U.S. revolted against. Queen Victoria was the first British monarch really to live there (1837), and did much of the re-building to make it the grand palace it is today. It is not a museum, although it is crammed with priceless objet d'artes, but is a working palace - all 775 rooms of it. The rooms shown in this movie are not nearly rich enough.......I love all the intrigue in movies like "Bertie and Elizabeth". George V (Alan Bates) lived in much greater splendor than his successor. Today's Queen Elizabeth II has reverted to granduer, which we poor folk can hardly imagine. However, a great lesson can be learned from the fact that modern, American families can't be happy in their "palaces", because all of those creature-comforts really can't buy happiness. I guess it takes a special kind of "family" - how ironic Princess Di (another commoner) was the most beloved over all those royals.I would recommend it would be worthwhile for anyone to do some research, find this TV-movie and enjoy its historical message, which is even British film-makers (director Giles Foster, scripter Nigel Williams) can't even show us how the royals live - that's why I rate it with an 8.....