Wallis & Edward (2005)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Touches You

An Exercise In Nonsense

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I read where this dramatization was suppose to be mostly from Wallis' perspective and as such it succeeds. Once she discovered she had dug herself a great big hole she tried like heqq to get out,but alas, she couldn't because her stupid boy-friend, the King of England was in it with her, and her fear of being alone, plus her exile to France thus virtual isolation from him prevented her from knocking some sense into his tiny little brain.Well, good for England and the world in the long run, because if she had been allowed to marry and he remain king, it would have been a disaster for England and the world, since, although quite charismatic and popular, as a monarch he was woefully inadequate.This story is fluffy and gives us a simple picture of the events that took place, but it's somewhat laughable in parts where the dialog (this is 1935-1936) resorts to her saying things like "..flavor of the month.." and describing her feelings toward him to include their intimacy and "..all that other stuff.." It also fails to mention that the primary reason (beyond simple politics)is that he could not marry her was because, as the leader and the defender of the Church of England, he was forbidden to marry a divorced woman and by now she was twice divorced. Edward (David) loved her, she obviously was great in the physical romance department whereas he was privately mimicked, by those who knew, to be inadequate there as well. So, the whirlwind took hold and before she knew it, or could put a stop to it, she got caught in a trap and like the old Elvis Presley song, and there was no way out.So he abdicated, married her and for 35 years they because the most useless couple on earth. Google them and look for the picture of them outside the châteaux in France where they were just married. They are the two most unhappy looking bride and groom you will ever set eyes upon.In short, historically, Edward (David) was stupid, Wallis trapped herself and the whole thing was an unmitigated disaster except for the blessing that the world was rid of this silly little man who would have been an awful monarch.

This would have been OK if only they had chosen a more suitable actor for Edward. Stephen Campbell Moore is 14 years too young for the role of Edward as he was in 1936. He comes across as the nice boy next door who made everyone proud by winning a scholarship. He does not seem at all like a playboy prince of doubtful brainpower. Campbell Moore's Edward would have been intelligent and dutiful and would never have given up the throne for an American divorcée. This comes over very strongly in the scene where his father, George V, tells him "You disgust me". Not even the most crusty old Victorian could have said that to clean-cut Campbell Moore. Ms Richardson is good as Wallis, except that she is rather better looking than the original. Actually, I preferred the old version with Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris.

Unfortunately, the show contains quite a few inaccuracies: Ernest Simpson is portrayed as an American; he was English; the Simpsons' friend Mary was used in the film as the adultery partner for the divorce when it was simply a woman hired for the occasion, Edward is referred to as 'the king' before he was the king, Mrs. Simpson and the king are shown together after her divorce decree nisi was granted when in fact she left the country immediately as any hint of collusion with Edward might have meant the decree would not be granted. Aunt Bessie says 'He might have done' when as an American she would have said "He might have" .... the list goes on. I think filmmakers have a responsibility if they take on a historical drama when the facts are well know, to get it right.

It is impossible to fault this made for TV film - the principals make an attractive couple; the period is well evoked; the settings are suitably glamorous and the supporting cast is particularly strong.There is a deft touch running throughout: the abdication crisis could have been played in a grinding and maudlin manner but it is handled summarily and almost underplayed.What particularly convinced was the abdication speech, in the context of the film this "historic given" rang absolutely true. Quite an achievement.However, it is still a made for TV biopic - the historic characters are necessarily painted a little bland and it is inescapably "light entertainment". There is much humour and subtle-digging at the royal family - but not without affection. Altogether, this film is far better than one could have reasonably expected and far more enjoyable too.There is some hint towards the end of the narrative, of the sadness of the life of exile that the Windsors led, but that is a whole other movie. There are clear resonances in the movie of Camilla and Charles - I think this is deliberate for the contemporary audience but not overstated. Some of the historical context was a revelation: Churchill considered forming a King's party to champion the cause of Edward and Mrs. Simpson i.e. by no means was the whole county in favour of abdication.When all is said and done, the story is a real life tragedy out of the Shakespearian mold, and one worthy of the retelling. My mother was at a girls' school at the time - and the whole class listened to the abdication speech in tears. The hold of the story at the time was intense as that other Shakespearian tragedy in our times of Diana.