I didn’t think I’d have anything to say this morning – I got less than three hours’ sleep after watching the election returns – but then I saw the print edition of today’s New York Times, which came with a wraparound ad for the new Netflix series The Crown. The 10-episode first season of The Crown, which is about the young Queen Elizabeth II, debuted November 4; it cost $130 million, making it the most expensive TV series ever.
The ad must have been expensive, too, and it must have been prepared at least a few days in advance.
This is the outside of the wrap.
This is the inside left panel.
I don’t think I’m alone in suspecting the copywriter was thinking also – prematurely, over-optimistically – of another woman leader, on the opposite side of the Atlantic.
And this is the inside right panel.
I’ve watched six episodes of the series. “Revolution” is not among its themes.
How long ago, I wonder, was this ad written? What went on in the strategy and creative meetings? Who decided to gamble on subtext and victory? Why run the ad the morning after the American elections and not on premiere day?*
No answers from me, on this or anything else right now.
__
* Although it seems, in light of everything else, ridiculously trivial to bring it up, I have to ask: Who chose to insert “of” after “befitting”? It doesn’t belong there.
The whole project is a dog's breakfast. Once upon a time I would have said this was an "after lunch" job, with a bunch of boyos sitting around digesting their beef and martinis. (I was there.) But I don't think they do that anymore, so god knows what they were thinking. Clearly, whoever edited this was too young to be around words like "befitting."
Feelin' damn grumpy.
Posted by: Michael Johnson | November 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM
I have had the privilege of having been a subject of HM The Queen for my entire life. "Revolution" is not a political term pertinent to a constitutional monarchy.
Also - and contrary to the silly "befitting" image up there - having a woman at the helm is not particularly earth-shatteringly novel for a monarchy with almost a thousand years to its credit.
Queen Victoria?
Queen Anne?
Queen Elizabeth I?
Queen Mary?
Posted by: JJM | November 12, 2016 at 04:29 PM
JJM: The only way the copy makes sense is if you substitute "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for "Queen Elizabeth," which is how (I'm almost certain) the copywriter intended us to interpret it. A woman president would indeed have been revolutionary. Unfortunately, the crystal ball failed.
Posted by: Nancy Friedman | November 12, 2016 at 08:17 PM
Three episodes into the series, and the storyline so far is about as opposite from revolution as one could imagine: the young queen has in no uncertain terms been told that her own identity, along with the home and name of her husband, is to be sacrificed on the altar of tradition. (Even without seeing the remaining episodes, which we certainly intend to do, we have some historical context that suggests that revolution is not likely to be a plot turn in this series.)
Posted by: mike | November 15, 2016 at 09:38 AM
Mike: Exactly. It's all about clinging to the remnants of empire and dignity, always dignity (to borrow a phrase). Wait till you get to Episode 4, "Act of God," about the lethal fog of 1952 and Churchill's "it's just weather" response.
Posted by: Nancy Friedman | November 15, 2016 at 09:44 AM