Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 1 hour, 48 minutes
Director: Stephen Frears
Quick Impressions:
I like John Wick as much as the next person, but I just happened to notice that The Lost King was playing at a theater near us, and I got swept away in excitement. I have my reasons for being extremely interested in this story. For decades, I was obsessed with the Tudors. It started in seventh grade and continued through my unfinished dissertation about Mary, Queen of Scots and the Elizabethan complaint poem. I’m still not completely over them. I used to devour all Tudor-related material and eventually went spiraling backwards all the way to William the Conqueror. So, although in 2012 I was focused on my three-year-old (and lamenting that I never finished my dissertation), I took an unsurprising interest in headlines about the body of Richard III suddenly turning up in a car park in Leicester.
A few years later, I happened upon Philippa Langley’s book at the public library. Her account of the discovery and excavation turned out to be so different than I expected. It wildly excited me. I couldn’t stop talking about it for a month. I vividly remember saying to my mother, to my husband, to anyone who would listen, “No you don’t understand! This is the strangest book! It’s like she says to herself, ‘I’m going to find Richard III! I think he’s right here in this car park! I just have a feeling.’ And then he was!”
The tone of Langley’s account made her sound wildly eccentric and (to me) highly relatable. My first semester of grad school, I took a course that focused just on Pearl. (You know, “Me privy perle wythouten spotte.” We read the poem, lots of criticism, possibly Gawain and the Green Knight for context. I can’t remember.) At the time, I was on the fence between a medieval and an English Renaissance focus (though I was leaning toward Shakespeare). Early on, I got a brilliant idea for my dissertation. I told my mother excitedly, “I’m going to discover the identity of the Pearl Poet!” She was like, “How are you going to do that, Sarah?”
My excitement quickly faded as I realized most of my plans involved walking through the library, and then a dusty old book falling on my head, and a secret document sliding out of the spine. Obviously, this was not a realistic dissertation plan. But what I ultimately did end up writing about was Mary, Queen of Scots and the complaint poem, how back when Elizabethan sonnet sequences were all the rage, so many ostensible love poems were actually thinly veiled political discourse about Mary (whose reign over England was always a potential alternative to Elizabeth’s until her execution). Even one of the gaolers actually guarding her during her imprisonment in England was actively writing a sonnet sequence (while standing guard). There’s so much encoded pro-Marian rhetoric concealed in these complaint poems (which are published with the sonnet sequences). It’s kind of crazy how much material is right in plain sight in all these historical documents, but nobody is particularly looking for it. Everybody knows about Elizabeth’s theatrics when she was taken to the Tower during her sister’s reign, but what gets lost is that tourists were actually coming from other countries to visit the Tower where she was held (like they’re coming during her reign). Elizabeth likened herself to Rosamond, the unfortunate mistress of Henry II who has a very famous medieval complaint (you know when the ghost comes and talks). And then this is so well known that later, Mary, Queen of Scots deliberately attempts to coopt that imagery for herself. (Random documents are scattered everywhere. The two of them are trying to outdo each other through politically motivated pageantry right up through Mary’s execution.) But I remember when I was researching this, there was so much scattered material, yet nobody seemed interested in making certain connections that fascinated me (making it a good dissertation topic at the time). (Those sonnet cycles are so subversive. They’re hiding in plain sight!) Philippa Langley’s sense that she’s being led by the ghost of Richard (to notice things others don’t) really echoed feelings I had that I was being led by Mary, Queen of Scots’ ghost. I kept running into dead ends and then making weird discoveries. At times, I did feel like I was being led by Mary herself, like I was somehow bringing untold elements of her story to light (which is really unfortunate for her because I prefer Elizabeth). Ultimately, though, the needs of my premature baby trumped the mystical pleas of the long dead Mary, Queen of Scots.
Does Philippa Langley come across as a bit…kooky in her book and in this film? Yes. But she found Richard III. (Philippa Langley detractors, show of hands. How many of you found Richard III and got his remains excavated, tested, and reburied?)
I know some people will object, “Okay, but really several people had a pretty good idea that he was buried under that car park, and they even mentioned it in print.” Fair. But if they were so invested, why didn’t they dig him up? She did it, and she was no one of influence. (Plus, I remain amazed she convinced anyone to go along with this. Even in her own book, she comes across like, “I just have this feeling. Trust me. I really want to find Richard III. Let’s look in this car park. My intuition tells me he’s right there. Oh look! There he is!”)
I really enjoyed this film. If I’m remembering correctly, the book has more information about Richard III. But everybody already knows all about Richard III. The movie provides more context about Philippa Langley, and I found that invaluable to understanding her story. Learning more about her contextualizes what she describes in the book so helpfully. It does make a difference to know who she is and what she’s about.
The Good:
I think Stephen Frears can be an absolutely brilliant director. I connect more to some of his films than others, but back in 2006, I strongly thought The Queen was a perfect film. I raved about it that entire Oscar season. I kept saying stuff like, “It’s up there with Casablanca. There’s just nothing wrong with it.” (And Helen Mirren’s performance! I mean, she has to act opposite the real Princess Diana, known for her charisma and enduringly beloved. She’s played by real clips of herself in that movie. Mirren has a pretty difficult job there.) I also loved Philomena. My mom always used to say, “Judi Dench is just like my mother in this movie,” and she was right. (I don’t know why. My Grandma wasn’t from Ireland! She was from Omaha!) Frears seems interested in the true, complex stories of real, complex women. And I like those types of stories, too.
My husband probably wondered why we weren’t going to see John Wick 4. (And I still want to see that, too. I’m still very shocked and sad about Lance Reddick.) But he’s been a Sally Hawkins fan since Happy-Go-Lucky, so commendably, he was totally game for this.
Hawkins is very good. For my husband, her performance was the highlight of the movie, along with the film’s score (which he absolutely loved). To him, Alexandre Desplat’s music sounded epic. I thought of it as mystical (but like in an eerie Arthurian way). He’s right, the film is scored as if it’s telling a story about a king…which, of course, it is.
The longevity of Tudor propaganda’s hold on the public’s imagination is astonishing to me. There’s no propaganda like Tudor propaganda. The idea that anyone would be surprised to learn that Richard III might not be the rank villain described in Shakespeare seems astonishing. But honestly, I believe that people are still surprised about that because popular history frequently believes Tudor propaganda as if it is gospel truth. Some books make it more obvious than others, but it’s a pervasive problem. I remember being shocked during my dissertation research when I found multiple popular history books presenting Tudor propaganda as fact five hundred years later! (There’s especially this enduring tendency to dichotomize Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor. One must be an instrument of God, and the other must be a crazy whore. It was so baffling to me when I discovered these hatchet job characterizations accepted and passed down as truth in today’s history books. I feel like there needs to be a PSA. Just because something was written in the past doesn’t make it true. (Especially, never trust the Tudors!)
This movie is set up so that audiences who don’t even know Richard III has any defenders can discover all they need to know just by watching the film. It doesn’t go into particular historical depth. But I suppose you can research more after the movie if you’re interested.
Did Henry VII kill the Princes in the Tower? I wouldn’t put it past him. I’ve read such impassioned, well-researched, convincing (opposing) arguments about what happened to the princes. Frankly, I doubt that Richard killed them (though he could have). And no one in their right mind would trust Henry VII about anything! I personally like the argument that Edward just happened to die and Richard escaped or was freed (explaining why all those pretenders were taken so seriously). But I don’t know. I’m a Tudor sympathist, but they did constantly lie about everything at every moment all the time, which makes it hard to come to any definitive conclusions.
I did appreciate learning about Philippa Langley’s character, her tendency to be overlooked because of her meekness, to be dismissed because of her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I can relate to that a bit. I’m very familiar with the demoralizing issue of having physical problems not linked to easily diagnosable causes. Langley (in this film at least) has an invisible disability, and her sense that others do not believe her causes her a great deal of emotional distress. I also have strange physical problems, issues with pain and malfunctioning body parts. Finally a neurologist diagnosed me with conversion disorder (and assured me that yes, it is real, and it shows up on functional MRAs because it is a functional, not a structural issue). My psychiatrist thought it was more likely that I was expressing my bipolar disorder somatically. Recently, my (alarming and unpredictable) physical problems have mostly stopped. But now I’ve been experiencing far more traditional symptoms of depression instead (which I guess is progress). But I relate to this meek, sick, woman who is never taken seriously because she is a meek, sick woman. I also am like Philippa in that I tend to defer to anyone, for some reason assuming that they know more about a topic than I do (even when that is not always the case). It’s a pleasure to watch her overcome that in this film. (People are actually trying to undermine and gaslight her. I’m more of a self-gaslighter. You would think knowing that about myself would make it stop.)
I spent much of the movie wondering if she’s actually hallucinating encounters with Richard III, or if the physical manifestation is just for dramatic purposes, and she’s only thinking about him a lot. Either way, she gets results. (And so did Joan of Arc, I suppose.) (I worry about my mental health constantly. All summer I kept saying to my husband, “What I have schizophrenia?” He always says, “If you do, then you always have since I’ve known you. Why should that make a difference?”) (I don’t talk to Richard III. I just sometimes feel I don’t have a great grip on what reality is. But perhaps I’m just prone to panic which can create distorted impressions.) People with disabilities and with mental illness can still do great and useful things.
The supporting cast in the movie is good, too, but none of the characters is as well drawn and thoroughly developed as Philippa. I did like Mark Addy as another key Richard in her life.
Best Scene Visually/Best Scene:
The movie does a really nice thing that’s kind of subtle (well considering it involves the physiology of Richard III). Part of what draws Philippa to Richard in the first place is her realization that he’s being mocked and maligned for having a disability, some physical imperfection that makes him less than perfect. She relates to this because she’s constantly marginalized due to her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (which also makes her face look tired). So the moment when they do find a body is pretty interesting because of her reaction to something she didn’t expect. We see how she’s grown through the journey of discovery.
Best Action Sequence:
I love the moment near the end when Philippa confronts Richard Taylor (Lee Ingleby—who also played Stan Shunpike!?) who is portrayed as such an absolute jerk in this film.
Funniest Scene:
Two small moments of humor jumped out at me. One when friends from the Richard III Society give their input on Philippa’s fundraising campaign title and another when her sons complain that she hasn’t made them dinner. (That moment really hit home for me.)
The Negatives:
I enjoyed every bit of this movie because I was unusually interested in the subject (particularly because I found the tone of Philippa Langley’s book so baffling, and this film shows us a lot more about her).
I am positive not everyone will enjoy The Lost King as much as I did, though. You have to bring a certain level of investment with you when you show up. This is a quiet little film.
If you’re going mainly because you love Richard III, you’re not going to get enough Richard III (Harry Lloyd). I mean, we see plenty of Philippa’s Richard, but he’s more like her muse, not the real, historical king. Honestly, sometimes he’s a bit boring though Lloyd looks very striking and plays the part well.
I’m not sure it’s the best choice to assume that the audience is already so familiar with Richard III that we don’t need to see anything about his life. I’m not convinced the audience does know, at least, not the American audience. Then again, I was surprised that this film drew a decent sized crowd the night we watched. I thought it was kind of niche and unlikely to pull many people away from John Wick. But I think the film would find an even bigger audience if it broke up Philippa’s story with scenes of Richard’s life and dramatic death. (Then again, a major theme of the film is that Philippa is constantly upstaged by self-important men with empathy defects who do not take her seriously.)
I also find her ex-husband (played by Steve Coogan), a rather enigmatic figure. I could never decide if I liked him or not, and I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to be getting from the inclusion of the character. Early on, he did make me think, “I’m so lucky to have my husband,” because, honestly, I already don’t have a 9 to 5 job, and if I announced, “I’m going to find the body of King Richard III,” he’d just assume I would and immediately start helping.
Coogan also wrote the movie. I’m curious what drew him to the story because the part he plays doesn’t seem exactly enticing for an actor. (I may look into this after I finish the review.)
Part of me finds the way everyone dismisses Philippa a bit too—over the top or something. (Also perhaps she is not the right person to present her ideas to important members of the public, though my husband insisted that others with more experience in archeology and PR could still find a way to highlight and showcase her role.)
Overall:
I loved watching The Lost King because I’m very interested in the story. It gives you the idea that anyone can do something—as long as they’re fine with knowing that nobody will care if they do…except the Queen and Steve Coogan, I guess. I would watch this again. I find the material compelling even though it’s not exactly exciting in the usual sense. For my husband, the highlights were Sally Hawkins’s nuanced lead performance and Alexandre Desplat’s rousing score. I find it quietly exciting that a woman criticized for looking tired because she has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome can say, “Maybe I needed some extra time off and worked a bit slower…but I did discover the body of King Richard III which was lost for five-hundred years and then get his remains excavated and reburied, and get him reinstated as a legitimate ruler of England.” I mean, she did take some extra sick days, though, so you’ll have to decide for yourself if she got an adequate amount of work done.