Why I wanted to make The Audience public
Peter Morgan
Every week, in a meeting shrouded in secrecy, the PM briefs the Queen
about British politics. What influence does she exert? Who has she liked
- and who made her nod off?
When I started writing the screenplay for The Queen, about the
aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, both Stephen Frears, the
director, and Andy Harries, the producer, begged me not to put Tony
Blair in it. They felt the presence of a politician, particularly one as
divisive as Blair had become by 2004, would diminish it - make it feel
more temporal, more journalistic, more TV. And so less filmic.
|
Helen
Mirren in the 2006 film ‘The Queen’. Picture by Rex |
I consoled myself that there would still be plenty to work with: the
death of a princess, a young Queen's deputy private secretary out of his
depth, a royal family tucked away on the Balmoral estate, and people out
on the streets of London baying for blue blood. But after three months,
I had written just 35 pages and wanted to shoot myself. It was awful. I
rang Frears and Harries and told them the script was a big fat royalist
snooze. Would never work. Everyone gracefully accepted defeat, and
Frears went on to direct another movie.
Feeling smaller
Privately, however, I was deflated. I felt I hadn't given an
interesting subject a fair shot. I retreated to the mountains of Austria
and, without telling anyone, wrote my own version. With Blair.
I didn't care if it felt smaller. I didn't care if it was
journalistic, nor if it ended up on TV or radio. I wrote a draft in
under three weeks. It was one of those experiences that comes all too
rarely, where you hear the voices and write with total certainty. You're
not really writing - you're channelling. Looking back, I realise the
reason I was suddenly so unblocked was because I had stumbled on
something significant: the relationship between our most senior elected
public servant and our head of state. The first minister and the crown.
Two human beings, in flesh and blood, but also the representatives of
their offices. At some level, just by having them sitting opposite one
another, even in silence, one was dealing with the British constitution,
the bone structure of our establishment in its most elemental form.
Happily, Frears liked the script and committed to filming it. As I
watched Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen at work, I started thinking more
about the sovereign and the PM - and the weekly "audience" at the heart
of their relationship, and what a unique opportunity it presented a
dramatist. Because the meeting is so shrouded in confidentiality,
imagining what was discussed felt more valid, somehow, than proving it.
I resolved, as far back as 2006, to write something.
In reality, depending on the chemistry between them, the audience can
either be no more than an informal briefing - a courtesy, where the PM
brings the sovereign up to speed with what happened in the past week and
what is expected in the following one - or it can be a great deal more.
Some of the pairings have been reluctant; some eagerly looked forward
to. Some of the sessions last barely 20 minutes with no refreshment;
others stretch out to an hour or two - with drinks. Some PMs are
grateful for the breaks provided by foreign travel; others are sure to
have their audience by phone even when abroad.
So when did they start? I wrote to Professor Vernon Bogdanor, the
closest thing we have to a formal constitutional expert in this country
where no formal constitution exists. "I am not wholly clear when they
began," he said. "I do not think they existed before the war. But during
the war, the practice arose of the King and Churchill meeting for
regular lunches. That was a consequence of the particularly good
relationship they had built up - after a shaky start. The regular
meetings have now become so much of a convention they could be regarded
as part of the constitution - in a typically British unplanned way. Were
either the PM or the sovereign to discontinue them, this would, I think,
be regarded as a breach."
Vital presence
So there it is: the private audience has come in through the back
door. And yet the meeting is not minuted or recorded. No one else is
present.
This is vital - so that PMs can feel free to say what they like, and
even make disobliging remarks about colleagues. As a weekly event, it
takes up a significant amount of the PM's working life. Allowing for
summer breaks, an average four-year term would contain at least 70
meetings. Seventy hours! I dare say there are happy friendships, even
marriages, where partners don't sit opposite one another and talk
openly, in a spirit of trust and mutual confidence, for an hour a week.
Indeed, the very nature of the meeting (one-on-one, confidential,
one-sided) reflects another relationship: therapy. And James Callaghan
did say it was like talking to one's psychiatrist.
In which case, should we not be entitled to know more about it? How
has the meeting worked over the years? What form does it take? Which PMs
liked to talk? Who liked to listen? Who was HM's favourite? With whom
was there chemistry, laughter, silence? What did they discuss? How many
secrets were shared? What advice was given? What influence did it have?
The Queen is known to have struggled to stay awake with Heath and
Macmillan (both famous bores), actively disliked Blair and Thatcher
(though the Palace dutifully denies this), and had a soft spot for
losers (two of her favourites, Major and Wilson, regularly come bottom
in rankings for most effective PMs of the 20th century).
One popular misconception might be that it's a polite chat, over
scones or sherry, with the PM checking his or her watch, wanting to get
on with more important business. But as Margaret Thatcher said: "Anyone
who imagines that they are a mere formality, or confined to social
niceties, is quite wrong; they are quietly businesslike, and Her Majesty
brings to bear a formidable grasp of current issues and breadth of
experience."
The Queen reads each one of her red ministerial boxes every day, is
privy to the minutes from every cabinet meeting, has a generous staff to
keep her informed, and is scrupulously prepared for every meeting. In
civil service circles, she is known as "Reader Number 1". A meeting with
Her Majesty, therefore, is like a meeting with a well-briefed civil
servant. If transcripts of the audience were to exist, I'm confident she
would emerge with some credit.
British history
It struck me that by being denied the minutes of these conversations,
we were being denied a significant part of British history: an insight
into the workings of government and state, and the way power - real and
symbolic - functions in our name. In the 19th century, the essayist
Walter Bagehot argued that the Queen has three constitutional rights:
the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn.
No more. But bear in mind she spends an hour every week sitting
one-on-one with the most important politician in Britain. How much has
she known over the years that has been denied us? How much has she known
that we haven't?
The longer she remains on the throne, the greater her standing on the
world stage and the greater the respect for her - and, therefore, the
greater her potential surreptitious influence. Imagine you're Ed
Miliband: you've narrowly won the election, and you go to the Queen to
ask her permission to form a government. The idea that the most
instantly recognisable woman in the world - who has sat opposite
Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan,
Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, presided over a Commonwealth and
had a ringside seat at the great political events of the second half of
the 20th century - would not have influence on you is laughable, simply
by virtue of your anxiety to at least leave an impression. You don't
want to be the one she forgets.
That gives her influence, if not power.
And any influence over our PM needs to be examined closely. So I set
about writing a series of what must strictly be called "imagined"
audiences (although no shortage of anecdotal information has leaked out
over the years) between the Queen and her various PMs - and was
immediately presented with a challenge.
How could one tell the story without it feeling linear and
inevitable? How could one avoid the almost audible ticking off in
theatre-goers' heads as PMs came on and off the stage? Nothing is
enjoyable if there is no sense of surprise - and everyone knows who they
all were, even if they can't quite remember all their names.
So I decided to tell it in a non-linear way, leaving out some PMs.
Who to drop and why? I wrestled long and hard with this and, as we
head into rehearsals, I have made my decisions. But by curtain-up, it
might be totally different. Who knows?
The Guardian
|