Red, White & Royal Blue: A Historian's Analysis, pt. 2: The Romance of RWRB
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- In anticipation of the announced sequel, we continue our analysis of the recent gay romance on the international theme, "Red, White, and Royal Blue" -- this time assembling the clues to reconstruct the personalities and (often dark) psyches of the two main characters, their differing ways of showing their attraction, and the reasons both for the rupture in their relationship and for its eventual success. We consider how the story of Alex & Henry appropriates and reworks classic romantic tropes stemming from Jane Austen, and how it reflects real patterns and dilemmas in queer romance and relationships.
Watch this video on patreon with no ads by signing up as a patron: / 110423206
music: J.S. Bach, "Schafe können sicher weiden," performed by Marco Cera. Marco Cera's youtube channel: / @marcocera993
Great breakdown of the movie. I listened to your other two podcast also. The thumbnail is the sweetest moment in the movie for me. I will keep my eye for the future episode you have planned. Great job. I will spread the word.
I loved your analysis! One thing I loved is the way Henry looks at Alex, specially in the party and in the dancefloor, adoring him. Also the little kisses in the shoulder and in Alex's arm. The way alex looks at Henry at the karoke, totally lost in thought, realizing the depth of his feelings for Henry
I absolutely agree! Nicholas' face acting is amazing; and I think the little arm kiss on the dock is the sweetest thing I've ever seen in a movie. Also, after I finished, I realized that Alex's stare in the karaoke scene is similar to the piano scene, and shows how Alex loves Henry's courage as a performer.
@@Historiansplaining I don't know, it's a story that gives you positive feelings, that despite the problems things are solved and that one must fight for their dreams. I saw the movie first and since I liked it so much I read the book, I don't compare them but there I understood some things that the movie doesn't cover or in some of the deleted scenes that gives context to Henry's reactions especially. It's about talking a lot and always finding a detail that you missed. What I fully affirm is that both Nick and Taylor are the most perfect Henry and Alex that one could have imagined, they had the ability to make us believe that what we were seeing was something real, obviously under the direction of Mathew.
Thank you for this deep, and deeply perceptive, look into RWARB, and why it has become such a movie milestone and an instant classic. There are several lines from the book that I wish had made it into the movie, not least Henry's words in the Kensington Palace confrontation and why he ran: that the love "was never supposed to be an issue...I thought I could have some part of you, and just never say it, and you'd never have to know, and one day you'd get tired of me and leave...I never thought I'd be stood here faced with a choice I can't make because I never, I never imagined you would love me back."
The unloved prince with the heart on the outside of his body (so in this case, never daring to admit to possessing,or engaging with, a heart) was becoming more afraid of loving Alex the more loving they became and the more Alex needed to voice it. So when the reality could no longer be ignored, he had no choice but to run; not from Alex per se, but from himself. But that is the sort of line where an actor would take the script and say the line was not necessary, he could express that subtly with progressive eye and body language throughout the film. Which Nicholas Galitzine did so well.
For it is very clear that it is the ability and understanding of the actors for their characters - and the rich details put into design, props and direction - that makes this such an outstanding film, presented with more than the average love and care, and which lifts this "cheesy little rom-com" into something far more special and life enhancing. And has made such an emotional and societal impact around the world.
I love your analysis of this movie. What great insight into their characters and also into the nature of love. Vulnerability (complexity) and authenticity (passion/ambition).
Fantastic! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
Thanks for such a thorough analysis of this wonderful movie. I have watched it many times and wish more reviewers would see all the beautiful aspects of it. The movie wouldn’t work as well as it does without the two terrific actors who were Henry and Alex as if they’d stepped out of the book and Casey echoes this.
Fascinating. Thank you. Oh, and those of us who read the book totally got the “baby” over the phone. 😊
Thank you for taking the time to analyze this "greatest movie of 2023", my favourite and one that should be replicated in other movie adventures...a story that is real, talks about current issues, using beautiful people to portray a "better way" of living happily.
Would we have this kind of movie without the book? I was initially reluctant to watch the movie (might not have if not for Historiansplaining). Matthew Lopez's work here is amazing, and so looking forward to what Casey McQuiston will bring to the sequel
Dear friend, like your analysis so much. And wated for the second part.
The good news I found, is that they are going to do a sequel!!! 😊
Wonderfully done!! Thank you for taking the time to do this!
Alex heard: They need me to be realistic so that they can be idealistic
That was intense! And enough time to watch the movie again. Thank you, as always
That was great. I loved the other ones, too.
I really appreciate the literary and musical references in the film. Obviously the writer and director are both very well-read.
Thank you vey much for this detailed, thoughtful and touching analysis. The movie affected me deeply without my knowing exactly why, and now I feel so validated. I watched the other parts and am very much looking forward to your next videos on this series ❤
Finally I could sit and listen to your analysis with full attention, and I simply love it. It goes so deeply into these two lovely characters, allowing me to see things I hadn't noticed before. Thank you so much.
Two small details that I would like to mention. During the two pillow talk in Paris, when you were wondering if anything beyond the obvious scene of Alex topping Henry, I could help but notice the two condom wrappers near Henry's side of the bed. So something else did perhaps indeed happen! Another detail is what I consider the beautiful mutual surrender to each other at the airport. Not only does Alex pledge his patience, accepting that anything that happens will occur at Henry's speed. Henry, in turn, surrenders to Alex as well. Only the previous night, during the confrontation, he had angrily rejected to trade one prison for another. Now, with all the emotions visible on his face, he sends Alex away, simply telling him to go win an election. Gorgeous scene.
Thanks again, and I will also look for your podcasts on the origins of WW1, a subject that fascinates me since I read Christopher Clark's "Sleepwalkers".
Thanks!
Wonderful review and talk. Thanks.
I really love all the points you made about Alex's character. I think Taylor's performance gets a little overlooked sometimes, but he did a really good job showing us some of Alex's insecurities and his impetuous nature. And I also agree, Alex goes through a real growth throughout the movie. It's almost as if he goes from being a "kid" to a man right before our eyes. His desire to be someone that Henry can depend on emotionally, and to act as a shelter for Henry from some of the pressures he faces causes him to really mature as the film goes on. You really see that in the "storm the castle" scene where he explains to Henry that he wasn't trying to force him to come out before he's ready and that he can be patient and move on Henry's timeline, and in the very beautiful and well argued speech he makes after their relationship is exposed. I also love that you brought up Alex's relative naïveté, and how that instead of being a hindrance to him, it very often allows him to achieve success at things other people would balk at, like trying to turn Texas blue (something my cynical heart believes will never happen lol) and attempting a serious relationship with Henry. It's such a fascinating aspect to the story, because I feel like in our postmodern world, naïveté most often gets treated as a sort of willful stupidity, and any character who dares to believe that things will turn out ok is punished by the narrative for doing so. So it's kind of refreshing and terribly sincere that this book and film buck that trend.
I completely agree!
I love your analyses of R, W, & RB. You brought up a number of things that I had not considered fully. As a psychiatrist, I might take issue with a couple of your psychological interpretations, but overall, I agree with them.
At your explanation around 1:23:00 when you're discussing who had receptive intercourse and who didn't, I think you might have missed that in the scene after the sex act as they were lying in the bed, there were 2 open condom packages--one on the bedside table and the other on the floor, I believe--which had me thinking that they both enjoyed the receptive act. Not a big deal either way, but since you so thoroughly analyzed this film, I just wanted to note it. --Now I wish someone would thoroughly analyze me to find out why I've enjoyed watching this corny romcom multiple times. :)
That's a great point! I had thought, but forget to say in the video, that we don't know everything that goes on in the Paris hotel. And you're right, the two condom wrappers are very suggestive.
@@Historiansplaining Like I said, I just didn't want anything to be left out of such an incredibly articulate, thoughtful, and thorough analysis. Kudos to you. I'm checking out your other videos. History nut here. :)
Thanks for adding this - I noticed this too and it’s omission. I love this analysis and also need someone to explain to me why I’ve watched this movie 50 times 🤣🤦🏻♀️
This is very pernickety (and it may just be because I can't see it clearly enough), but has the second condom wrapper definitely been opened? It seems to be sitting atop a cushion but doesn't have the tell-tale torn corner of the one on the bedside table.
Thank you for these excellent videos (watched all three and looking forward to more). May I return to the King’s scene?
The King’s strategy in the “Buckingham Palace” scene actually makes very little sense because of the changes between the book and the movie. As a course of action is dead in the water and destined to be counterproductive even on its own terms, let alone on ethical and emotional ones. The idea (as in the book) would be to “kill” the story by claiming that the leaked materials (photographs in the book, emails in the movie) are all fabrications of an “hostile foreign power”. But that would never work in the movie, firstly because any such indignant response loses credibility the more time lapses between the allegations and their denial, and we know from Henry that the King has said not a word to him or to anybody else and therefore precious time must have been lost. Secondly, any such denial is plainly laughable and not credible at all because it comes AFTER (this is a crucial difference between the book and the movie) Alex’s fabulous speech, where he truly nailed his colours to the mast with his “simpler truth”. After that one, what denial could possibly be believed? And to make things worse, very awkward questions would inevitably start being asked: “Which country does the King (or his government) identify as the most likely hostile foreign power? The USA maybe? Does the King (or his government) believe that the son of the President of the USA is in league with and an agent of the said hostile foreign power?” Far from killing the story it would never end and the homosexuality of a Prince of the Realm would become the least of their worries.
But then what is the King trying to do? And it must be highlighted that it is the King that requests the presence of BOTH Henry and Alex, obviously knowing full well that they are together, whereas in the book the request for a meeting with the Queen comes from Henry’s mother. Unless one allows a major plot flaw, an alternative has to be found for what the King is trying to do that is NOT what he is ostensibly stating. Below is an idea and I would preface it by saying that I am NOT convinced this theory is intended or “true” (in so far as any truth can be expected in what is fiction and ultimately a very well told fairy tale), but I would greatly prefer it if it were true…
We get from Bea that the King has intervened before to quash unseemly stories linking Henry to unspecified past flings. He belongs to a generation for which younger male members of the upper classes went through a “passing phase” of homosexual experimentation (as you said) that was largely tolerated provided that the twin commandments of “be discreet” and “never be caught” were adhered to. He probably has lulled himself into believing that Henry is just going through one such phase and that all will be well once he meets the right girl. But we are also told by Henry that the King is a realist, and he must unquestionably also have some affection for his grandson as he reveals in that very scene (“Henry, my boy…”). By reading Henry’s emails, the King is confronted with a new fact that cannot be denied, because a deep and genuine love goes beyond what some juvenile experimentation brought about by strict gender segregation in boarding schools can ever explain. He knows his grandson and knows how Henry is crushed by “centuries of tradition bearing down on his shoulders”, and how he himself, the King, is an integral part of that crushing weight. To free his grandson, he has no choice other than to induce Henry to fight against those traditions and hence to fight against him, the King. Hence the entire scene is an elaborate provocation that is actually intended to get Henry to take the stand that he eventually takes. Basically the theory I put forward is that the King is faced with a stark choice. Continuing to deny and thwart his grandson’s homosexuality is likely to lead to a future of unseemly scandals that would take a lot of effort to suppress and would ultimately reflect very poorly on the royal family. The alternative is to accept it and let it be revealed within a genuine love story, which the King must know will undoubtedly strike a positive chord with so many of his subjects, thereby strengthening rather than weakening the popular support for the monarchy.
There are inevitably unanswerable questions about the crowds without. Does the King know already about them? In the book the Queen does and is keen for Alex and Henry not to. In the movie, are the crowds already there or is the King instrumental in inducing their assembly, by letting it slip that Alex and Henry are together in London and are due to meet him in Buckingham Palace? The very entrance of his private secretary to interrupt a meeting of such sensitive nature is rather odd, unless it had been prearranged. The timing of the appearance of the crowds and who knows about them and when is an issue for all possible interpretations of the scene and perhaps the script would have needed greater clarity about them. I personally find that the rainbow flags should have been better emphasised by, for instance, Bea explicitly mentioning them, as the flags are essential to reveal that the crowds are there to support Alex and Henry.
A very interesting (and charitable) interpretation. Thank you!
Having read the book prior to watching the movie, I shouted at the screen with disbelief for exactly the reason above. I personally love this alternative and it parallels my comment to my sister at the time, replacing the Queen and Harry's mother's showdown with a king (played by a guy icon) could imply that the king had a similar tendency. Which would further support the viewpoint above.
There is no indication of Alex being primarily attracted to men. In fact, Alex is known to be a playboy who hooks up with women. This is also shown by Zahra getting angry at Alex for hooking up with a 'rando' in the hotel room scene, Zahra is using female pronouns and indicating that this is a common occurrence for Alex. Also, Nora is Alex's ex girlfriend. The fact that Alex found the love of his life in Henry doesn't negate his bisexuality.
Of course it does not negate his bisexuality, no one is saying that. But there are many different ways of being bisexual. In the film, ALex is not "known to be a playboy who hooks up with women." This may be stated in the book, but it is not stated, implied, or shown in the movie. It is never said or indicated in the movie that Nora is his ex-girlfriend. Zahra does use female pronouns in the hotel scene -- but this is only because she hears that another person is there, and she *assumes* this person is female, because heterosexuality is the default asumption. There is no indication that this is a "common occurrence" for Alex.
@@ambitionbird don't be ridiculous, Alex is 28 years old in the movie and he's experienced at sex but he stated that he never had sex with a man until the Paris scene with Henry. He was happy and comfortable in his previous encounters. It's fine to want a certain life experience be reflected in fictional characters but Alex is a bisexual character point blank. One that enjoyed both genders. Casey McQuiston only ever referred to him as bi and Alex himself only ever referred to himself as bi, even if a viewer has no prior knowledge of the novel.
@@KatK61227 Again, KatK, nobody said Alex is not bisexual. A person can tend to be more attracted to one gender as compared to another and still be bisexual. To deny that, as you are doing here, strikes me as bi erasure.
You are also making a lot of ungrounded assumptions about movie Alex here, eg:
-- We don’t know his age in the movie, only that he is in law school, and I don’t know where you got the number 28 from.
-- He never says that he never had sex with a man before. In Paris, he implies that he has never had a--l sex with a man, and so he doesn’t know “who’s going to do what.” So unless you want to claim that only a--l sex counts as gay sex, this line does not mean he has never had sex with a man. On the contrary, it cannot possibly mean that, because we know that by that time in the story he has had sex with at least one man-namely, Henry--and possibly 1-2 others.
--The video clearly says that the movie implies that Alex has had sex with women, and points to some ways that that is implied. However, we also know nothing about those encounters, who they were with, nor how Alex responded to them. You are assuming here based on nothing.
--Alex in the movie is different from Alex in the book in a number of ways, including his family situation, age, and personality. His sexual history and experience are also different - even if nothing else, the character of Miguel alone demonstrates that beyond any doubt. One cannot simply project one’s wishes or preferences onto movie Alex, but must look to the clues that are actually there in the movie.
Finally, being bisexual does not mean that you have to have an exact 50/50 split in terms of your interests or attractions, nor that you have to have a primarily heterosexual history. I don’t know why you are assuming that, nor why you are so bothered by the mere “possibility” of movie Alex being more attracted to men. But that’s your business.
Have a great day!
I bet you would never have called this movie "vulgar" if it were about a heterosexual relationship!!!!!
The “occasionally vulgar” is a quote about from the king about Henry and Alex’s relationship
Not my favorite movie of Nicholas. Differently didn’t need a part two.