The cinematography during his speech about truth and deceit was exquisite, especially when he hit the "two-faced" part. And I like to think that not only was he thanking the audience for listening to him, but also to the officials for letting him finish and leave with his dignity.
Angus Wright gives a superlative performance here as Martin Furnival Jones, head of MI5: he has seen plans within plans, deeper and darker layers of reality than the surface illusions among which most of us live our lives; he gently but firmly disabuses the Queen of her suspicions about Wilson for a truth more terrible than she could imagine. Qudos to Coleman too, for the look of horror and disgust on her face as she listens to his revelation ...
Maybe, but the script writers boobed here. This is not how one speaks to the Queen, or spoke rather. You don’t say “No” when the Queen asks you something, you say “I’m afraid not, Ma’am”. Etc.
@@frankteunissen6118 Furnival Jones is realistically respectful and deferential to Her Majesty in this scene. For example, he throws in phrases like "It gives me no pleasure", and says "I'm so sorry, Ma'am" when disabusing her of misguided beliefs. When he says "no" (at 1:15) it's in answer to her direct question framed in the negative: "We don't have a Russian spy in Downing Street?"; ie, when he says "no" he's actually agreeing with her, not disagreeing. Furthermore, members of the Intelligence services are trained to present factual briefings in a very direct and straightforward manner, to avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding - similar to the briefings training Army officers get at JSCSC. I think this scene gets the balance of deference and directness absolutely right. Furnival Jones trivia: in addition to being a spy-master for many decades, he was also a keen amateur actor, active in his local drama society in Hampstead Garden Suburb.
I love that moment when he says "but it seems we do have one in Buckingham Palace". He looks absolutely pristine in that suit. I suppose that's a given when you are holding audience with the Queen.
Fun fact 1: Olivia Colman and Samuel West, who portrays Blunt in this episode, played Queen Elizabeth's parents in "Hyde Park on Hudson" in 2012. Fun fact 2: This is Samuel West's second time portraying Anthony Blunt. He previously played Blunt in the 2003 miniseries "Cambridge Spies"
@@Luke_05 It’s not as strange as one might think. Prasanna Puwanarajah played Martin Bashir in both the 2013 film "Diana" and in the 5th season of "The Crown".
Fun Fact 3: Sam West's mother Prunella Scales was the first actress to ever portray the Queen in TV or film in the drama A Question of Attribution [1991] which dealt with this very storyline.
@@brianaustin5467In the UK MI5 is the Secret Service. The head office is known as 'The building that doesn't exist' because so few of us know what actually knows what goes on there. And so as the Head of the Secret Service he/ she is known as the man who doesn't exist.
As good as this is, Prunella Scales (Sybil Fawlty) playing Queen Elizabeth II confronting Blunt in _A Question of Attribution_ is marvelous. The scene starts with him alone in the gallery. The door opens off-screen, then there is a sound. He looks down … and a corgi is at his feet.
I've always liked the scenes where a spy who's on the run finds themselves surrounded in public by government agents. It's easy symbolism, but effective.
Burgess, phiby , McLain and Blunt. Names that drip with infamy. Movies like " tinker, Taylor, soldier, spy" are great in showing the deviousness of such men. 😮😮😮😮😮
I enjoy Samuel West in everything he does. Watch him in 'Foyle's War - The French Drop', the Hornblower series 'The Frogs and the Lobsters', and for something closer to these shores, 2012's 'Hyde Park on Hudson' as King George V, with Bill Murray as Roosevelt.
@@welshpete12 In November 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher informed Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged.
This was kept secret for a while, as it would be a major security breach, but Thatcher thought it would be right to expose everything to the public, to expose the face of the traitor and she did so in parliament. @@htimsid
If I'm not mistaken, the room in which Blunt is giving his lecture is the very same room used in the film, Red White and Royal Blue, as the 'balcony' room in Buckingham Palace during the last part of the film! It's the organ pipes that I recognise!!! God, I'm such an anorak!!! I'd love to know where in London this room is???
Most scenes of Buckingham Palace in almost any series or movie is normally filmed in Lancaster House. It’s a government building that was built by the same man who built Buckingham Palace itself.
The external location the 'men from the Ministry' arrive at is 10 Carlton Terrace Gardens at the top of the Duke of York steps. Not sure where the room with the organ is, though.
@@lisadambrosio2255no, his spying was long before. He was actually uncovered as a spy before he got the job at the Palace. They didn't bother telling Madge
Art is pretty much everywhere in the palace, as it's surveyor, you just get a lot of opportunities to be near those documents and snoop around just right when no one is looking
I doubt he spent all that time in the royal household without recruiting or introducing others into the palace. We seem to have just assumed he only passed secrets for some reason.
Possibly, however it is just if not more likely the soviets would not want to put one of their most valuable assets at risk, they have others that try and recruit people though he may of passed on the names of likely candidates for recruitment
During the interrogation of Blunt by Peter Wright - MI5, (Wright had regular interviews with Blunt from 1964 to 1970) Peter was advised that he would learn of a trip to Germany by Blunt. Blunt apparently recovered documents pertaining to the Royal Family. Peter was advised not to pursue this matter. I always assumed this related to Edward VIII. Blunt made copies of what was later revealed as "Royal Correspondence" and passed it directly to the KGB. I've followed this and the Sir Roger Hollis allegations (Sir Roger is well in the clear) since 1987, and little bits and pieces continue to fall out of archives.
@josealmeida76 - Chapman Pincher investigation, alleged warning to Philby by Hollis (Turns out the Establishment needed him off, a trial in UK would be a media circus), the rewrite of history around “The five of MI” - we’re now lead to believe it was John Cairncross, JJ Angleton - now considered, or rather portrayed, as unhinged. Start with Spy Catcher for a time capsule perspective on Wrights views and then look at contemporary writings, the gaps getting wider
Netflix's Crown wasn't the first to tackle this. 1991's A Question of Atribution with Prunella Scales as Queen put it to screen first. In fact Prunella became the first actress to ever portray a reigning monarch. It's rather good if anyone can find it.
I saw it years ago and thought it excellent. I'd love to see it again. Prunella Scales was very good as Queen Elizabeth. She caught so many of her attributes, so much better than in The Crown. I'd love to see it again.
Centuries past didn't really do spying the way we consider it. And realistically, you don't execute spies. You imprison them, pump them for information, and then keep them on ice, you might need to swap them for one of YOUR spies that was caught in the future. And making a fuss about 'spies' is a good way to get tourists kidnapped and accused of spying themselves.
They tended to prefer to avoid further scandal. Besides sometimes they may be able to use them to feed information that they want sent for various reasons.
@@jonathanwilliams1065self preservation. It would have costed more to out him than to contain him. That way, they can keep a close eye on him. Keep your enemies close.
They say that a lot 5of can be deliberately leaked for certain reasons , and most former KGB agents knew a lot the info was set up , the fishing vessels in on the high sea were in fact used by Mi5 Mi6 because there were barrels of oil on board so dump equipment , ie sound recording and cameras documents , they were to stick into the barrel and push it to the bottom like the former Russian agents said because they were no different well they were trained to do the same a bit like some those that worked for Nazis in ww2 give them some rubbish info let them take it back to their pay masters
I read Peter Wright's book Spycatcher when it came out. Wright talked about the Cambridge spy ring. Wright's book was also devoted to proving Sir Roger Hollis (Head of MI5) was also a Russian spy.
Wright's book was half what was already reported in newspapers and half just nonsense he made up in his vivid imagination. However, there is somewhat oblique evidence that Hollis was a Russian agent. Hollis spent some time convincing the Australian Government to set up their own civilian agency ASIO. When the then PM agreed, he asked Britain to send out an expert to help set it up. They sent Hollis, who interviewed Australian candidates for ASIO jobs and selected the weakest, least competent ones. As described in ASIO's official history published about 10 years ago, ASIO in its early years was like a bunch of goofing keystone cops.
En Angleterre, ce n'est pas rare que les grands intellectuels soient de Gauche, voire communistes ... Mais l'Angleterre est un pays gouverné par le monde de la finance, pas par des intellectuels.
No there was a cabal of students. Them being homosexual has nothing to do with it. It's like referencing the fact someone likes chocolate ice cream instead of Strawberry ice cream when mentioning they are a spy. What ice cream they like is nothing to do with it. And clearly implies you have something against chocolate ice cream eaters.
@@dalek3086 na, that isn't how it works, at all :) he died in hospital under the care of doctors after his lupus flared up again (an autoimmune disease) due to a virus he caught, it screwed his kidneys and liver, he had had it awhile, it was always going to kill him eventually, he died in hospital from a preexisting condition he was being treated for, why on earth would there be an inquest or autopsy? there would not be one nowadays either for that matter
@@wynwilliams6977 Senior government members at the time were suspicious of his death, no inquest and cremation. You can believe what you will. How it works - as you put it- is very condescending. The fact remains that wise and informed people at the time were very suspicious.
@@Jdjdjdujakzgsha Not a communist just some who knows that statement is bullshit. Running around calling everyone who doesn't agree with your position a communist just makes you look foolish.
The cinematography during his speech about truth and deceit was exquisite, especially when he hit the "two-faced" part. And I like to think that not only was he thanking the audience for listening to him, but also to the officials for letting him finish and leave with his dignity.
My thoughts exactly.
Yeah it's pretty hackneyed and obvious
@@claremontcowboy7409 Probably because that was the point of it.
Well you know the English had to do everything proper
@@nanlars2323properly
Angus Wright gives a superlative performance here as Martin Furnival Jones, head of MI5: he has seen plans within plans, deeper and darker layers of reality than the surface illusions among which most of us live our lives; he gently but firmly disabuses the Queen of her suspicions about Wilson for a truth more terrible than she could imagine. Qudos to Coleman too, for the look of horror and disgust on her face as she listens to his revelation ...
I’d love to see the ML5 on M
Maybe, but the script writers boobed here. This is not how one speaks to the Queen, or spoke rather. You don’t say “No” when the Queen asks you something, you say “I’m afraid not, Ma’am”. Etc.
@@frankteunissen6118 Furnival Jones is realistically respectful and deferential to Her Majesty in this scene. For example, he throws in phrases like "It gives me no pleasure", and says "I'm so sorry, Ma'am" when disabusing her of misguided beliefs. When he says "no" (at 1:15) it's in answer to her direct question framed in the negative: "We don't have a Russian spy in Downing Street?"; ie, when he says "no" he's actually agreeing with her, not disagreeing. Furthermore, members of the Intelligence services are trained to present factual briefings in a very direct and straightforward manner, to avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding - similar to the briefings training Army officers get at JSCSC. I think this scene gets the balance of deference and directness absolutely right.
Furnival Jones trivia: in addition to being a spy-master for many decades, he was also a keen amateur actor, active in his local drama society in Hampstead Garden Suburb.
I love that moment when he says "but it seems we do have one in Buckingham Palace". He looks absolutely pristine in that suit. I suppose that's a given when you are holding audience with the Queen.
The blocking and cinematography at 3:07 is just divine
The light across his face, giving an impression of 2 shades on his face…so good 🔥👌👌
Fun fact 1: Olivia Colman and Samuel West, who portrays Blunt in this episode, played Queen Elizabeth's parents in "Hyde Park on Hudson" in 2012.
Fun fact 2: This is Samuel West's second time portraying Anthony Blunt. He previously played Blunt in the 2003 miniseries "Cambridge Spies"
Also, in Cambridge Spies, Imelda Staunton played Queen Elizabeth.
What’s the chance of him playing Anthony Blunt twice!? Unless that’s why they chose him for this role in the Crown aha
@@Luke_05 It’s not as strange as one might think. Prasanna Puwanarajah played Martin Bashir in both the 2013 film "Diana" and in the 5th season of "The Crown".
Fun Fact 3: Sam West's mother Prunella Scales was the first actress to ever portray the Queen in TV or film in the drama A Question of Attribution [1991] which dealt with this very storyline.
I'm curious . . . what makes a "fun fact" fun? And, are there such things as "un-fun facts"?
Can ANYONE imagine actually having to be that man that told the real Queen Elizabeth that horrible news??🤯😵💫😵
Head of MI5! Aka the man who doesn't exist
@@lordmalachicarroll3770 M or is it Q? Can never remember the names in James Bond 🙂
@@johndaarteest M is head of MI 6, Q is the quatermaster.
@@lordmalachicarroll3770 Currently Ken McCallum, who does exist.
@@brianaustin5467In the UK MI5 is the Secret Service. The head office is known as 'The building that doesn't exist' because so few of us know what actually knows what goes on there.
And so as the Head of the Secret Service he/ she is known as the man who doesn't exist.
Funny thing is they guy playing Blunt played the same role 20 years previously.
Keep it coming with The Crown videos....
Yes
As good as this is, Prunella Scales (Sybil Fawlty) playing Queen Elizabeth II confronting Blunt in _A Question of Attribution_ is marvelous. The scene starts with him alone in the gallery. The door opens off-screen, then there is a sound. He looks down … and a corgi is at his feet.
Definately the best. Prunella Scales was brilliamt
I've always liked the scenes where a spy who's on the run finds themselves surrounded in public by government agents. It's easy symbolism, but effective.
Burgess, phiby , McLain and Blunt. Names that drip with infamy. Movies like " tinker, Taylor, soldier, spy" are great in showing the deviousness of such men. 😮😮😮😮😮
I enjoy Samuel West in everything he does. Watch him in 'Foyle's War - The French Drop', the Hornblower series 'The Frogs and the Lobsters', and for something closer to these shores, 2012's 'Hyde Park on Hudson' as King George V, with Bill Murray as Roosevelt.
You mean King George VI.
@@CdnGeoff Possibly. I'm losing count of my Georges.
He was outed to the public by Margaret Thatcher round about 1979
nonsense !
@welshpete12 No it is the truth, I still remember it.
@@welshpete12 Then when, how and by whom was he exposed?
@@welshpete12 In November 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher informed Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged.
This was kept secret for a while, as it would be a major security breach, but Thatcher thought it would be right to expose everything to the public, to expose the face of the traitor and she did so in parliament. @@htimsid
If I'm not mistaken, the room in which Blunt is giving his lecture is the very same room used in the film, Red White and Royal Blue, as the 'balcony' room in Buckingham Palace during the last part of the film!
It's the organ pipes that I recognise!!!
God, I'm such an anorak!!!
I'd love to know where in London this room is???
Most scenes of Buckingham Palace in almost any series or movie is normally filmed in Lancaster House. It’s a government building that was built by the same man who built Buckingham Palace itself.
The external location the 'men from the Ministry' arrive at is 10 Carlton Terrace Gardens at the top of the Duke of York steps. Not sure where the room with the organ is, though.
How the hell does an art surveyor get their hands on military documents?!
He worked in military intelligence during the war.
He was at the Palace for a long time. He got to know his way around - and trusted.
@@lisadambrosio2255no, his spying was long before. He was actually uncovered as a spy before he got the job at the Palace. They didn't bother telling Madge
He drew them up… badum tiss
Art is pretty much everywhere in the palace, as it's surveyor, you just get a lot of opportunities to be near those documents and snoop around just right when no one is looking
They obviously never watched “ House “ because it’s never Lupus.
Sarcoidosis 😜
😂😂😂
Just what I was thinking
So Angus and Sophie do know each other.
Gosh Samuel sounds just like his father Timothy West
As long as he doesn’t sound like Adam West …
This would make a great movie in and of itself!!!
Tinker Taylor soldier spy is the modern day version of this and that was based on a true story of a KGB agent that infiltrated control.
I doubt he spent all that time in the royal household without recruiting or introducing others into the palace. We seem to have just assumed he only passed secrets for some reason.
Possibly, however it is just if not more likely the soviets would not want to put one of their most valuable assets at risk, they have others that try and recruit people though he may of passed on the names of likely candidates for recruitment
During the interrogation of Blunt by Peter Wright - MI5, (Wright had regular interviews with Blunt from 1964 to 1970) Peter was advised that he would learn of a trip to Germany by Blunt. Blunt apparently recovered documents pertaining to the Royal Family. Peter was advised not to pursue this matter. I always assumed this related to Edward VIII. Blunt made copies of what was later revealed as "Royal Correspondence" and passed it directly to the KGB. I've followed this and the Sir Roger Hollis allegations (Sir Roger is well in the clear) since 1987, and little bits and pieces continue to fall out of archives.
Can you give some examples of those little bits?
@josealmeida76 - Chapman Pincher investigation, alleged warning to Philby by Hollis (Turns out the Establishment needed him off, a trial in UK would be a media circus), the rewrite of history around “The five of MI” - we’re now lead to believe it was John Cairncross, JJ Angleton - now considered, or rather portrayed, as unhinged. Start with Spy Catcher for a time capsule perspective on Wrights views and then look at contemporary writings, the gaps getting wider
@@josealmeida76 Daily Mail article by Taryn Pedler (28 Apr 2024), great read
@@CarlWilde-v6d Thank you very much. I'll try to read it.
Roger Hollis never well in the clear. By his actions , or lack of actions , still a suspected Soviet spy.,,
As aunt bess always said, it will all come put in the wash.
Netflix's Crown wasn't the first to tackle this. 1991's A Question of Atribution with Prunella Scales as Queen put it to screen first. In fact Prunella became the first actress to ever portray a reigning monarch. It's rather good if anyone can find it.
And she's the mother of Samuel West.
I saw it years ago and thought it excellent. I'd love to see it again. Prunella Scales was very good as Queen Elizabeth. She caught so many of her attributes, so much better than in The Crown. I'd love to see it again.
It is by far the better telling of the story. I have it on DVD, there’s a collection of Alan Bennett’s programmes at the BBC.
@@wulfrunian That is good news. Thank you.
In centuries past, wouldn’t he have been executed?
Yes, for sure. To be honest, the Brits will do it again if pushed. A traitor is a traitor, after all.
Centuries past didn't really do spying the way we consider it. And realistically, you don't execute spies. You imprison them, pump them for information, and then keep them on ice, you might need to swap them for one of YOUR spies that was caught in the future. And making a fuss about 'spies' is a good way to get tourists kidnapped and accused of spying themselves.
Even at this time portrayed here America and Russia where executing spies
You have read too much James Bond fiction, I fear.
@@davidweihe6052 just isn’t true at all, the Americans executed people for this after the time period depicted here
And he got away with it. If he was some pleb he would have died in jail.
They tended to prefer to avoid further scandal. Besides sometimes they may be able to use them to feed information that they want sent for various reasons.
I would have taken such a betrayal personally
Why didn’t she?
@@jonathanwilliams1065 Self interest.
@@jonathanwilliams1065self preservation. It would have costed more to out him than to contain him. That way, they can keep a close eye on him. Keep your enemies close.
Is the actor playing Blunt on All Creatures Great and Small?
Yes. His name is Samuel West and he is the son of Prunella Scales (Fawlty Towers) and actor Timothy West.
Yes! Siegfried Farnon
@@LouiseL7740 Thank you.
@@zee9134 Thank you.
He has a wonderful speaking voice, so measured & clear.
Dude looks like old English Henry Rollins
Anyone know the silver-fox actor’s name?
Angus Wright, and what a silver fox he is!!
Does anyone know the name of the painting and artist? I'm fascinated.
He mentioned the name "Carraci". Is that correct?
An Allegory of Truth and Time by Annibale Carracci
@@andrew_4747 Thank you.
They say that a lot 5of can be deliberately leaked for certain reasons , and most former KGB agents knew a lot the info was set up , the fishing vessels in on the high sea were in fact used by Mi5 Mi6 because there were barrels of oil on board so dump equipment , ie sound recording and cameras documents , they were to stick into the barrel and push it to the bottom like the former Russian agents said because they were no different well they were trained to do the same a bit like some those that worked for Nazis in ww2 give them some rubbish info let them take it back to their pay masters
Pssst. Ur art dealer is a spy.
What...? Oh. 😂
The speech really didn’t hide anything really
I read Peter Wright's book Spycatcher when it came out. Wright talked about the Cambridge spy ring.
Wright's book was also devoted to proving Sir Roger Hollis (Head of MI5) was also a Russian spy.
Wright's book was half what was already reported in newspapers and half just nonsense he made up in his vivid imagination.
However, there is somewhat oblique evidence that Hollis was a Russian agent. Hollis spent some time convincing the Australian Government to set up their own civilian agency ASIO. When the then PM agreed, he asked Britain to send out an expert to help set it up. They sent Hollis, who interviewed Australian candidates for ASIO jobs and selected the weakest, least competent ones. As described in ASIO's official history published about 10 years ago, ASIO in its early years was like a bunch of goofing keystone cops.
@@keithammleter3824 Well put. Wright was a technocratic guy who resented what he perceived as the Establishment
Anthony Blunt, what an embarrassment.
The Apostles!
Not 'the Buckingham Palace'........ just Buckingham Palace 🙄
En Angleterre, ce n'est pas rare que les grands intellectuels soient de Gauche, voire communistes ... Mais l'Angleterre est un pays gouverné par le monde de la finance, pas par des intellectuels.
😱😱😱
Go listen to Alan Bennett
unfortunately relevant again
Mmmhhh...
There was a cabal of homosexual students who the Soviets recruited from Cambridge and other schools.
No
@DavisJ-ln6fw I'm afraid yes, The Cambridge Apostles and the Conversione Society.
No there was a cabal of students. Them being homosexual has nothing to do with it. It's like referencing the fact someone likes chocolate ice cream instead of Strawberry ice cream when mentioning they are a spy. What ice cream they like is nothing to do with it. And clearly implies you have something against chocolate ice cream eaters.
Hate your music at the end. The clips are wonderful but injured by the ending.
Gaitskell was murdered by the KGB. Always going to have Wilson as next Labour leader. George Brown was never a real contender , just an also-ran.
No, he really wasn't nor was Wilson a Russian asset :)
@@wynwilliams6977 no inquest for Gaitskell - so we will never know for sure.
@@dalek3086 na, that isn't how it works, at all :) he died in hospital under the care of doctors after his lupus flared up again (an autoimmune disease) due to a virus he caught, it screwed his kidneys and liver, he had had it awhile, it was always going to kill him eventually, he died in hospital from a preexisting condition he was being treated for, why on earth would there be an inquest or autopsy? there would not be one nowadays either for that matter
@@wynwilliams6977 Senior government members at the time were suspicious of his death, no inquest and cremation.
You can believe what you will.
How it works - as you put it- is very condescending.
The fact remains that wise and informed people at the time were very suspicious.
There is nothing in Wilson's personality that indicates he would ever be a Russian agent; the man wasn't even a socialist
A communist in a country full of communists. Shocking.
It's almost as if people come out of school that way.
Bullshit
@@12vscience More bullshit
@@DavisJ-ln6fw ok commie
@@Jdjdjdujakzgsha Not a communist just some who knows that statement is bullshit. Running around calling everyone who doesn't agree with your position a communist just makes you look foolish.