MovieChat Forums > W.E. (2012) Discussion > Loved the movie but story has big flaw

Loved the movie but story has big flaw


I loved the movie and think that Madonna has done an awesome job. It is a great, watchable and enchanting film.

However, one point is lost in the rushed life story of W.E. at the end. If they were such a great "love" story, then why was Wallis Simpson feeling so trapped and fatalistic when she found herself married to her lover, David Windsor?

How could it have been such a great love between W.E., when Wallis clearly could bearly tolerate being stuck with royal man?

reply

That's kind of the point: Wally was obsessed with it being this epic, great romance only to find out that like any relationship, it had its pitfalls too. This freed her to be able to go on with her imperfect life and find happiness.

---------------------------
www.charitysplace.com

reply

It is a true story, you know. It did happen. So how can the story be flawed?

reply

As a writer of historic novels I can assure you that we first of all never truly know what happened. In almost any situation. Even if we do know quite a bit, there are always huge holes to be filled. The chances of getting flaws into a historic story (and certainly if it is dramatized) are very very big. Then there's the fact that we can't always trust sources: especially letters and such are very personal and never tell the story as is, but give an interpretation of the facts. Historians love neutral sources, such as bills and accounts and red tape and stuff. They are void of any emotion and just give the facts as they are.

In the case of this story, we will never know what truly happened. We will never know if Wallis really loved him or was with him for his money and status. Worse: we will never know the truth behind his abdication. It is sold as a love story, but anyone who actually digs a little deeper will find that a lot of people were opposed to him becoming king in the first place, because he was such a playboy and had quite an interest in the Nazi's. His affair with Wallis seems to have been the perfect excuse to get rid of him in that particular function - he was highly unsuited, let's face it.

History is always being interpreted - and that in itself is a door to flaws. To working toward certain conclusions, or even excuses, or a nicer version of the story.

And the last one, in the case of never knowing what happened: history is almost always written by the winners. In this case, the winners are everybody who disliked this couple. Their stories have coloured the interpretation of events... We always thought of the Celts as being barbaric and rough, very uncivilized and primitive, certainly compared to the Romans, whom they fought with. But who told us this? Right, Julius Caesar did, in his account of the wars (which he won): De Bello Gallico, About The Gallic Wars. Recent discoveries tell us a very different story about the Celts: they had a thriving civilization, with trade routes spanning almost the then-known globe. But for centuries Caesar's story has been taken as truth: they were primitive idiots. It has turned out to be a lie, and we have to start afresh in discovering who the Celts really were.

So: flaws? History (as being the story of our past, not the past itself) is loaded with them.

PS: remember, when you are watching the film, you are not watching history itself. You are watching a re-enactment, which is (as it is a re-enactment) an interpretation by the story tellers: Madonna (as director and writer), the guy she wrote the script (= interpretation of the story, otherwise they'd just film the facts, but no: there's a newly written story) with, the actors themselves. So there is plenty of room for flaws...

But all in all, and I am no Madonna fan (quite the opposite): it was a very good film. She has given a lot of attention to detail, which I really love. I started the film with the most critical of moods (hey, it IS Madonna), only to find myself really enjoying it. My compliments to her, as it is not easy to tell a story like this.

reply

Just want to say I really enjoyed your post and felt exactly the same way, although I do like Madonna's early music so I started the film with an open mind.
I too, loved the attention to detail. And enjoyed the story.

There were a few scenes that I found didn't serve a purpose ie the first dance number with the African. Was this a reference to Mrs Simpson's very well documented relationship with the Afro pianist, Jimmy Donohue?

I also disliked the scene where Queen Elizabeth was having a clothes fitting the and the Kind was sitting there being directed by her and fanning himself? Ridiculous.


Why should the Queen Consort have any love or warmth or feeling towards Mrs Simpson, who by all accounts of eyewitnesses was extremely rude and dismissive of her? This was even to the extent of calling her by the name of 'Cookie'.
Queen Elizabeth was the daughter of an Earl and although born a commoner, was far from that. I've also read that part of their upset was that their hitherto beloved David allowed Wallis to treat them so poorly.
In addition to this, Bertie as was never trained to be king and although he was a trained sailor and served with distinction (Edward was jealous of this). He also had a very nervous disposition and the Queen blamed the abdication for his having to serve as King and the stress of leading the Empire through the war.

I am sure you are correct in your summation that the English government were pleased to be shot of Edward. Certainly the Commonwealth nations didn't support the marriage and this would have been due to intelligence from Baldwin.


Our pm in Australia at the time was a very strict Catholic so there is no way our government would have agreed to the marriage. Edward had shown no signs of wanting to be a monarch except the celebrity side of it. Not to mention his extreme lack of judgement in visiting Germany. This was reportedly because Wallis admired Hitler.

And one of the protocols for the trip was the stupid man actually insisted she be addressed as Your Royal Highness and curtsied to, or he wouldn't go.
Also, the duke lied to his brother and had much more money than he said and was also reportedly involved in a few unsavory money laundering schemes.
In fact, according to King George V1's biographer, one of the first deeds he had to address was Edward's plans to sell of parts of the Royal estates. George himself paid for this to be corrected and also paid Edward a very large sum out of his own money to keep the agreement. The government refused to keep it after they found he lied to them Apparently he had over a million pounds at the time.
Lastly the scene of most interest to me was the reading of the letters. Since they have been sited by various people, it is quite apparent that Wallis was trapped and the great Love Story was more on his side than hers. But she uses/writes the comment that he used her to get out of his responsibilities. And that seems to be true.

reply

I don't think that was an African dancer, pc-daisy. I think that was one of Wallis' American friends.

You must be British to have the attitude that Wallis should have treated Elizabeth with greater respect because she was the daughter of an earl. Wallis was an American, and didn't share your reverence of the British class system. Calling someone of equal standing Cookie may be somewhat annoying, but not terribly shocking.

Moreover, it is easy enough to say she treated Elizabeth coldly. Is it possible the coldness started with Elizabeth? Fairly likely, wouldn't you say, given the prevailing sensibilities about the king seeing (gasp) an American, and (double gasp) a married woman?

reply

First of all, I am not British, but am an Australian, as I clearly said in my post. To claim that I have a reverence for the British class system is too funny, so I won't bother. My point is this: neither Edward nor Wallis were suited to be King and Consort in my opinion. I couldn't have cared less that she was American, so no 'gasp' there and as for the 'double gasp' married woman, well he was supposed to be head of the Church of England and so-called Defender of the Faith. So yes, she wasn't suitable as a consort, as divorce was frowned upon by the church at that time, and she would have had two. Even the idea of a morganatic marriage was dismissed by the Commonwealth nations and Australia in particular, for reasons I have already outlined.

I don't agree that Wallis and the consort Queen Elizabeth were of equal standing. As human being, yes of course, but socially, no certainly not. I believe from copious notes, books etc that I have read that Wallis was jealous that someone she tried to elevate herself above, became queen instead.

reply

I see I have some errors to correct. Sorry I overlooked you being Australian. And the gasps were really not meant for you, but for the society that Wallis got caught up in. I'm not even suggesting that she was a suitable companion for him, suitable being a relative term but going along with the time and place. Or that she wasn't a spoiled rich woman, reluctant to give up her plush lifestyle.

I am suggesting, however, that as much emphasis as there usually is on her behavior, perhaps, as this movie suggests, there may have been some misbehavior and lack of graciousness on the side of the royals. And that their attitudes may have, to some extent, influenced her behavior to them.

I guess I'm agreeing with MollySweet, that history is written by the victors. For example, I always took it for granted that Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathizers. But this movie made me think about the possibility that it wasn't as simple as that. The same may be true about Wallis' other qualities. She had friends, people liked her even before she met Edward. Perhaps she treated her friends well, and her detractors with a more flippant attitude? Perhaps calling Elizabeth Cookie was preferable to calling her a snooty .....?

As for her feeling trapped, I'm not sure it proves she didn't love Edward. She'd been married before, and knew it wasn't all hearts and roses. And this man, who was at the top of the world when she met him, suddenly turning depressed and clingy, and giving up everything for her, that must have been terrifying, no matter how much genuine love was between them.

So, you could be right about everything you said, or you could be very wrong. I know this movie made me think.

reply

the society that Wallis got caught up in.


"Got caught up in" is an interesting way to phrase it. So is "Social-climbed her way up in."

reply

I don't see what there was to climb. She was a very rich woman. She already had status. The royals had nothing to give her. Unless she somehow valued being a royal. I'd see it as a pain in the ... job.

reply

Regarding Wallis calling Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon "Cookie," this was a refrerence to a rumour that Elizabeth was in fact illegitimate and her mother was a cook. The story is total bull, but imagine having this women who had (what was considered then) a truly scandalous past pushing this spurious and degrading rumour in your face and constantly bringing it up behind your back by giving you a nickname that equated to "bâstard."

Now imagine that your beloved brother-in-law, who you had long been very close to and who had been so warm in welcoming you to the family, never once taking his girlfriend to task or asking her to stop. I would have been pretty pîssed off myself were I in her shoes.

reply

Thanks for your insight KatharineFanatic. I was kinda there in a muddled sort of way, but your three-sentence analysis crystallized it perfectly.

And fwiw, I really liked this movie. There were a few heavy-handed/melodramatic moments, but then, the entire Wallis-Edward story was about as melodramatic as life gets. I thought Madonna, as a first time director, did a great job, and the look of the film was absolutely stunning. Ditto for the acting. The only explanation I came cup up with for the hate on this movie is dislike for Madonna. I certainly think it deserves better than its current rating. I gave it an 8/10.

reply

The big flaw in the movie is that Madonna didn't read Scotty Bowers' book "Full Service," which proves that both Edward & Wallis were gay, and the reason they married was that he feared a huge scandal if England found out it had a gay king. It was a marriage of convenience; the world was chock full of such marriages between gay men and lesbian women in those days, since it was impossible to be "out" then. They married so they wouldn't have to lie to an opposite sex spouse. Scotty Bowers found sexual partners for both of them, so they could have some pleasure in their lives, and he kept this a secret until this year, though many of their gay friends such as Cecil Beaton knew all along.

reply

That seems pretty farfetched.

reply

Well, it does happen. Look at Edward II...

reply

That seems pretty farfetched.


I agree. David would not have been the first gay king. Others before him were able to marry and produce an heir while remaining in the closet. Through the ages many royal women in arranged marriages had to put up with worse than that. Small price to pay to be the queen. Royal marriage was a matter of state, not love. So I doubt that putting the country through all the Wallis Simpson scandal in order to cover up David's sexual preference was the real reason for that marriage. It would have been so much easier to cover it up a hundred different ways than marrying him to Wallis. Heck, I'll bet that half of the House of Lords were gay, and nearly as many in the House of Commons. They were pros at covering up for each other. The Duke of kent (David's youngest brother) was gay too, iirc.

More likely, the marriage to Wallis was used as an excuse/cover to remove David from the throne before his nazi sympathies ruined the monarchy and embarrassed the empire.

reply

"More likely, the marriage to Wallis was used as an excuse/cover to remove David from the throne before his nazi sympathies ruined the monarchy and embarrassed the empire."

My thoughts exactly (see above).

reply

I'm not even going to comment on the absurd notions suggested by the commenter about the sexual preferences of both Wallis and Edward, except to say, With imagination like that, you ought to be a screenwriter...
Furthermore, I am really posting here because of the many comments about the Windsors' sympathies with Hitler. There was absolutely nothing that Edward or Wallis did that would have made anyone think that he had pro-Nazi leanings before his abdication and marriage. It was only after they married, that W & E paid a visit to Germany (in 1937, I believe), for which they were pilloried in the press. At that time, World War II had not even begun.
While it may indeed be true that, as the war began, W & E might indeed have displayed a controversial attitude to Hitler, it was really only in the sense that their preferred strategy in dealing with an armed Germany was different from that held by Whitehall. But so was that of Joe Kennedy. To go from there to suggest that he was "pro-Nazi" is unwarranted, I believe.
But my point here is mainly that those commenters who are suggesting that Edward's "pro-Nazi" sympathies brought him the opprobrium of the British power, and consequently helped box him into abdication in order to marry Wallis, are incorrect. Edward's behavior only began to display pro-German feelings after the abdication.
FWIW, I believe that E & W were genuinely two people in love, who had a very serious problem: the Crown of England. Whether they were ultimately happy together is difficult to say. They didn't expect their love to end the way it did--with abdication--especially Wallis, but things genuinely spiralled out of control for them. All in all, I think they did lead a happy life together (for the most part); if that would not have been the case, the all-snooping press would have found out sooner or later. But they found nothing. Whether they led satisfying lives is, of course, something else entirely.

reply

What do you mean by a happy vs satisfying life? Do you mean happy with each other, vs. satisfied with their other circumstances?

reply

A book of innuendo and bragging "self-service" PROVES nothing!

The notion that a book of "opinion" is proof of anything does a grave disservice to the reality of fact vs fiction.

There are thousands of printed volumes, pictures, tapes, letters, and diaries that must ALL be taken into account. Putting aside original documents in favor of a few pages of gossip done for money, by an 88 year old gay-guy, is pathetic!

"Gay" monarchs were NOTHING new. Absolutely nothing! Read the history of the "royal" households for all countries that had monarchs. To reduce the long, and unique, history of Edward and Wallis to "beards" is too simplistic to credit!

reply

pyotr-3: You brought up an obscene little book as proof (which I rejected) and with more reading I have now found SOLID EVIDENCE (proof) that at least the W and E portion of the book is complete hokum!!!!

Evidently, the 88 year-old gay guy (who was so desperate for money that he trashed all of Hollywood and W and E in the process), CLAIMS that he was "close personal friends" with W and E and that he called him, "Eddie."

Anyone who knows anything about HRH, the Duke of Windsor, KNOWS that would be completely false!!!!

Lying old sack!

reply

Wallace was a social climber who enjoyed the status of being the favorite of the Prince of Wales, which opened many doors to her. she one upped her 'best friend' the wealthy Thelma Furness, which gave her a power boost. When David became totally emotionally dependent on her and she found herself the scapegoat, suddenly it was not fun any longer. She was stuck with a spoilt childish man who had been pandered to all his life. She discovered that she was not going to be Queen of England, and spent the rest of her life as a social outcast snubbed by those who mattered and courted by the nouveau riche, attending dinners and functions for which the Windsors were paid. I don't think she really loved him at all - she bit off more than she could chew and tried to break it off.

reply

I think Wallis would have accepted any type of relationship with Edward if it had meant some sort of "status" with the royals. Since marriage to him meant she was persona non grata, I think she would have preferred remaining his mistress, even if he had gone on to marry someone the royals would have accepted, if their arrangement had somehow been considered acceptable.

I doubt marriage was what Wallis was after as much as it was acceptability among the Windsors. More than one biographer has labelled her as ambitious. I doubt all of the royals were 100% faithful, so if she had remained his mistress, she ironically would have had a more socially acceptable life than if she would have been his "outcast" wife.

Hurtful words are like toothpaste squeezed out of the tube - can't take them back

reply

But it was the love story of the century! And they lived lavishly! What they found out was that you can't have it all.

reply

There are many really good observations on this thread. Putting Madonna aside (since she doesn't figure in their story at all) I'm left with a few other issues that are part of their story.

She was American; her "appreciation" of the Royals was learned (and who knows what he told her about members of his family).

Both seemed to have short attention spans.

Didn't develop lifelong friendships.

His father (George V) was reportedly to have said that "After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months." (It took eleven.)

They lived together from 1936 until he died in 1972. And, they actually lived together every single day; she didn't invent reasons to disappear (to go back to the USA, for example). He was said to dote on her for their entire lives together. They "dressed" for breakfast; with separate bedrooms, their routine demanded that he not see her until she was "presentable" each day. And, they spent every day together, for 36 years; varying their routine between their official home in the Bois de Boulogne, in Paris and their weekend home near Versailles, with regular trips to New York City and Palm Beach, where special suites awaited them (she traveled with their own fabrics; sheets and towels and pillow covers), and their own monogrammed dishes and engraved silver. She wanted him to always live like the monarch he was and that meant to not use "common" everyday items, so she "traveled heavy" to continue to provide him the lifestyle he was used to.

If she hadn't been "happy" or "satisfied" to some extent, she could have left him. He could also have left her, but he did not. Whatever they had was real; they were only parted by death.

reply

I dunno. Lots of people who aren't happy stay together with less compelling reasons. I think she would have been a complete social outcast had she left him.

But I hope they were happy together. They paid their dues.

reply

Exactly. They had burned their bridges and their only viable option, at that point, was each other. I am inclined to believe that he never wanted anyone else, or wanted to not be with her. I think he clung desperately to her, starting before he became king and continuing until his death.

Their trips to New York were eye-rolling leach-fests. They sponged off their “friends” who footed the bill for everything. One couple paid the huge florist bills which included fresh flowers every day for each room in their New York suite.

The Windsors would plan to come for two weeks, and their “friends” would line up, each agreeing to pay for the couple’s needs: the suite, flowers, rental of paintings and other artwork to decorate the suite, restaurant bills, luxury cars, gifts, etc. Then the Windsors would stay an extra two weeks and the “friends” would get stuck with the extra costs.

Wallis had a couple of boy toys over the years, which apparently really stung Edward to his core.

reply

If she hadn't been "happy" or "satisfied" to some extent, she could have left him. He could also have left her, but he did not. Whatever they had was real; they were only parted by death.


This was her third marriage. I'm inclined to believe she loved Edward because they stayed together for 36 years. I have read that Wallis was angry her whole life she couldn't be called HRH, and she called Queen Elizabeth "Shirley Temple."

I am willing to think many bad things about Wallis Simpson, but I think in the end she did love Edward.

reply

She called her mother Cookie, and referred to her as the fat Scottish cook.

reply