The final scene in "The Favourite"

I just saw this tonight! I think the scene showed that everyone was miserable. Ann was more of a prisoner than ever, she could see clearly that both of her favorites didn't give a damn about her, yet she was so isolated that she could only lash out at Abigail.

Abigail harmed one of her 'children', even though the Queen was half paralyzed she was still in charge and put Abigail in her place. Last bit, since Abigail had to finger fuck her, it reminded us that her fortunes were closely aligned with an ailing monarch, not the best place to be. For all of her 'winning', she was right back to turning tricks, against her will, to survive.

The entire movie fell apart at the halfway mark just like his other movies.

How so r2? I really enjoyed seeing Sarah's get blindsided and try to regain her position.

The only thing I didn't like is that we don't understand what Anne wants.

I don't know either. This movie was underwhelming and boring. I thought, funnily enough with all the bullshit "yaaas queen!" discourse around this film, Nicolas Hoult was better than any of the women.

[quote] The only thing I didn't like is that we don't understand what Anne wants.

Anne wanted to be loved unconditionally and non-abusively. She didn't have that with Sarah, and when Sarah finally tried to blackmail her she shut her out. She thought she had that with Abigail, but when Abigail harmed the rabbit at the end (Anne's substitute for a dead child), she learned she didn't have that with Abigail either.

It's mostly a very funny movie, but at its core it's a sad story.

Queen Anne was not intellectually remarkable, and she was the very last of the Stuart dynasty who was still deemed eligible to inherit the throne. (After she died, childless, the throne had to pass to a distant Protestant cousin, King George of Hanover.) A dull and very lonely woman, she was easily led throughout her lifetime by strong personalities, and Sarah Churchill apparently had one of the strongest personalities of all time and got her talons into Anne when they were both teenagers. Unfortunately for Churchill, Anne was easily led, but she also had boundaries, and when Churchill attempted to break them by threatening to blackmail her by threatening to reveal their lesbian attachment (which apparently she tried to do in real life, although most historians think in actuality they never had sex), Anne was pushed too far and banished Churchill and her husband from the UK. Fortunately for the Churchills, Anne died not long after that, and they were restored to the UK, though Sarah never had the kind of sway with the Hanovers she enjoyed with Anne.

Sarah did, however, get all her daughters married off to prominent dukes and earls, and when her only son died, she arranged to have her husband's dukedom of Marlborough pass to her eldest daughter (which is practically unheard of--it takes the moarch's permission and an act of Parliament). She died in her eighties pretty much unloved (her daughters and grandchildren fought with her every bit as much as Anne did), but as one of the richest women in England and as the head of multiple dynasties: both Winston Churchill and Princess Diana (through the Spencer line) were directly descended from her.

This was nowhere as funny as it thought it was. Colman is a ham.

Did Anne actually witness Abigail pressing her shoe against the rabbit, R5? I don’t think she did.

The cast and crew thought this movie was hysterical. They were incorrect

Interesting how only Nicholas Hoult's character got what he wanted in the end.

Why did Abigail hurt one of the rabbits? What was in it for her to do that?

I think Abigail was supposed to be a mean person at heart.

Abigail's character arc is of a victim becoming a perpetrator.

Abigail was incredibly power hungry, but it came from a place of wanting to feel safe and secure and then manifested into meanness.

We also shouldn’t forget she had a fucking awful life before coming to the court-having to get raped nightly by a thin dicked German.

I saw it today and was underwhelmed.

I believe the ending is supposed to demonstrate that Abigail is still a whore even though she tried to eacape that fate, and Anne knows that she may not be loved, but she is still The Queen, and everyone has to do her bidding...and rubbing and fingering.

I liked it, didn't LOVE it.

I interpreted the ending as Abigail having a hollow victory. Yeah, she has the power of being the Queen's bitch, but she's still someone's bitch.

Queen Anne's case was so odd. She was placed by history in a position of such incredible power, and she didn't want it, really, unlike her father (James II) and her sister (Mary II) and brother-in-law (William III)--but she could not escape it. She was used her entire life by people who were smarter than she was but who always underestimated her force of will.

Abigail by 1708, when she first appearedin court was not a lily-faced young girl (like they make it seem with Emma Stone) but between 35-40. Queen Anne may have been lesbian, but most probably she was bisexual, she worshipped her husband and gave a run of her money to Queen Victoria's widow mourning when her husband died in 1708. She was distraught by all accounts, plus she had 17 children by him. Sarah Churchill was not a thin brunette like they portray her in the movie, but a big buxom blonde. She was beautiful (by the age's standards). Queen Anne by 1708 and later (which were the years when Abigail was in power) was increasingly obese, by the last years of her life she was enormous and very ill, I doubt she had sex in her mind. Her coffin was almost square.

A lot of you didn't get the final scene, which showed that yes - for all her scheming and backstabbing and ruthlessness, Abigail was still nothing but a whore.

She'd lost Anne's trust because she was stupid enough to indulge in a petty act of assholery, she was smart enough to rise to the top but wasn't smart enough to hold her own among the big-time assholes at the top. In the end, the only reason Anne kept her on was her puss-diving skills, which pretty much left her where she'd started, being used for other's pleasure. Excellent movie, BTW, terrific acting and kept me thoroughly engrossed from beginning to end.

I liked that the party scene quickly got to the difference between Abigail and Sarah - one was a petty schemer, the other was a schemer who genuinely cared, at least about affairs of state and, perhaps, the queen herself. Yes, in the end Sarah is defeated but at least can make her own choices to the degree that any woman could in the early 18th century. Abigail will indeed have to finger or eat out queen Anne until she croaks, at which time her fate will be out of her hands again.

Exquisite movie, I can't believe people would describe it as boring - I think it could have used an additional 10-15 minutes to wrap up properly, but I thought it was hysterical and the first movie in a long time where I would like to actually read the script because of some of the wit.

Was anyone else bothered by that repetitive "music" they used in several scenes?

[quote] Queen Anne by 1708 and later (which were the years when Abigail was in power) was increasingly obese, by the last years of her life she was enormous and very ill, I doubt she had sex in her mind. Her coffin was almost square.

I was available!

Colman was outstanding! I smell Oscar!

And yes, R21, much of the film centers on the fact that SPOILERS SPOILERS Sarah is a big-time schemer and Abigail is a small-time schemer, and you can't actually believe that Abigail would win! It seemed ridiculous that she could actually force Sarah Churchill out, when she brought nothing to the fight but petty viciousness and nothing to lose.

But yes, she lost in the long run. Queen Anne didn't live for long, and although Abigail stayed as the official "Favourite" during the old queen's lifetime, which lasted another four years or so. After that Abigail left court and went to live at her country house, where she spent the rest of her days. Sarah and her husband, on the other hand, were instrumental in resolving the succession issues and getting George I on the throne, and became favourites of the new king, and established a dynasty. They built Blenheim Palace and it's still the home of the current Duke of Marlborough, and their descendants include PM Winston Churchill and Lady Diana Spencer, and Prince William. They're finally getting their progeny on the throne, if they haven't already.

Oh yeah, remember that Sarah and John Churchill of the movie were the first Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Neither of them were born into the nobility, they actually played Sarah's youthful friendship with Princess Anne into a series of titles, cumulating in a hereditary dukedom.

They were two of the greatest social climbers in history, something the movie doesn't make clear.

I think they both more or less won what they wanted. Sarah wanted a dynasty, Abigail wanted comfort during her lifetime.

R24, it makes sense that Abigail won in the short run. Sarah was a bitch to Anne, and that's backed up with contemporary sources. I get they had a certain dynamic, but the occasional kindness might have saved her ass

The odd thing about the movie is that even though Abigail was a heinous bitch, Anne was better off with her than with Sarah. SPOILERS SPOILERS Sarah bullied Anne and took over the governing, and left Anne zero self-esteem and nothing to do with her time except to be miserable. Abigail won not because of the sex (which Sarah also gave), but because she encouraged the queen to have a little harmless fun, and let her do her job instead of leaving her with nothing to do but eat. Sarah made many miscalculations, some of which are believable. Bullies never realize how much the bullied resent them, and that's where her relationship with the queen went south.

Which makes for kind of an odd film, leaving the viewer with mixed feelings. I need to see it again, I think it's the sort of film where you can pick up a lot on the second and third viewing.

When Abigail was recounting her fall into poverty and despair, I kept hoping an 18th century Thelma Ritter type would pop up and say, "Everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end!"

Part of the reason Abigail wins is that she wants very little in comparison to Sarah: Abigail just to be a lady again, and to be married to a man who can protect her, while Sarah, who has not only attained a dukedom for her husband and the largest mansion in Britain, has no limit on what she wants for herself. She just wants more and more money and power, and overreaches. Abigail is satisfied with far less, and so treats the queen much more kindly.

Apparently this was what really happened.

R29, actually Sarah wanted less for herself than Abigail did. The Queen gives her a huge mansion in the opening minutes and Sarah's response is to say that it is the wrong time to spend that much money on a mansion.

Sarah demanded more politically, but seemed to want less personally than Abigail.

R30, whatever Sarah wanted out of the queen personally, she'd already received, she and her husband had already gotten wealth and a duchy out of the queen. But yeah, at the time of the story Sarah basically wanted to BE queen, not in name, but she'd actually taken over the job. That is a lot by any standard!

But yeah, Abigail seems to have settled for comparatively little, after Anne's death she retired from public life with her income and country estate. Nobody knows if she was content there, but apparently she realized she wasn't going to be able to get any more out of the royal family.

HATED this movie!

Was anyone else put off by the bad lighting? Well, if nothing else, it did make me curious about Queen Anne and I hope to find a good readable bio.

Now I want to go back and watch The First Churchills. I saw it as a kid and it deals with this same history.

Good movie overall, but a couple of things in the second half of the film bothered me. Discussion of spoilers coming up!!

Sarah made a couple of really stupid mistakes, and you'd think anyone who'd clawed her way to being de factor ruler would be too smart to attempt blackmail like that, or to mishandle being poisoned. They had Sarah running into the woods rather than show weakness, when showing weakness would actually have saved her. If she'd gotten sick in front of the queen and made a big scene when she claimed poison, poison that could only have been delivered in tea made by Abigail, then Abigail would have been thrown out after a whipping, if not hanged. And the was queen would have nursed her old friend back to health, and cherished her as long as they both lived because she came so close to burying another person she loved. Sarah should have been smart enough to play it that way.

Sarah would not have gone through the woods if she knew she was poisoned.

I think you did not catch the plot.

From what I'm gathering herein, this movie is essentially a period-costume R-rated lesbian saga, misleadingly promoting itself as almost a slapstick comedy. No way will Olivia or any other participant win an Oscar.

Fucking loved this movie. I wish Stone and Weisz could both win the Supporting Oscar.

R34 that's more or less what happened. Sarah treated Anne like a dog that she could kick and eventually she got bit. A little petting might've saved her ass.

R36, the film is a period costume R-rated lesbian saga with a little slapstick and a lot of humor. If you see it you will definitely laugh a lot.

I loved it. My friend and I were the only ones who laughed in the cinema. Looking around at the crowd, I think there may have been people who thought it would be a normal period drama. Though it was so much more risque.

Though I found the end depressing, and I had a hard getting it out of my mind for a couple of days.

I think this film will grow on me, and there's a good chance its critical reputation will grow as well. Not just because it's a good intelligent film with some stellar acting, but...

It's like "Vertigo", in that the story you think you're watching the first time you see it, isn't the story that's actually being told. Which is unsettling on first viewing, so I need to see it again if it gets better the second time around. Certainly I'll have a very different perspective when I see it again, but does that make the film brilliant or merely complex?

What bothered me the screenplay is very smart but when cunning Sarah 'loses' because of a stolen letter it seems like lazy writing...I think Rachel W should win supporting..

Was there last minute casting changes ? Who was supposed to play who?

I think the director didn't know how to wrap it up effectively. The Lobster also dragged on and felt like two movies spliced together. Though 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer' was well paced and wrapped up nicely.

R10 Perhaps men are able to get ahead when the sisterhood is left to gauge out each other's eyes.

R11 / R12. Yes, I think for the bulk of the movie you think Abigail might be more genuine in caring about Anne, but the director wanted to show her true colours at the end, perhaps?

[quote]although most historians think in actuality they never had sex

Frankly, most historians don't know jack shit about sexual relationships. They don't know ins and outs of their boss's or neighbour's sex life, for fuck's sake.

Hell, 10 years ago most historians claimed that Richard III didn't have scoliosis and rumours of such were a mean lie by jealous haters. The discovery of his skeleton was a laugh riot. A weepy woman from the Richard III Fan Club on site, on hearing that a skeleton was discovered with spine curvature was so disappointed, and the archaeologist in charge had to point out that physical abnormalities in the human body are no indication of a person's goodness.

What was up with the fish-eye lens scenes? Did it mean anything, or just an 'arty' fluorish?

Two hours of Olivia Colman's patented self-loathing hysterics?

Count me out.

R43, I believe Rachel was a replacement for Kate Winslet. Yes, she's terrific in this film.

Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet were both attached to play Sarah Churchill at different times.

Kate Winslet is a better physical fit, from the sounds of it.

Some of said this reminds them of All About Eve? Do you remember that film at Oscar time ? Some claim because Anne Baxter and Bette were in same category it cost Davis the Oscar. Doesn’t matter about screen time the whole movie revolves around Queen Anne so Coleman should be in Best Actress category.

Kate Winslet would have been damn good in the role, not that Weisz wasn't damn good. Winslet would have looked a bit more like the real Sarah Churchill, especially if she'd let herself fill out a little.

It looks like the original Sarah was a biggish gal, although she must have looked petite next to the enormous Queen Anne.

Sludge Libby should have been Queen Anne......................

The ending scene fit fine with the rest of the movie.

It was the culmination of a gradual tonal descent showing love completely disappear from the characters' lives. Starting with Sarah's banishment and possible slander, going through a party where Abigail is faithless to her brooding husband, getting drunk and neglecting the queen's "leg needs" and royal duties as the queen gets sicker and sadder; realizing that Abigail only cares for herself, whereas Sarah loved her, Britain and affairs of state.

So we end with the most depressing music and a picture of both Abigail and the queen looking sick, tired and loveless. Combined with a symbolic shot of rabbits feeding and jockeying for position, reminding us that people are just a pack of hungry but vulnerable animals, too.

That's perfectly sound artistry.

Please realize that traditional theater structure for scripts is that the first half is for comedy and the last half is for tragedy. Yes, there's a tonal shift, but tragedies are that way and this a tradition I'm surprised Lanthimos does so well.

I'm surprised a Greek guy is adept enough with both the English language and period piece formulas in the English-speaking world. He didn't show that in his previous films, but I guess he didn't write this one.

P.S. Nobody saw Abigail abuse the rabbit except Abigail. It was to show the audience that Abigail was just completely selfish and enjoying her newfound position of getting to abuse the lower orders, as all aristocrats do.

Plus it gave Lanthimos an opportunity to show animal cruelty in yet another of his films. He seems to enjoy that.

Can someone discuss the scene with Sarah looking out her window at the Royal Calvary arriving at her mansion? I thought it had to do with Abigail claiming Sarah stole money from the treasury and Anne ordered them (Marlboros) killed or something. We never saw why the Queen's horses came to Sarah's estate.

The ending of the movie is the Greek director screaming at the audience, "Hey it's me, the director of The Lobster!"

R58, the Marlboroughs were being politely asked to leave the country in that scene. I suppose the soldiers were there to make it clear things wouldn't always be that polite, if they didn't want to go.

The odd thing about the whole business was that 7000 pounds was nothing to Anne, who was paying for a war, or to the Marlboroughs, who were building Blenheim Palace, and corruption and graft were business as usual in the courts of the era. I guess Anne took it as a personal betrayal more than a financial blow.

It is a real historical story of power and violence superimposed with metaphor about power and violence in a surrealistic form.

Thanks r60. I'm guessing they didn't have to leave the country, as history later reveals.

Oh they did leave the country, R62, and were honored guests of European royalty until Anne died a few years later. They came back as supporters of George, Anne's German heir, and were instrumental in ironing out the difficulties of the succession.

So they went back to being the big cheese royal favorites of the next king, while Abigail retired from public life and went to live on the estate that was her reward for befriending queen Anne in her final years.

Would a British audience know the history that the Churchill's left England for the last years of Anne's reign? Or would the appearance of the soldiers baffle them as much as us?

Queen Anne explains exactly what is going to happen to Churchill.

r58, that scene came immediately after Queen Anne ordered Sarah and her husband tried and "banished" from England.

Those soldiers were there to arrest Sarah and the duke and evict them from Britain.

That's why Rachel Weisz said, "You know, dear, I'm getting tired of living in England" or whatever.

The historical Sarah Churchill did, indeed move to Germany upon her falling out with Queen Anne until Anne died.

I get the impression people aren't paying attention to the scenes that explained everything pretty clearly.

There's nothing surreal about this movie.

"Tell me about the rabbits, Yorgos."

This movie was infuriating. Very hyped but not very good. The ending? Meh. More nonsense.

Loved it, most I have enjoyed a film in yonks.

And it really does appear some viewers missed some rather obvious exposition.

I understood that Abigail was trapped, but i didn't get what the rabbits meant

Anne kept 17 rabbits, as sort of replacements for her 17 dead children, and they seemed to represent her feelings somehow. When Anne was with Sarah the rabbits were caged and ignored, but Abigail let them out of their cages and encouraged Anne to play with them. Which on the surface showed a bit of innocent fun, something Anne desperately needed, and it was also a metaphor for how Abigail was encouraging Anne to grieve appropriately rather than overeating out of misery and having public breakdowns.

I'm not sure what it meant that the rabbits were breeding by the end of the film, other than realism because that's what you get if you let rabbits out of their cages, and the director wanted a tiny cute little animal to abuse (he seems to like that). Maybe it was supposed to show that Anne's emotional life was a bit more loving and open.

Great thread !

Not that it matters, but when Abigail pressed her foot into the rabbits back, the rabbit squealed a bit in distress before escaping and running away.

The queen heard the rabbit squealing and responded to that. She did not see what had happened, but she was aware of the rabbit's distress. And, once again, as with her children, she was unable to give it protection.

The rabits breeding represent the queen's inablity to deal with conflict, in a way she chose Abigail over Sarah because she's easier to deal with, not as demanding nor critical of her actions but she realized too late that Abigail only cares for herself and her relationship will never be more than opportunistic. The rabits act as a crutch for her grief but in the end they end up plaguing her living quarters with hair floating around everywhere, in the end it would have been wiser to confront her pain.

Abigail and the rabits both function as replacemeants, miserable replacements, for people she loved, the rabbits are her children's and Abigail is Sarah's of course.Their presence causes great insatisfaction and act as a painful reminder of the kind of love she cannot obtain but they're better than nothing and benefit from the relationship. It could also be that by equating them with the superimposition of their images, Lanthimos is maybe signalling that just like the rabits, Abigail's just a pet of the queen.

The poster, one of them, shows the Queen and Sarah as equals, standind upright next to each other, while the rabbits and Abigail are at floor level...

Which Oscars will it win tonight?

Black Panther and Favourite are neck and neck in Costume Design and Set Design.

R19 Sarah Churchill was not a thin brunette like they portray her in the movie, but a big buxom blonde.

So Kate Winslet would be a better choice to play Sarah Churchill

You are one of the very few who know that , dear .......

I was familiar with parts of the story from watching The First Churchills too. The series made a big impression on me when I first saw it years ago. I found it on youtube a while back but between the flat lighting and the slow pace, I couldn't get into it. It does explain a lot more about the politics and starts with Charles II.

This is the most overrated movie of the year.

Wasn't Weisz a replacement for someone else, someone who bore slightly more resemblance to the big blonde Sarah Churchill?

Several names were tossed around like Cate and Kate. Although only Olivia was playing the lead. Funny she had a very small role in another of the Greek director’s movies.

The Churchills were not forced by guard to leave England; they did so on their own, albeit with social pressure upon them to leave. Anne did not have 17 children; she had 17 pregnancies (18 fetuses, one set of twins) but most led to miscarriages. Of her living children, she had two daughters who died as infants and a son who lived to be 11 years old. Sarah and John Churchill were not social climbers; rather, John was the most brilliant military man of his day and achieved what no one else had done before him: to defeat Louis XIV and stop him from conquering Europe. The movie is almost pure fiction; the only truth is that Sarah lost Anne's friendship as Anne turned to Abigail, all of which had enormous political fallout with the Whigs losing power to the Tories, effectively ending the War of the Spanish Succession. Marlborough was ennobled because he supported William III in the Glorious Revolution, not because of his wife's friendship with Anne. Although the relationships of Anne with Sarah and Abigail have homosexual overtones, we do not know if they were physical; the historical evidence suggests they were not. For a historically accurate retelling of the story, watch The First Churchills, a BBC 12-episode series from 1970.

Is it a dumb question if Sarah was a relation to Winston ?

R82 Yes Kate Winslet.

Yes, Sarah Churchill, the wife of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, is an ancestor of Sir Winston Churchill. Sir Winston was a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough. Sarah is also an ancestor of Princess Diane, Prince William, and Prince Harry.

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, by Charles Jervas, after 1714

Chloe Sevigny or Romola Garai should have played Sarah Churchill in The Favourite.

Maybe Chloe wouldn't have minded showing off her talent for giving oral on-screen again and we could have had the sexy scene of her munching on Queen Anne's rug?

Olivia wouldn't agree to do the scene.

Double Bafta winner Olivia Colman: "Being naked on screen was the worst, then not getting work"

Actually I think Winslet looks the part but not a fan of her acting.

Essentially: "be careful what you wish for".

[quote]Was anyone else bothered by that repetitive "music" they used in several scenes?

Yes, I loved the film, but there was one repetitive theme in the middle that was seemingly interminable.

Question for Costume/Hair experts:

I thought the hair and makeup, especially for the men, seemed more later 18th Century French than early 18th Century English.