The Queen
|
List Price: Our Price: $0.94 You Save: $14.05 (94%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Queen
Movie Review: Private Lives, Public Faces
Summary: 5 Stars
While most civilians may grumble at the antics of their problematic kin, at least those personal dramas don't play out under an excruciating media microscope. Anyone who has become a public figure--whether by choice or happenstance--isn't so lucky. The Queen explores the tensions between public and private lives, with the clash between traditional decorum and popular celebrity culture forming much of the drama at the story's core.
The film opens with Tony Blair (Michael Sheen), newly-elected prime minister of the UK, having his first awkward audience with Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren). She reminds him that he's her tenth Prime Minister--the first was Churchill--establishing the tenor of their uneasy relationship. Her message couldn't be more clear: prime ministers may come and go, but the monarchy is forever.
Fast-forward a few months to September, 1997. Diana, the Princess of Wales, has just been killed in a Paris car crash, prompting an outpouring of grief among the nation's people. Elizabeth and the other royals, ensconced at Balmoral, immediately close ranks. Diana was no longer a member of their family, they maintain, and therefore her funeral should be a private matter, arranged by the Spencer clan. Blair, meanwhile, has to deal with both the public's grief and their outrage at the royals' stony silence, while simultaneously trying to press Elizabeth into some kind of public gesture.
The script by Peter Morgan, directed by Stephen Frears, deftly weaves the fictional narrative in with news footage from the week between Diana's death and her funeral. The choices of archival material are outstanding, incorporated so perfectly into the script that the line between fiction and history blurs. Morgan doesn't try to pretend that Diana was some kind of saint--it's pointed out that the woman the royal family knew and the "people's princess" were very different women--but neither does he vilify her memory, and the public's grief at Diana's death comes across palpably. It's almost impossible not to be moved by the crowds of mourners and the vast sea of flowers piled up at the gates of Buckingham Palace.
The engine that propels the narrative is the conflict between Elizabeth and Blair, with all their aides and servants circling around. They couldn't be more different: she's elderly, austere, and regal; he's young, informal, and almost puppy-like in his exuberance. Mirren and Sheen play off each other beautifully, and the constant friction between the two characters is a source of both humor and drama. Their opposing viewpoints are presented pretty fairly: Elizabeth wants to keep things quiet and dignified, while the more modern Blair realizes that Diana's vast popularity has created extraordinary circumstances that traditional "arrangements" can't really cope with.
The supporting players add much to the production. Particularly good is Helen McCrory as Cherie Blair, her husband's compliment in every way--warm and funny, modern, sexy, and emotionally accessible. The staff members in Blair's office are also terrific, lending a very West Wing flavor to the Blair administration; there's a running joke where one aide keeps bursting in to tell the PM how his approval rating is climbing in response to the crisis. The characters' warm camaraderie leaves the viewer wanting more, always a good thing.
The royals come across as one might expect: Prince Philip (James Cromwell) is a crusty boor, the most hard-line traditionalist, though some of his observations are spot-on and screamingly funny. Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) is portrayed more or less sympathetically as a man caught between his domineering parents and his ex-wife's celebrity. Sylvia Syms is great fun as the Queen Mother, providing much of the humor (her reaction when she realizes Diana's funeral will be based around plans for her own--because it's the only funeral that's been rehearsed--is just priceless). Princes William and Harry are only glimpsed from behind, probably because they were still quite young at the time of their mother's death. The bevy of servants and secretaries is excellent.
Uniformly stellar performances really sell this movie. Any number of superlatives has been heaped on Mirren for her performance, all of them deserved. She rarely lets the queen's resolute self-control drop, but underneath the starchy surface, there's a lot of emotion going on, and Mirren lets the viewer see that with the subtlest gestures and expressions. She does a marvelous job conveying Elizabeth's slow change of heart, her annoyance with Blair (and her ultimate respect for him), her concern for her grandsons, and her profound sense of duty to her country. In perhaps her best scene, Elizabeth finally returns to London to make a public appearance; Mirren's expressions are fabulous as the queen takes in the mourners and the flowers, realizing viscerally the extent of people's grief.
Mirren has a terrific foil in Sheen, who also hits every note perfectly as Blair, from the prime minister's awkwardness around the queen to his frustration with her and eventually his admiration for her when she addresses the people. The two share a scene at the film's end where Elizabeth cautions Blair that one day the public will turn on him, unexpectedly, just as it turned on her, an open, honest exchange that perfectly bookends their initial meeting at the opening of the movie.
The visuals are top-rate as well, bringing life and depth to the characters' worlds. Balmoral looks like a big old hunting lodge--all wood and earth tones, stags' heads mounted on the walls--and the surrounding countryside is breathtaking in its rugged wildness. The Blairs' home is warm and cluttered, covered with their children's artwork, and that cozy informality extends right into the prime minister's office. The shots of the various characters in their sleepwear are both hilarious and poignant: Elizabeth wears a big fuzzy bathrobe, and Blair wears a sports jersey with his name on the back. These intimate portraits really help sell the characters as flesh-and-blood people: the queen fumbling for her glasses in the middle of the night, the prime minister watching telly while munching down a bowl of cereal. Ultimately it is these moments of humanity that make the film so enjoyable, the glimpses--even fictional--of the private lives behind the public faces, the inward and outward responses to tragedy and loss.
The Queen isn't playing in wide distribution (yet), but it's well worth the time to seek out. For anyone who enjoys interpersonal drama, great character work, and superb acting, movies don't get much better than this.
Movie Review: The latest threat to the crown dramatized...
Summary: 5 Stars
Monarchs have always faced threats to their thrones. So much so that royal history, burgeoning with fiendish conspiracies, violent plots, and gruesome assassinations, sometimes reads like a slasher novel. A few recent films have fully exploited this theme. 1998's "Elizabeth", starring the should-have-won-an-Oscar-for-this-role Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I, revolved around an assassination attempt that included the queen's lover. On a less violent theme, Judy Dench, in "Mrs. Brown", depicted Queen Victoria's "trist" with a Highlander that had all of England alight with scandal. Has a new "threatened queen" genre emerged? Apparently so. Enter a rare film about a living monarch who finds her crown imperiled in an astonishingly novel way. For once Her Majesty can watch the drama she lived reemerge in celluloid - not that she probably wants to. Though the film sports a prosaic title, "The Queen", it boldly explores uncharted territory. Here the Queen, reigning in the late twentieth century hinterland between monarchy and non-monarchy, finds herself attacked by her own people. And she, much like the great-great-grandmother she shares with her husband, was not amused.
The film opens as Queen Elizabeth II sits for a regal portrait. Her world unfolds as the royal portraiteer dotes on his imperial subject. Then, in a "we're not in Kansas anymore" flash, the newly elected Tony Blair explodes onto the screen. The now ex-Prime Minister receives voluminous coverage for a movie entited "The Queen." One memorable early scene shows Blair bowing on one knee as the Queen inquires as to his desire to serve the nation. He answers "yes." That probably didn't give too much away. Both figures, Sovereign and Prime Minister, share the spotlight and their disparate worlds collide after catastrophe strikes.
News of Princess Diana's death soars over England. Actual news footage, now almost ten years old, gets woven with dramatization. The late Princess appears often. Tony Blair issues a eulogy almost immediately. But the royal family remains eerily silent, holed up in Balmoral, their Scottish getaway. The Duke of Edinburgh, depicted here as rather heartless and crass, shows more concern for hunting stags than the furor around the dead Princess. He even takes Diana's sons hunting as a diversion. Prince Charles, divorced for a year from Diana, remains the only one moved. He flies to France to bring the body of his ex-wife back to England. As the tension rises the film depicts him as nervous, fidgety, and fearing assassination. Regardless, he cannot alter his mother's public stoicism towards the tragedy. The Queen Mother provides some comic relief. When someone shows concern over photographers intruding on their son's hunt, she says nonchalantly, "if there's a photographer he could be the first kill of the day."
Soon bundles of flowers and messages of grief crowd the gate of Buckingham Palace. But no one's home. The flag, supporting royal traditon, remains lowered in the Queen's absence. Icy silence from the palace sours the public. They begin speaking out against the monarchy. This causes a drastic change in Tony Blair. He suddenly sees the interdependence of the Queen with his own station. In phone call after phone call he pleads with her to do something. She resists even after he gives her a vital statistic: one in four people now favor abolishing the monarchy. Que the Threatened Queen leitmotif. Princess Diana now seems to upstage the royal family even in death. Elizabeth II convinces herself that "this mood" will pass.
It doesn't. Slowly the idea that her people hate her sinks in. Bowing to pressure, the family inspects the bundles of grief displayed outside of Balmoral. They soon return to London and face the dense Buckingham crowds. Here the Queen sees what her public indifference has wrought. She reads "They don't deserve you" and "They have your blood on their hands" on some of the flowers. Here begins the Queen's transformation, criss-crossing with the Prime Minister's. Diana's death irreversably changes them both. Finally, probably more in deference to her public than to the dead Princess, the Queen finally issues a public statement. Blair's staff has the original text rewritten "to make it appear like a human being wrote it." But at this point Blair, who earlier said "someone save these people from themselves", now lashes out in defense as his aide mocks the Queen's sincerity. The fuse begins to fizzle.
The film explodes a haunting paradox. Royal tradition, often seen as the bulwark of the monarchy, here threatens to undermine the institution itself. Insisting on not raising Buckingham's flag to honor Diana and treating the tragedy as "a private matter" enfuriates the public. Stuff tradition. They demand a change of protocol. Subsequently, Britain turned upside down.
Of course a film depicting living breathing people fumbling through a crisis will inevitably draw controversy. Blair gets depicted as savior here, the steam in the engine. But the real Elizabeth II issued a statement that she decided to speak out all by herself. In her own words no one persuaded her actions. Not only that, Blair and the Queen have supposedly never divulged what passed between them during that tense week. Given that, this film presents an educated guess as to the workings of the English government during that time. One wonders what Tony Blair and the Queen really think of the film. One also wonders if the royal family and the Prime Minister really watch that much television.
The performances throughout remain stunning. Helen Mirren and Micheal Sheen shine as the protagonists/antagonists. Mirren's performance dazzles so much that viewers will forget that they're watching Helen Mirren. She presents an example of undetectable acting at its finest. And though no intense action takes place the film still provides a roller coaster ride. The actors and the direction by Stephen Frears, just off of "Mrs. Henderson Presents", obviously deserve credit here.
Best of all, "The Queen" allows viewers to come to their own conclusions surrounding that controversial week in 1997. Was the public right in lashing out at the monarchy? Was the Queen sincere in her famous "grandmother" speech? Was the monarchy really threatened? The film depicts the events without mashing opinions and answers in viewers' faces. Audiences can leave with vastly differing viewpoints. And what's better than great film? Having great conversations about great film. "The Queen" will doubtless keep tongues happily waggling for some time to come.
Movie Review: A dramatic tour-de-force
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a great peice of movie making. For one thing, the tensions and dramatic moments in this film all occur between two people talking quietly to one another in relatively small rooms. Getting that right not only requires superb actors but also camera work that is, like a good butler, both intimate and discreet.
Obviously this is Helen Mirren's movie and she shines in a way that encapsulates much of what made many of us rabid fans of her performances as Jane Tennison on the Prime Suspect television series. Michael Sheen has some good moments as Tony Blair, and his (fictional) defense of the Queen is both moving and ironic given the way the real Tony has all but tripped over himself being George W. Bush's footstool.
Director Steven Frears and his DP Affonso Beata, deserve huge credit for the emotional intensity and maturity of this film. The leads are given plenty of room to do their stuff and they do, but the depth of this movie also relies on the stellar supporting cast.
For my money, some of the best performances in the whole movie come from Roger Allam as Her Majesty (HM)'s private secretary Robin Javrin - the real Javrin apparently was a bit miffed at Allam's girth -it being somewhat more substantial than his own), Alex Jennings who plays a surprisingly sympathetic Prince Charles, and of course Helen McCrory who makes the most of a rather melodramatically rendered Cherrie Blair (shown as a rather shrill anti-monarchist, which unsurprisingly, did not go over well at Number 10).
To understand the true perceptiveness of this movie in a British context, one has to understand the role of the monarchy in contemporary British society. Despite her aloofness from the public eye, the real Queen (and even more so, the late Queen Mother) were and are figures of great familiarity to the British public. HM's very deliberate fashion sense and demeanor, while indicative of her own personality, were also essential in completing the transformation of the British monarchy from a 19th century aristocratic family a generation removed from politically-engaged monarchy, to an institution that wields no formal power but which is nonetheless, one of the emotional lynch pins of modern, middle-class British sensibility.
In contrast to Diana who became a celebrity in full People magazine mode, the Queen presents herself as a symbol of ordinary British middle-class sobriety and restraint. Whilst much has rightly been made of the mantra "duty first, self second", a second and perhaps more important issue in understanding the tension between Diana and "The Firm" is the way in which Diana's "antics" were seen as a direct challenge to the public image of the older royals as a well-pedigreed but essentially decent and normal version of the good neighbors down the street. This transformation lies at the heart of the British monarchy's ability to survive two world wars, the end of the empire, the plummetting cultural prestige of the rest of the aristos, the rise and fall of the welfare state and finally: the triumph of cultural Thatcherism with its petit bourgeois envy and suspicion of anything collective.
On an emotional level, middle-aged Brits tend to view HM as a woman who you could (with the right dress on) feel comfortable borrowing a cup of sugar from. This leaving aside the actual wealth of the monarchy as an institution, a fact which continues to astound Americans who have a much more prosaic notion of figures of public interest - although I think one partial analogy who has achieved a similar level of emotional familiarity and trust for folks in the United States is Oprah Winfrey.
In the same way that Oprah transcends her racial identity for her white audiences, the Queen (but interestingly, not her husband, nor to some extent her son Charles) has transcended her class position as the uber-aristocrat in a Britain where class is still vitally important (if somewhat muted by comparison with the 1930s). At the risk of generalizing, I would say that a majority of Brits still feel a sense of personal loyalty to the Queen herself (and hence the monarchy), while not necessarily supporting the class system, nor the political goals of the establishment.
To the Queen, Diana then represented the culmination of a "loss of face" brought on by the younger royals (and Princess Anne's) public disgraces (primarily divorces) captured on the front pages of the loathsome tabloid press. Whether or not she was the people's princess, she was certainly seen as garish, attention-seeking and vulgar by the Royal establishment. Paradoxically perhaps, the very same solid citizens who relished the normality of the Queen, also devoured the fairy-tale glamor provided by Diana. Royalty both serves and entertains, and in the age of reality TV, Diana was for better or worse, the icon for celebrity-royalty.
HM's inability to engage with the changing face of Britain (generationally, racially and in terms of it's attachments to the outward symbols of class identity), probably did blind her to the extent to which Diana of all the younger royals actually achieved the level of perceived personal intimacy that the Queen herself enjoyed. I would hazard a guess that much of the public grief that was displayed at Diana's death was not over the death of Diana herself, but was an expression of mourning for personal tragedies. Diana was a symbol for people's aspirations, and she was a person who continued to feed a sense of communal identity albeit through the glamor of celebrity despite her divorce. In that sense, she was indeed "the people's princess".
Director Frears deserves huge credit for capturing this tension without ever needing to bring the two women into contact with one another. Mirren's Elizabeth reacts to televised images of Diana but we see the baffled annoyance she must have provoked in real life. This is not a documentary, it is a work of fiction that seeks to highlight particular ideas and characters. We will probably never know what HM thinks of the movie, but thanks to Frears and writer Peter Morgan have given us an intelligent, engaging and thought-provoking window into the human condition and into the possible mindset of a person who could be the longest-reigning constitutional monarch in a democracy since Queen Victoria.
Movie Review: Long Live Helen Mirren
Summary: 5 Stars
Long live Helen Mirren.
It is a complete mystery to me why Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep don't work more. They are easily the two best actresses working in film. I would think directors would be bending over backward for the opportunity to work with these two accomplished thespians. Instead, they are more easily able to get films with Kirsten Dunst and Julie Stiles made. Amazing. It just isn't the same, folks. It isn't the same.
"The Queen", the new film from director Stephen Frears ("Dirty, Pretty Things", "The Crying Game"), concentrates on the week after Princess Diana's death. As the film progresses, we watch Queen Elizabeth (Helen Mirren), Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) and Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) deal with the loss of someone in their lives as you would expect British Royalty to deal with such a thing, with a stiff upper lip. But this period is also significant in British history for another reason; a new Labour Prime Minister has just been elected. Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) recognizes Diana's death will not remain the isolated family affair the Royals insist it will be. Through many conversations, Blair attempts to get the Queen to make some sort of statement regarding her former step-daughter's death, to make some sign for the benefit of a grieving public. But as she and the family are spending the summer at their estate in Balmoral, Scotland, she remains steadfast in her feeling that this is a private family affair and any public grief will soon wear off.
"The Queen" is a remarkable film for two reasons; the first and foremost is Helen Mirren. She is, once again, superb. If she isn't at least nominated for an Oscar, there is something seriously wrong with the whole system.
There is some humor in the film, but it is derived from watching the rigid ceremony and outdated tradition surrounding the family. Mirren could easily have portrayed the role as a jokey, caricature of the Queen, but her performance is much better, much more layered than that. She successfully paints a portrait of the Queen, and what her life is as a Royal, making the character, both good and bad, seem real. As she portrays the monarch, we watch as she moves through a life surrounded by tradition, a cocoon of advisors and servants, buffering her from the public, further reinforcing her feelings everything is going well. Convinced she is right, she doesn't heed the advice of her new Prime Minister, a figure she clearly `tolerates'. But as he continues to press the case, she gradually realizes he may be speaking the truth.
Mirren does a brilliant job of making us understand this woman's feelings. It seems perfectly understandable she would be so reluctant to believe the public does not require some statement from the Royal family, this is a private family affair and the British people are stalwart and dignified. As she gradually, very gradually, realizes perhaps she does need to address the public, this also makes sense. She remembers she is in the public eye, a spokesperson for the people, perhaps she should say something.
You have to remember Queen Elizabeth is part of a monarchy that has ruled England for centuries. There are traditions involved with the position and her life has been very different from a normal person. So, while her behavior may seem odd at first, we understand it through Mirren's performance. We certainly may not agree with it, but we see how it could happen. Throughout, there are many references to this, reminding us of the tradition the House of Windsor is steeped in.
Mirren is simply outstanding. Have I said that already?
The other person who is largely responsible for this film's success is director Stephen Frears. He keeps the film moving at a fast clip and the film is more entertaining for it. Usually, when you go to a biopic, you expect the film to reach the 2 hour plus mark. "The Queen" is a sprightly 95 minutes long. Because of this, Frears smartly concentrates on the week after Diana's death. He doesn't attempt to paint a complete picture of the monarch's life, choosing instead to illuminate this period. Because of this choice, we actually learn more about Queen Elizabeth and her family. The tragedy of Diana's death makes everything seem a little amplified, as though they are experiencing things they would normally experience over the course of a couple of years. Throughout, as we watch them deal with their traditions, and each other, we learn a lot about the traditions of their family, and the history.
Shortly after we meet the Queen and her new Prime Minister, the film abruptly shifts to the night of Diana's death. We watch as various images pop up, giving us an accurate feeling of what that night was like. Because Frears uses a quick series of images, we do some of the work, filling in the blanks with our imagination. It is an effective trick and works well to give us information and to keep the film moving along.
Throughout the film, the focus shifts back and forth from the Queen and the Windsors, to Blair, his staff and his wife. We quickly realize that Blair is trying to get through to the Queen for a number of reasons. The most important is that he genuinely feels the public needs to hear from her. But the political cache of getting the Queen to change her ways is not lost upon the young Labour official. When this eventually happens, a small smile crosses his lips. His wife is also incredulous about why he would care so much about the Queen. He notes that without her, he would not be possible, so it is in his best interest to help her maintain an air of dignity. I bring this up because it shows Frears is also interested in showing the politics of England at this time, and how all of these events affect one another.
"The Queen" is a great film, much more sprightly, interesting and human that the traditional biopic. Now it is up to you to discover what the thousands of people who have been packing the limited engagement theaters have already discovered.
Movie Review: Helen Mirren's exquisite portrayal of "The Queen"
Summary: 5 Stars
Helen Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth II is as finely nuanced a performance as you are likely to see in a motion picture. "The Queen" who suffers the woeful ignorance regarding protocol of her new prime minister, Tony Blair (Michael Sheen,) at Buckingham Palace is not the same woman we see with her family is their retreat at Balmoral any more than that is the same woman who jumps into her old jeep and takes off on her own at the family's Scottish estate. But the point is that they are the same woman and while the differences between those facets might be ones of minute degree, Mirren has captured them exquisitely, which is why she is now the greatest favorite to win the Oscar in the history of handicapping the Academy Awards.
Written by Peter Morgan (whose "The Last King of Scotland" is probably going to win the Oscar for Best Actor) and directed by Stephen Frears ("Dangerous Liaisons"), this 2006 nominee for Best Picture is primarily about the week following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. For the Queen the death of Diana is a private matter and the fact that Diana was no longer an HRH dictates the crown say nothing even more than a desire not to feed the media frenzy that played a role in her death. But for Blair (with the help of his speech writer), Diana is the "People's Princess," and he can see the threat to the monarchy by the Queen's silence in the face of this national tragedy even if her majesty cannot. It is the middle class Blair, the first Labour PM in a generation, who has to persuade Elizabeth that her traditional quiet dignity, which has served her so well for a half century as Queen of England, is woefully inadequate to the moment at hand.
The flaws of the film are not questions of movie making but exist because of fidelity to the events of that week. In the immediate wake of Diana's death the paparazzi who relentlessly pursued her are vilified, but when the tabloid rags that paid for all those photographs of the princess turn the growing wrath of the public away from themselves and onto the royal family nobody calls them on their self-serving interests. If Elizabeth, Charles and the rest of the family thought it was wrong to take the young princes away from Balmoral and back to the circus in London it is hard to fault them for their logic (if they had been at Buckingham palace they might have fled to Balmoral anyhow). The whole point about lowering a flag that is only flown when the monarch is in residence, a tradition followed for four hundred years, still bothers me. The flag was not lowered to half-mast for Queen Victoria or Winston Churchill, so the idea that it should be lowered for anybody still strikes me as being wrong. Still, "The Queen" makes it clear that if there had been more from the monarch early on, there would have been less required as a public "mea culpa" later.
For me the villain of the piece is Blair's wife, Cherie (Helen McCrory), who grins idiotically when performing a "shallow" curtsey in the presence of the Queen and takes glee in what is happening to the monarchy. It takes most of the film, but eventually it is Blair himself who has to articulate why the woman sitting on the throne deserves respect if not loyalty. I doubt that most Americans even know of the young Elizabeth Windsor who was an auto mechanic during World War II, when she and her mother and sister stayed in London during the Blitz, while thousands of other young children were being sent out of town (as see in the opening of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"). Those of us who know of how Fate intervened to put this woman on the throne can only look at Cherie Blair and observe that Elizabeth did more for her country as a teenager than the prime minister's wife has done in her entire life.
It is interesting to see how the funeral itself is reduced to almost an epilogue, although there is still a key scene to come afterwards. Although it seem to be on point the moment where Elizabeth and the royal family stood at the gate of Buckingham palace and bowed their heads is omitted, as are such memorable moments as Elton John singing a new version of "Candle in the Wind" or the card to "Mummy" that Harry put on his mother's coffin. For this film all that matters is that the Queen sits in Westminster and listens to Diana's brother laud his dead sister, extolling her as true royalty, because even once she gets her wake up call, the Queen has to have her nosed rubbed in it one more time. Mirren's Elizabeth might be wrong in her reaction to the death of Diana, but once again the fault lies with Fate and not with the heart of a queen who has served her subjects the way she was taught long ago and once upon a time when she had been the princess of her people.
Mirren must be looking forward to Oscar night when she will only have to give one acceptance speech rather than two, since at both the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild Awards she won not only the top actress award for a movie for "The Queen" but also for her performance in "Elizabeth I" on television. I have no doubt that each performance enhances the other in the minds of voters since the two Elizabeths certainly evince the range of Mirren's acting abilities (and both have her delivering speeches actually given by each monarch, which appeals to me as a rhetorician). Mirren's acceptance speeches to date have been exemplary in being short and to the point, suggesting that some of the gravitas of her character may well have rubbed off on her.