MovieChat Forums > The Queen (2006) Discussion > The death of the stag

The death of the stag

posted 12 years ago by rrb
13 replies | jump to latest

What are we to make of this? I don't see the stag as symbolic, as did posters on another thread. The point seemed more likely to have Elizabeth experience what her subjects experienced - the loss of something she did not have a personal connection with, but admired from a distance and was touched by – and thereby to reach a greater understanding of her people’s grief, to have learned. Yet we see no evidence that she learned any such lesson. Leaves one wondering: if the stag could’ve been removed from the story without changing it, what was the point?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jglapin 10 years ago

There is no mystery here. She loves animals. I love animals and am very sad to see what we in northern New Mexico call a "Royal Bull" elk in the back of someone's truck. Her experience with that deer put her in touch with her feelings of life's beauty and the sadness of sudden death. I see no symbolism beyond that.

[–] WhiteHeron 9 years ago

No, that scene had nothing to do with her love for animals as she had previously been quite willing for the stag to be shot. It was symbolic of her mourning the loss of the old way of doing things and her place in her subjects' hearts.

[–] rrb 9 years ago

It was symbolic of her mourning the loss of the old way of doing things and her place in her subjects' hearts.

How so? How does a stag represent "the old way"?

[–] Alice_no_wander 10 years ago

Things are symbolic if you want them to be. Everything we see at the moment when we occupy our mind with thoughts can seem to be a message or reflect of our thoughts. Like a dream. I think that scene is one of the most powerful in the movie. Simply because there are many theories. From those who see nothing in it to those who can see and whole behind story/queen's subconsciousness in it. Really...it leaves place for discussion and it's a good thing for a successful movie.

[–] rrb 10 years ago

Things are symbolic if you want them to be.

I love it when people say, "You can impose any meaning on a story that you want." I guess they never took a college lit class where one's interpretation must have more substance.

I guess the prior poster also never took a writing class. Because then she would've learned not to indulge in cheesy stylistics. Such as treating a phrase like a sentence. Repeatedly. Like this.

[–] FrannyFine 9 years ago

I think the death of the stag represented the death of Diana and the Queen's emotion was a reflection of how she felt sad for Diana after all. Remember how the Queen asked the man "was it wounded?" To which he replied "yes, we had to chase it for several miles before we could put it out of its misery". Then the Queen said "I hope it didn't suffer too much". This is exactly what happened to Diana. She was injured at first and died a few hours later. It could also be in reference to how she was chased (like the stag was) to her death. I think the Queen realised then how Diana was hunted and suffered until the end.

[–] lrdcharlton 9 years ago

I honestly do not think Diana had anything to do with the stag. At no point in the movie did she even make any feelings she had for her apparent . As the mother of her grandchilden, she felt it was awful that she died so young, and that the boys no longer had her, but it did not appear to go beyound that. If anything she probably felt that Diana bought it on herself considering her behavior during the time of the accident. Diana wasn''t hunted as much as people like to think, she actually encouraged the publicity when it suited her.

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

So what was the significance of the stag then?

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

I think the Queen realised then how Diana was hunted and suffered until the end.

There's no indication the queen realized that.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

The Queen's subjects at the time were in a state of hysteria. I can't understand why they thought it was their personal loss. They weren't family.

[–] TheAcadian 8 years ago

Right - they weren't family, but they felt strongly for her. She was the first 'human' member of the royal family they had ever come to really know. And that is what they mourned.