Write a comparative essay on the 2006 film “The Queen” and David Malouf’s novel ‘Ransom.”

Write a comparative essay on the 2006 film “The Queen” and David Malouf’s novel ‘Ransom.”
the essay prompt is about public vs private personas and has to be in blended style with imbedded quotes
here are a few resources

“CHARLES: The two Dianas; the public‟s and ours don‟t have any relation with each other.” A central theme is the theme of what it means to be private and what it means to be public. To the public, Diana was a kind, lovely, generous woman who selflessly gave her time to those in need. To her family, while she was in no doubt a loving mother to her children, she also had at least one affair and spent the last few years of her life making subtle digs at her ex-husband and the royal family. Diana‟s family, the Spencers, are the ones who initially wanted the private funeral and the Queen, trying to respect their wishes and that of tradition and propriety, tried to make this happen but does not succeed. The Queen herself is a public figure, but not allowed to have emotions and feelings as she is expected to be steadfast in the face of the world. The only time she shows any emotion over the course of the week is when she is alone in the fields of Balmoral Castle after her jeep breaks down. Even then, the camera does not see her face front on, the audience is only given a side view and the view of her back, with the sound of her sob echoing through the scene. Once the royals give in to the pressure to give Diana a HRH funeral, the public involvement gets even more pronounced within the film, as there are more and more scenes of the masses of flowers and mementos being laid at the gates of Windsor Castle: “TONY: So it‟s decided? It‟s going to be a public funeral. ALASTAIR: Yes. On Saturday. A whopper. The Abbey. The works.”
Leaders wear many faces and the texts show us that balancing your duality is essential in order to rule. Priam and Elizabeth, both monarchs, must conduct themselves in dual spaces – in the presence of their nation as symbols of the regal sphere they oversee and then as individuals coping with the tragedy of events beyond their control.

Within the novel Ransom, Somax, Neoptolemus and Hecuba remain unchanged by the events that befall them, whereas both Priam and Achilles wrestle with a duality that fails to resolve upon the end of the novel. Achilles’ ‘…play of a dual-self…’(Part 1) is a continuation from his childhood, having been born from the goddess Thetis and the mortal Peleus. This notion is confirmed by his magnificent prowess as a fighter and when his comrades question whether he has been blessed by immortality and hence, he has their ‘oaths of loyalty… unconditional’ (Part 1). Achilles, the ‘hardened self, hardened body’ (Part 1), is constantly at odds with Achilles who ‘felt nothing’ (Part 1) and whom Malouf likens to a dog when the keeper of the camp hounds explains that they must wait until he is finished with the corpse before he will share his plunder. In a similar way, Frears’ Elizabeth has been trained and tested in her role since her coronation in 1953, honed to become the Queen she stands as today. Although her training is not in the physical sense as Achilles and his Myrmidons was, the Queen’s life has been devoted to duty and routine, ‘it’s all I’ve [she’s] ever known’ and is ‘how I [she] was bought up’, much like Achilles and Priam to an extent, who are products of their pasts.
This notion of duality continues as the ‘kingly role’ (Part 2) that Priam has been playing is bookended by two very different identities – one, as the small Podacres who still harbours the ‘smell’ (Part 2) of the slave life in Priam’s memory and the second, a renewed father returning to his home citadel with the ransomed body of his son in tow. The gift that was awarded to him allowed the evolution of Priam from a ‘nameless substitute’ (Part 2) to a name that ‘each time he hears himself named… [he will remember] the dirt and sweat of the slave’s life’ (Part 2). The transformation from Podacres into Priam means that he becomes ‘both actual and symbolic in the same breath’ (p 44), playing the role of the figurehead of state and learning to ‘experience those dual states quite naturally as one’ (Part 2). But it is also as important that he become a great king, in order that he may revert back to the life of simplicity and humility and venture out to Achilles. When the princes bring him the splendid chariot to conduct the journey in, he berates them indicating his keenness to complete the transaction in a manner that is compliant with his vision – ‘…going to Achilles, not in a ceremonial way, as my symbolic self, but stripped of all glittering distractions and disguises, [but] as I am’ (Part 2).
Similarly, Elizabeth struggles with her duality throughout the course of the film. Her natural instincts when tragedy strikes her family is to retreat and mourn privately, concentrating on nurturing her grandsons through the difficult time. But the nation calls for so much more than that, they need her to be present both in the media and in person, returning to the nation’s capital to share in the grief and pain they are riddled with. Her reaction that she wants to avoid the event turning into a ‘fairground attraction’ is merely a guise to cover her intense need to retract herself and do what she believes her nation wants, that is to ‘reject this ‘mood’’ and settle for a ‘period of restrained grief and sober, private mourning…’ But, as with both of the protagonists, much more is required of them in their roles.
The Prime Minister’s preference to be ‘on first name terms’ with his cabinet confirms Blair is keen to reform the institution in ‘radical modernisation’, and it sits uneasily with the Queen. She asks Janvrin whether he has sent a ‘protocol sheet’ to the newly appointed leader yet. In contrast, Somax is conflicted when it is announced that he will be referred to as Idaeus, simply because of ‘identification of name with office, and the continuity of the office in name’ (Part 2), a technicality that doesn’t sit well with Somax. His name, like Prime Minister Blair’s, he sees as a legacy of the person he has been and the humble roots from which he has emerged. This is undoubtedly why Blair asks to be ‘call[ed] [me] Tony’, in an effort to relate to the people of the nation. Somax, however, resents being referred to as one man when he has only ever wanted to be himself; he is concerned that the gods will be disgruntled about him ‘juggling with the high dignity of heralds… this taking on of “Idaeus” by such a plain low-born fellow’ (Part 2). As the journey sets off, it becomes very evident to Priam that the man Somax is far from the usual Idaeus and Priam observes him to be ‘like a child… a bit on the slow side’ (Part 3) and removes any of the expectation from him.
In an attempt to exercise this act of humility, Blair wears his Newcastle football jersey (with his name and the number 10) printed on it when he makes his speech in reaction to Diana’s death, ensuring that he is seen as relatable to the people and his delivery appears more heartfelt as it’s assumed if he is dressed casually then it is off-script and therefore, unrehearsed. Priam too acknowledges the power of dressing ‘just as I am’, stripped of all regalia when he completes the ransom and sees the power in becoming just ‘a man’ for the deed.

here are also some quotes from both texts
QUOTES from the Texts
ELIZABETH: Oh. I‟m not sure I like the sound of that [Blair letting everyone call him „Tony‟]. Have we sent
him a protocol sheet?
ELIZABETH: My great, great grandmother said of it – “In Balmoral all seems to breathe freedom and peace
and to make one forget the world and its sad turmoils.”
CHARLES: A more modern perspective [about the funeral].
TONY: Will somebody please save these people from themselves?
CHARLES: In a situation like this you have to be flexible.
ELIZABETH: But I can see the world has changed. And one must ‘modernise’.
„It seems to me that there might be another way of naming what we call fortune…or the whim of the gods.
Which offers a kind of opening. The opportunity to act for ourselves. To try something that might force events
onto a different course‟ (Priam, P57)
„Not the way things must be, but the way things have turned out. In a world that is only subject to chance.‟ (Iris
to Priam, P57)
„But what seems foolish is just sensible sometimes. The fact it has never been done, that it is novel, unthinkable
– except that I have thought of it – is just what makes me believe it should be attempted. It is possible because it
is not possible. And because it is simple. Why do we always think the simple thing is beneath us?‟ (Priam, P55)
„The chance to break free of the obligation of always being the hero… to take on the lighter bond of being
simply a man. Perhaps that is the real gift I have to bring him. Perhaps that is the ransom‟ (Priam, P56)
„But I am also a father. Mightn‟t it be time to expose myself at last to what is merely human? To learn a little of
what might be, and what it is to bear it as others do?‟ (Priam, P79)

also the insight comparisons guide by Melanie flower may be of help

Last Completed Projects