To be removed!

This time the blog entry could be about anything. So I decided to write about the fact that I am soon to be "removed"! That I could actually read in an e-mail this morning from a moving company agent. He will visit us and make an estimate how much it will cost to move our, my families, belongings back to our house in Sweden. It is not the issue as such that I got hooked up on but the choice of the word "removed". My first interpretation of it was in the sense "taken away". This sort of hit a soft spot because that is actually what it feels like for me at the moment. Our days here in Columbus are soon over and it feels sad because we have really come to enjoy life here.

My intention is not to complain about "moving back", which is the actual meaning of "remove" in this context. To go back to Sweden is what I want. But I have to admit it feels more difficult to leave than I originally thought. Back at home I will probably miss some of the people that I have met here, the rather uncomplicated everyday life, the warm weather and the smiles. Why do we in Sweden have to look so indifferent, or even grumpy, all the time?

Before we moved from Sweden, during a preparatory course, we were actually told that we should expect the repatriation more difficult than moving out. Now I think I am starting to understand that. To start with, now I leave a place I considered as home and I am not supposed to come back. Secondly I move to, or am "reinserted" in, a place where I am used to know how everything works but that is not the case anymore. You sort of expect it to be the same as when we left but surely people and how certain things are done have changed and we have changed too. Another thing that we were told to be prepared for was that when asked the question "-So, how has it been, living over there?" We have, on an average, twenty seconds to tell our story. After that the interest fades. So I have begun to think about that, but it is so hard to decide where to start..!

The Queen!

The most recent film I have seen in its entirity was "The Queen". The Queen in question is Elisabeth II of Great Britain. The film is a portrayal of Elisabeth during the time following the death of Princess Diana.

The Queen is pictured as mostly governed by old protocols stating how a sovereign of the United Kingdom should act and behave towards her, or his, subjects. When Diana, the former Princess of York, is killed in a car accident in Paris these old protocols are put to a test. And it turns out they are not really applicable in a modern Britain where the Royal family has lost most of its former glory but still remain very dear and important to its fellow countrymen. The behavior of the queen, and of the whole royal family, during this crisis does not meet the need or expectations of the British people. Instead it is the, at the time, newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair that rises as a leader. It is his influence that makes the Queen finally find a way to publicly approach the people and consolidate her position. If she had not been able to do that the whole monarchy in Britain had been in jeopardy. So it turns out rather awkwardly that it is a labor party prime minister that is the one saving the monarchy.

Since the film is not a documentary you cannot really know how much of the story that is made up. This I think is the big weakness of the film. You recognize the frame story, with the car crash of Princess Diana and remember the huge drifts of flowers in front of Buckingham Palace, but apart from that you do not know what is true and what is fiction. However Helen Mirren's portrayal of the Queen is done really delicately and that makes the story appear really genuine. Her skillful presentation rendered her an Oscar for "Best actress 2006".

I enjoyed the film and thought it was interesting, even though I am not a big fan of royalties or scandal chronicles. Somehow you got concerned with Elisabeth and felt sorry on her behalf because of her inability to adjust to a modern society and to allow her self to show some humanity.