I have been gathering some reviews from news sources outside the UK as they are incredibly biased. Same for the New York Post.
A lot is behind a paywill unfortunately. I’d love to read the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline: Meghan Markle is ultimate disruptor and her husband is a bit scared of her.
Same for the Wall Street Journal calling it a ‘royal pity party’.
And it’s not a review, but it did make me giggle:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/satire-dear-diary-meghan-markle
New York Times: ‘Harry & Meghan’ has all the intimacy of Instagram
Pro: The personal pictures. They speak the language of influence, for the era of influencers.
Con: Awfully long and tiresome.
“It is not so much of a bombshell directed at Buckingham Palace as an image-making exercise for the endless scroll.”
Extra: “In the third episode, Meghan reveals that she chose to wear only neutral colors such as beige, cream and black during her time in the royal family so that she would “blend in,” and because no one was allowed to wear the same color as the queen or another senior royal in a public setting. The implication being now that she and Harry had left “the firm,” she was free to express her true self in whatever bright plumage she desired — except judging by her film choices, that apparently means more neutrals. Which undermines the suggestion of sacrifice attached to her royal wardrobe, while underscoring her sensitivity to presentation and its various interpretations.”
Chicago Tribune: Harry & Meghan: In Part I, the couple addresses racism and the press – but so far steer clear of royal family digs
2.5 out of 4
Pro: The intention (people make money with books etc. telling their story, why wouldn’t they do the same). H&M come across as personable, friendly, glamorous and approachable. It shows what Meghan got put on her shoulders for being black/biracial (black people felt seen, she was making history). Doria Ragland is a good addition as we have never heard from her before.
Con: It’s padded and needed a better editor. The series doesn’t solve the dilemma choosing between the two subjects: H&M’s story and the bigger picture how this system works / came to be. Garbus let others do the heavy lifting (like with the Blackmoor brooch, H&M don’t speak about it, same with some topics by the experts). What is missing is Meghan’s view on Diana, she was 16 when Diana died and how that related to her when she got married to Harry.
Extra: They are public figures and their work should be judged and analyzed, but as people are either for or against them, it’s not a path for healthy media analysis.
Variety: Netflix’s ‘Harry & Meghan’ rehashes the royal family drama, one more time
Pro: The niece, cannily deployed to defuse criticism from the Markle family.
Sympathy for their situation: H&M seem forced into rehashing their drama as part of their Netflix deal. Even after breaking from Buckingham Palace, they are still someone’s subjects.
Con: Same old story (Quotes below). They used to be bound by strict royal codes, now they are still bound, but by their own self imposed codes. He’s Charles’ son too.
“The Sussexes surprise us yet again, with just how narrow their vision of their fame is, how pinched and unimaginative their presence on the world stage has become. They may have shed their responsibilities to the crown, but they’re still in a kind of service: There’s an air of duty about the entire enterprise of “Harry & Meghan,” as if they’re honor-bound to keep reciting their personal story until we eventually lose interest.
At the top of the series, Meghan asks the camera, “Doesn’t it make more sense to hear our story from us?” The unstated answer comes to be, Well, sure, but maybe filtered through the sensibility of a journalist or presenter willing to push past the familiar. As with the most recent, painfully dull season of “The Crown,” there seems a sort of narrative stuckness, an inability or lack of desire to find the next thing to say that we haven’t yet heard.”
Extra: Below quote is intriguing. It says H&M strive to do good, but the article only gives examples of Harry’s charity work.
“Harry and Meghan are people who strive to do good: Harry’s work with veterans, for instance, is admirable, and we see it onscreen as the one time he’s truly at ease.”
Hollywood Reporter: Harry & Meghan Review: Netflix docuseries takes a lot of time to reveal very little
Pro: The personal stories, pictures, Archie are all cute. It’s lovely they can speak up now.
Con: It offers very little new things (especially when someone says never been able to tell their story, you expect some things we didn’t know yet). The anecdote of Harry being late to their first date.
NBC: The Biggest Problem with Harry & Meghan’s new Netflix series
Pro: Doria Ragland and Harry talking about the nazi-costume incident.
Con: Meghan wants to tell her story, and then tells nothing new. The series is underwhelming after all the revelations in the Oprah interview.
CNN: Why ‘Harry & Meghan’ is a royal disappointment
Pro:
Con: It’s not the full truth, it’s to drum up sympathy for themselves. “It’s self-promotional, self-aggrandizing and, frankly, a little boring.”
Extra: “Indeed, when asked why she wanted to make this documentary, Meghan answers, “When you feel like people haven’t gotten any sense of who you are for so long, it’s really nice to just be able to have the opportunity to let people have a bit more of a glimpse into what’s happened and also who we are.”
But who’s to say that people haven’t gotten a glimpse of who they are? What makes their version — a heavily produced, edited and controlled version — more honest than any version of their lives that’s come before? It’s striking how much the filtered version of events functions in the series as their version of real life.
Harry and Meghan’s fatal flaw — both the couple’s and the film’s — is in thinking they can control how others see them. None of us can. And that the couple keeps trying, despite also asking to be left alone, reflects a naive outlook and disingenuous attitude that viewers will pick up on, especially against the fact that the documentary strives to portray them as “more grounded” than the rest of the royal family. In reality, they may be the most out of touch of them all.”
Toronto Star: The Harry and Meghan doc wasn’t shocking – and that’s a good thing:
Pro: “The only thing ominous was the dramatic piano music soundtrack.” (Let’s put this in ‘pro’). Sweet details about their relationship. Doria Ragland. No mudslinging to the royals but to the press.
Con: By talking about Kate he puts words in her mouth and draws conclusions. There is better stuff to be angry about.
Too much we have heard before.
NOS (Dutch national news): Harry and Meghan overplay their hand with ‘therapy sessions’
Pro: Harry has a point in his opinions about the media. It’s aimed at a US audience and for them this is a good series.
Con: Vanity project. Meghan is not believable when saying she has no idea what she has gotten herself into / not googling Harry. Everything is portrayed from their position as a victim.
Telegraaf (Dutch most popular newspaper): Documentary Harry and Meghan is entertaining, but it’s too much a repeat
Pro: Adorable lovestory. The niece. It is clear how the treatment of the media influenced their decision.
Con: Repeat of their story of the last few years / nothing new. No critical notes about the couple (but that’s their right as it’s their story)
Extra: Unintentionally, Harry makes a good argument for the mediacode the Dutch press has with the Dutch royal family.
Die Welt (German newspaper): Harry plays the game he detests so much
Pro: It's understandable why Harry wants to tell his story, given his history.
Con: Why is Harry feeding the press without hesitation, and destroying his relationship with his father, his brother and the UK public at the same time.
The couple just can't let it go.
