The Sussexes apparently hired a ‘left-leaning’ director for their docu-series

The Duchess of Sussex’s podcast Archetypes will launch at some point, probably very soon. My hope is that this fall, we’ll not only get Prince Harry’s memoir, but the Sussexes’ Netflix docu-series, which they’ve been filming on-and-off for the past year. We knew when they visited New York last year that they had a camera crew traveling with them. We also know that the docu-series will probably mostly be about their work, and the work of Archewell. The British media has been panicking about all of it for months now. So take this Page Six story as simply fodder for more meltdowns and nothing more. Page Six says that Harry and Meghan have hired a “left-leaning director” for their docu-series.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have hired Oscar-nominated, left-leaning director Liz Garbus to helm their Netflix docu-series, Page Six can reveal. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have teamed up with Garbus for the show, which — as we exclusively reported — they have been working on for more than a year as part of their multi-million dollar deal with the streamer.

Garbus was seen in the background with the couple last September during their trip to NYC with a small camera crew who hid their equipment in an apparent bid to keep the top-secret project under wraps. The Sussexes’ three-day New York excursion included a stay at a luxury apartment at United Nations Plaza owned by power player lawyer Barry Bloom. The cameras followed them to a red carpet gala honoring veterans aboard the USS Intrepid in Manhattan, and at a lunch at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.

Garbus was seen with colleagues smuggling camera equipment under coats and bags out of the UN digs while setting up and filming the Sussexes. Her film crew was also spotted with the couple in an Airstream van on their way to the veterans’ gala. Garbus is openly political; her Instagram account urges for abortion rights in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and calls Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams a “brilliant” leader.

The royal family is generally expected to be apolitical, but since Harry and Meghan split from the royals and moved to the US, they seem keen to align themselves with progressive issues, especially in fighting climate change. During the 2020 presidential election, Meghan also worked with noted feminist Gloria Steinem to cold-call voters, encouraging them to head to the polls.

Garbus has built her career as a documentarian and filmmaker tackling true crime, voter suppression and the justice system, and also helmed the last season of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which earned her an Emmy nomination in 2021.

[From Page Six]

“Garbus is openly political” and then they cite her pro-choice statements and her support of a Democratic gubernatorial candidate. OMG, Garbus isn’t even hiding the fact that she’s a woman who supports women, how political! Weirdly, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are never held to that standard. Probably because all of their associates are Tories, and their political meetings are with other Tories. Anyway, I think Garbus probably is the director of the series and I hope she’s gotten a lot of footage. I’m dying to see more of the Montecito mansion. I want to see how Archewell operates too, and how their team interacts and all of that.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

38 Responses to “The Sussexes apparently hired a ‘left-leaning’ director for their docu-series”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Flowerlake says:

    I would too 😀

  2. Snuffles says:

    I’m looking forward to EVERYTHING!! I need the release date of Archetypes. I’m sure she will have some blockbuster guests and fascinating conversations. I’ve got my fingers crossed for Cardi B.

  3. HeatherC says:

    I hope this is true. I love Garbus’s work, my favorite docs from her being What Happened Miss Simone? There’s Something Wrong with Aunt Diane and Killing In the Name. So if this is then I am looking forward even more to their series.

    • Christine says:

      Her work is “down the rabbit hole”, for me. Once I start with one, I just keep rolling through them all, fair warning, there are so many good ones. I am thrilled with Harry and Meghan’s choice, this is going to be so good.

  4. equality says:

    The palaces have hired people who were former government workers. Is that being political also? Is it valid to not hire somebody based on their political beliefs? Hasn’t Boris Johnson been making statements about the over-turn of Roe v Wade? Somebody needs to send a memo that H&M can express their own opinions, as can their employees.

  5. MsIam says:

    Oscar and Emmy nominated director huh? Funny how the “unpopular nobodies” can get these top tier people to want to work with them.

  6. Lizzie Bathory says:

    My guess is anyone more liberal than Leni Riefenstahl would be too “left-leaning” for a Murdoch outlet.

  7. MrsH says:

    Jordan rules again. (Special rules for different people)

    “…they seem keen to align themselves with progressive issues, especially in fighting climate change”

    Earth shot prize anyone…anyone

    I can’t with the MSM anymore

  8. Jais says:

    Considering how much attention Meghan and Harry get for just a 5 min drive to Oprah’s, I have a feeling this docu-series will do well.

  9. Becks1 says:

    I “like” how they talk about the royal family being apolitical and then, as an example of how political H&M are, mention they’re fighting climate change. Ummmm…..what about Charles or William? If climate change is so political, then what are they?

    Anyway I’m excited for Archetypes, I think it will be really good. And I am sure the docuseries will be excellent as well.

    • kirk says:

      Huh? I thought the story line related to H-M being political was how their actions have now opened it up for the working royals Willy and Catty to be as political as they want. At least I think that was what Tom Sykes was proposing.

  10. Lilpeppa40 says:

    Which cameras were “hidden” and “smuggled”? Pretty sure we all saw the cameras out in the open and no one can just walk into the UN with cameras without consent or make shows with people without their consent in this context. It’s just another way the language is so loaded and deliberately chosen when it comes to H&M. Someone pointed it out on Twitter re the reporting around the bags of cash Charles got and how simple statements of fact were made without negative slant but that has never ever been the case for Meghan especially. It’s so grossly exhausting.

    • Christine says:

      Their mic packs were obvious, when they were filming. They were trying to fool exactly zero people.

      • Siobhan says:

        I wouldn’t say that the mic pacs were super obvious. It did seem they were trying to hide most of them under unseasonably warm clothing and coats etc. I’m sure that anyone that was filmed knew there would be cameras there and gave consent, but it probably is true that they were somewhat trying to hide mic packs to keep the project somewhat under wraps until Netflix announced it – and also so that the mic packs weren’t distracting in their outfits etc.

      • Christine says:

        I am someone who only saw photos, and I was aware of the mic packs, and I am an accountant.

        I am also someone who never knows when anyone talks about Kitty’s wiglets, except for that one pic when even I couldn’t miss it.

    • Debbie says:

      @Lilpeppa40: That sort of language ALWAYS jumps out at me too. It’s so obviously biased. Not to mention the fact that the writer feels the need to point out that H & M stayed in a “luxury” hotel while in New York. They’re rich, they can afford it, where did you expect them to stay, in a hovel?

      • Lilpeppa40 says:

        @siobhan but I think most ppl filming try to cover up the Mic packs and the cameras (which are the bigger give away) were not hidden nor were they trying to hide them. I personally don’t give much credence to the “unseasonably warm clothes” because Harry was in a regular suit if memory serves and maybe Meghan runs cold and many ppl at the time mentioned how NY temperatures vary from summer to winter in one day during that time of year (I think it was fall and I’m not fussed enough to go back and check lol). All that aside tho, it’s just the nefarious slant to the articles that’s bothersome.

    • Siobhan Greiner says:

      It was late summer in September I

      in NYC, usually in the 70s, sometimes could be in the 60s or 80s (I live in the area) – in this case I think it ended up being in the high 70s through mid 80s and very humid when they were there so certainly Meghan’s clothes ended up being unseasonable although I get that she picked them in advance not knowing the weather – but even if the weather was in the 60s she was wearing heavy coats that seeked to be more suited for late fall or winter so it did seem like maybe hiding the mic packs to keep the project undet wraps might have been a priority. Agree that the cameras didn’t seem hidden at the UN – they were several people behind but I think obvious from the angles of pics we’ve seen. I actually can’t recall where else cameras were seen on their trip. Were cameras obvious on other portions of their trip? I know that Harry had some audio wires that seemed to became accidentally visible at one other point of his trip but can’t recall if the camera was in view at any other point of the NYC trip. Anyway, I kind of assumed that they may have been trying to keep the project under wraps until it was announced for whatever reason, but always assumed that anyone who was being filmed woukd have known and they would have permission for it of course.

  11. tamsin says:

    Looking forward to seeing the Invictus documentary. My guess is that it will be released prior to Dusseldorf and be a part of the promotion.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    I suppose this piece is supposed to spark outrage in the haters. At least it dispels the narrative that Harry and Meghan don’t work.

  13. Jaded says:

    If the BRF is supposed to be *apolitical* then what was William doing sneaking into a meeting with Gordon Brown? Page Six is nothing but Murdoch sanctioned muck.

  14. YeahRight says:

    They were so trying to hide that they had a man with a camera raised above his head following them everywhere. *sarcasm* SMH
    I’ve seen her work on the Nina Simone documentary and I’m impressed I’m excited to see what she does with their documentary.

  15. ChillinginDC says:

    I still don’t want to see their house or the kids. Sorry. And based on what Harry/Meghan have done so far that’s not happening. A documentary on the what Archewell has been doing and plans for future, go for it.

    • Jane says:

      I would think if we see any of their house it’ll be rooms we’ve already seen that they seem to be using for work, as opposed to their or the kids’ bedrooms or any of the fourteen bathrooms (*eyeroll*), for example.

  16. CC says:

    But Clint Eastwood was so excited to be involved!

  17. MikeB says:

    I am sure M&H are pleased that Page Six is planning what they are producing and who they are employing. Remember if it doesn’t come from their representatives then one should question its validity.

  18. Isabella says:

    Mics are made to go under clothes. This isn’t a big deal. We see reporters and newscasters doing this all the time, threading the mics under their clothes.

  19. Merrymakers06 says:

    I like this hire, and really look forward to the docuseries. Still for the life of me I don’t get their publicity roll out of projects. They are kind of weird and secretive about stuff which they should be excited about. Liz Garbus is an accomplished director, and gives them credibility in this arena. Yet this project isn’t on her IMBD page, and apparently she’s been working on it for months. In fact the publicity looks like she was just hired but she was shooting with them in New York last year. It’s just weird. And yes their PR is better than the British Royal Family. But the BRF is a train wreck in the PR game. Yeah! they are better not much of an accomplishment. I just hope once they get rolling they get over their British Royal media PR hangover and hype their projects a bit better. They did a better job of hyping the most likely never to be seen Pearl, which is oddly on Meghan Markle’s IMBD page.

    Now as far as Page 6 and the NY Post is as all New Yorkers know an exaggerated camp gossip writing style. No respectable NY person, their main reader, takes them seriously, and they’ve been like this before Rupert and company. This was mild for them. No one takes them too seriously with their crazy creative headlines only the Sportsline is the best in the NY post and maybe the only serious part of the tabloid.

    • kirk says:

      IMBD is an online database with proprietary content license related to films, TV, videos, video games and online streaming content that was begun by Col Needham. After its acquisition by Amazon, Needham continued as manager. Just because someone has created content that winds up in IMDB doesn’t mean they have any control over its inclusion, exclusion or presentation.

  20. goofpuff says:

    This makes me even more excited to watch this.

  21. BeanieBean says:

    I object to the use of the term, ‘smuggling’. They didn’t smuggle cameras into the UN, I’m sure they were fully permitted to film. And we see in one of the accompanying photos the camera operator at the back; he’s not trying to hide what he’s doing. That’s not ‘smuggling’.

  22. Petra (Brazen Hussy Uppity Phenomenal Woman) says:

    If this is true, kudos to Archewell productions for hiring a highly qualify person to helm this docu-series.
    Why Is page six pretending mic’s are never suppose to be under clothes? Are page six readers as dumb as the DM’s? Page six knows about the so-called hidden cameras because the cameras were not hidden…we all saw the filming crew.

  23. Shawna says:

    This sound great! I might have to renew the Netflix subscription I canceled four months ago…

  24. Well Wisher says:

    Just had a look at director’s CV. It is impressive, this reminds me of the description of the BBC journalist who was responsible for the Princes and the Press.
    A fine piece of work by Mr. Amol Rajan.
    Looking forward to this, I loved her doc about Ms. Simone.

    • Christine says:

      Don’t watch ‘There’s Something Wrong with Aunt Diane’, if you ever want to get in a car you aren’t driving again.

  25. Catherine says:

    This story doesn’t add up. Liz Garbus was hired last year to work on Pearl. There were several articles about that. That was an active project until recently. Isn’t it more likely that David Furnish and Meghan took the Pearl project to another distributor and Liz is back working with that. If they were working on a docuseries since last year wouldn’t they have already had a director. And if this docuseries was actually being worked on then all the stories about Netflix being concerned/upset about the Sussexes not producing don’t make sense. The only “evidence” the post keeps citing is that they were filmed in Nov. 2021 in New York. That’s it. And I don’t see Liz in any of those NY photos even though they are claiming she was visible. It’s odd to me that they claim to have knowledge of this docuseries but don’t have any info about the Invictus doc which is being released this year. Nor do they seem to have any knowledge of the doc on inspirational individuals that Harry working on that involved that Ukrainian medic who was captured by the Russians. I absolutely believe the Sussexes are documenting their work. They should. I’m still not convinced any doc is coming out. At least not anytime soon. I notice that the Post has not repeated their earlier claim that Netflix had already been filming in their house. Personally, I think they are taking 2 and 2 and getting 10. The Jubbly didn’t impact the way the tabloids wanted. They thought the Sussexes would be diminished. They weren’t. They spent the last three weeks trying to spin that they were. That narrative isn’t working. So the last few days they gone back to old narratives. Obsessing about Netflix. Talking about the Oprah interview and the possibility of another one. Claiming Harry is actually unhappy. Etc.

    • Well Wisher says:

      Food for thought. It is all about the source.
      Thank you.
      The obsession is about Harry’s financial independence and Murdoch’s sense of entitlement.
      He wants to destroy the Royal family, but in the meanwhile, he wants to own their individual agency.
      In this case, it is about Harry’s being the most interesting, hence lucrative.
      Also, with financial independence Harry can and has refused to settle the lawsuit, so far.
      Going to trial will expose defunct ‘ ‘News of the World’ and tabloid sun’s amoral news gathering/creating practices.