The first thing that struck me about The Young Victoria was just how beautiful the whole film looks. The sunlit palaces, sweeping green lawns and, above all, the sumptuous costumes all work together to cast a spell – one I was delighted to fall under. The costumes are currently on display at Blenheim Palace – sadly, I don’t think I’m going to get a chance to see them before the event finishes at the end of the month, but I’m putting in a link to an article about the exhibition.
Emily Blunt as Victoria
I’d expected a lot from this film ever since I heard it was being made. It has a fine cast, headed by Emily Blunt in the title role, with other top names including Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent, Harriet Walter and Julian Glover. There’s also an interesting up-and-coming director, Jean Marc Vallée – and a top scriptwriter, Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for his script for Gosford Park. The name of Martin Scorsese as a producer was an added attraction, as if I needed one.
So did it live up to my expectations ? Yes – or almost. I don’t think it feels as heavyweight as Gosford Park, somehow, and suspect it won’t win as many awards, since it’s more of a conventional costume drama. But it’s still a delight to watch and one refreshing thing is that it isn’t too long. Watching some movie costume dramas can become a feat of endurance by the end, whereas, at just 100 minutes, this one left me still wanting more.
The chemistry between Emily Blunt as Victoria and Rupert Friend as Albert works well, with their delicate relationship, and its series of false starts, being portrayed convincingly. At the start, the film does feel slightly bitty, as the scene keeps cutting from one palace to another at bewildering speed, with the name of each royal residence flashing up on the screen . However, after a few minutes this settles down and there are fewer very short scenes, as the movie gets into its stride.
Vallée’s previous film, the quirky and strangely haunting French-Canadian indie movie, C.R.A.Z.Y. , set during the glam-rock era, was a coming of age tale about a young man struggling to break away from his family’s influence and build his own life. The setting of The Young Victoria, beginning in the stately rooms of Kensington Palace, couldn’t be more different – but there’s still a similarity of theme, since Victoria too has to separate herself from her oppressive family and make her own mark, deciding what sort of woman and ruler she wants to be.
The grand dinner which ends in an outburst
The opening of the film sees Victoria approaching her 18th birthday and fearing that the king will die before she reaches that milestone. That would mean the need for a Regency – with her mother, the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and the Duchess’ adviser/probable lover , Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) taking power. There are some shadowy scenes of Conroy, with the Duchess hovering slightly behind him, trying to bully Victoria into agreeing that they should rule on her behalf until she is at least 21 and preferably 25. On one occasion when she refuses, Conroy physically grabs hold of her and shoves her into a chair.
Although the couple are dead set on a Regency, the old and sick King William (Jim Broadbent) is fiercely against, and there’s an astonishing scene where he starts to berate the Duchess at a grand dinner, screaming and shouting at her while the other guests smile nervously, unsure how to react and trying to pretend everything is going smoothly. Broadbent is one of my favourite older actors – he’s so versatile and just seems to get better with every film.
Despite the beauty of the building and surrounding gardens, it is made clear that Victoria regards Kensington Palace as a prison. She is not allowed to do anything for herself, with her mother continually pleading that the reason for this is a fear for her security. The princess even has to share a room with her mother at night and must always hold somebody’s hand when she walks down the great staircase, in case an assassin has somehow found his way to the foot of the stairs.
Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt
One review which I’ve read scoffs at the amount of time spent arguing over whether Victoria should go down the stairs on her own or accompanied, suggesting that this is the central drama of the movie. However, I think this is unfair and that the film does have some moments of high drama, including an attempt to shoot both Victoria and Albert – I’ve read that would-be assassins shot at them three times in real life.
In any case, going back to walking down the stairs, I think this apparently minor matter comes to represent Victoria’s greater battles – to break free from the people and the rules of conduct trying to govern her every moment, and live her own life. Despite Victoria’s prissy image, Emily Blunt portrays her as a woman who is often amused, forthright, and also not at all timid around men . Watching the film, I suddenly realised that Victoria herself started out as a pre-Victorian.
The main focus of all the pre-publicity for the film and the trailers, posters etc, is on Victoria’s romance with Albert (Rupert Friend), and this is indeed at the heart of the movie. It’s shown to be all but an arranged marriage, as the overbearing King Leopold of Belgium (Thomas Kretschmann) orders Albert to go to the English court and win her over. However, Victoria only warms to Albert when he starts to ignore Leopold’s advice and tell her his views rather than just colourlessly repeating back her own opinions to her – for instance, telling her truthfully “I like Schubert, I think you don’t, but I do!”
I loved the delicacy of Friend’s portrayal of Albert – and was very impressed by his German accent. To me (I do speak German, but with a heavy English accent!) it sounded spot on and I liked the fact that at times he briefly spoke German to his screen brother and uncle, rather than them all speaking accented English to each other.
According to the Channel 4 TV documentary Queen Victoria’s Men, which I saw on the same day as this movie, Victoria and Albert’s relationship was volatile and passionate, and they often had screaming rows which they then made up in bed. The film does give a flavour of this volatility, but the main feeling of their relationship is tenderness and growing understanding of the pressures that the other is under.
The other important relationship for Victoria in the movie is with her first prime minister, Lord Melbourne, portrayed by Paul Bettany as a politician with a well-worn, slightly smarmy brand of charm which he is determined to use to influence the young Queen as much as possible, sometimes with disastrous results. Despite being a Whig, Melbourne isn’t keen on discussing the plight of the poor, looking uneasy whenever Victoria mentions them and trying to steer the conversation into a safer course. This is one of the things which, in the end, makes her turn more to Albert for support – the fact that he shares her desire for reform and will work with her rather than trying to take over.
All in all, I’d definitely recommend this film to anyone who enjoys watching beautifully produced historical dramas. I hope that countries outside the UK don’t have to wait too long for it to be released.
Dear Judy,
Isn’t it a bit dismaying for us (meaning people our age) to see once young and handsome (or beautiful) actors now portraying the father and mother types :). Isabel still has a crush on Bettany. I’d enjoy seeing this one as I think Emily Blunt an interesting capable actress. A stellar cast with Jim Broadbent.
I shall send separately an image I found on the Net which may add to your thoughts about this one: John Martin’s 1839 _Coronation of Queen Victoria_. I’d be interested to know if the film-makers used it and if the attitudes suggested there (Victoria as numinous presence) were at all found in the film or Victoria’s men.
Ah, I’d rather you didn’t apologize in any way when you don’t post on any lists of mine.
Ellen
Dear Ellen, I was also surprised and a little dismayed to see Paul Bettany playing a slightly older character – but, looking him up on the imdb, I see he is still only 37, which I’m sure you’ll agree is still young!;) He seems to be playing Melbourne as several years older than that in this film (I’m not sure what his actual age was at the time), but is still very handsome.
Thank you for the beautiful John Martin picture of Victoria’s coronation which you sent me “off-blog” – for anyone else who reads this and is interested to see it, here’s a link to see it online:
http://tinyurl.com/cqj3b3
The scenes of the coronation were striking to watch, reminiscent of a marriage ceremony, but I didn’t get any feeling of Victoria as numinous/mysterious – she is portrayed as very human and fallible in both the film and the documentary.
Judy
Another comment: I just saw Emily Blunt and Amy Adams in a movie scripted, directed and produced by women: _Sunshine Cleaning_, a sort of indirect sequel to _Little Miss Sunshine_. In its indeterminacy, cyclical effect, and presentation of women at its center (two sisters who are striving to survive, one of whom it’s implicitly quietly suggested is lesbian), it reminded me of _Lovely and Amazing_ by Nicole H(I can’t spell the rest of the name). But I am commenting on Blunt: she is a remarkable presence. She stole _Jane Austen Book Club_ and was a charismatic as well as complex moving presence in _SC_. I will write about it on WWTTA so as to include Fran.
Ellen
Thank you for this, Ellen – it sounds like the sort of film I’d be interested to see if I get the chance. I have seen ‘Lovely and Amazing’ but must admit I don’t remember much of it. I do agree that Emily Blunt is a compelling actress to watch – she was also excellent in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’, though that wasn’t really my kind of thing, and in a Stephen Poliakoff TV film, ‘Gideon’s Daughter’, although that wasn’t either! (I usually like Stephen Poliakoff but was disappointed with that particular film, as it paints a picture of the 1980s which I didn’t recognise – but I liked Blunt’s performance.)
I adored the camerawork of this movie, but was a bit stymied at the way it focused on the romance to the detriment of the politics (oddly, since I’m a hopeless romantic). I’m a huge Robert Peel fan, so was glad he got a decent portrayal (and a great actor, Michael Maloney), but wished there was more time to develop how he was different than Melbourne.
The most moving scene, for me, was actually the coronation – I just wish there had been more about how Victoria actually reigned. I’m all for monarchs in love, but aren’t they also supposed to, you know, do some monarching?
But Emily Blunt was fabulous in the film (I do very much enjoy her work, and hope she gets more to do soon), and Friend was much, much better than his terrible turn as Wickham (mostly the script’s fault).
Good point – I hadn’t worried about this too much, but I think you’re right that there isn’t all that much actual politics. I must admit my memories of this production are fading a bit now, but I’m glad to hear you liked Blunt and Friend. I also just loved Broadbent – but then I always do.
I realize that all these notes were done years ago, but having read them, I felt I had to reply anyway. The odds of anyone actually seeing the reply is remote, but even remote is better than not replying.
After seeing the movie, I started to read…and to date, have now read 22 books on Albert and Victoria. So I have a few answers to some of the implicit questions.
No, Sir John Conroy was not the Duchess of Kent’s lover. There is little evidence that the relationship was anything other than a charismatic man’s hold over an impressionable female. He was married, and had a number of children by his wife, who was received by the Duchess. The children “played” with Victoria, in particular the two daughters (one who was also name Victorie). Sir John was not a saint, by any means, and charmed money by the bag loads from Princess Sophia (George III’s daughter) who also lived at Kensington Palace, likely did a pretty shabby job of keeping up with the Duchess’s bills, but other than some petty court gossip put around by Charles Grenville, there has never been any insinuation of sexual improprieties.
Next, there were actually nine attempts on Victoria’s life, five of which happened while Albert was alive. He was never injured in any of them, although he did move to block one attempt. However, the assassin’s gun misfired due to being filled with black powder and tobacco. The ‘assassination’ scene is probably an dramatic metaphor used to i,capsulate those attempts. It is said that the only thing that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, said about the movie that was negative was that that scene was inaccurate.
Bettany is approximately 25 years younger than Lord Melbourne was at the time of Victoria’s assension to the throne. Melbourne at the time was nearly 60. Bettany, while a fine actor, and who definitely played Melbourne as older, is much younger. To place Melbourne in context, was actually William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, and was married to Caroline Lamb, best known, perhaps, as the lover of Lord Byron, and who first was elected to office in 1809. He was Prime Minister to William IV, Victoria’s uncle, and then to Queen Victoria.
Although much has been made of Albert being trained to become consort to Victoria, in truth, his uncle (and Victoria’s) Leopold, actually wanted him to marry a wealthy Hungarian heiress. He WAS raised to marry well — that’s what you did if you were a younger son, especially the younger son of the ruler of the smallest Germany state. At the time, another German consort (Leopold, who at the time of Victoria’s assent to the throne was King of Belgium, had been married to Princess Charlotte, George IV’s daughter) was very unpopular. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, Leopold would have been Prince Consort, not Albert. The movie misrepresents a lot of things — including the fact that actually, Victoria proposed to him on their second meeting, and that he was not present at her Coronation. However, one thing that is represented, and very true, is that they were both in love. After she proposed, and he went back to Saxe-Coberg to pack up and move to England, he wrote love songs for her. He was an accomplished musician, a fact that wasn’t brought into the movie hardly at all, and played both piano and organ, and composed for both instruments. Some of his pieces are still played.
Perhaps the political part was missed, after all, it was only about half the movie. The whole interaction with Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel, the push-pull of Whigs and Tories, the fact that Albert actually became quite good friends with Peel but disliked Melbourne intensely, the fact that one of the two crises in Victoria’s first two years as monarch had to do with her interference with the Tory government causing it to fail, seems to have been lost.
But one thing stands out of the movie, and that both of the writers above got was that this was a love story, first and foremost. Albert and Victoria were complements, and so worked together amazingly well, even though they DID have some humdinger fights. But then, what couple doesn’t?
Fascinating research – thanks for commenting despite the age – those of us who subscribed to the comments are grateful (well, maybe it’s just me) :-)
‘Young Victoria’ is one of the most superb films I’ve ever seen! The screenplay is intelligent, with a grand hold on the History. Miss Blunt was sublime as the precocious young Queen. I can tell that it was done with great love and respect for details! I want to see it again! and again! and again! Chany Catala