This historical drama about the young
I like to
watch historical dramas. Often the past comes alive in fascinating ways. This movie
is no exception. It is, in many ways, a good drama. Several important points
are presented in a very convincing way:
(a) The
conflict between the young Victoria on one side and her mother, the Duchess of
Kent, and her “friend” John Conroy on the other side.
(b) The
conflict between King William IV and the Duchess of Kent.
(c) The
conflict between two prominent politicians of the day, the Whig Lord Melbourne
and the Tory Sir Robert Peel.
(d) The alliance between Victoria and Lord Melbourne.
When I
watch this movie, I enjoy it. But it is not a good movie in every way. There
are several historical inaccuracies. Some of them are minor flaws (#
1-3 below), while others are major flaws (# 4-6 below).
The actors
cannot be blamed for this. They have to follow the script and do what they are
told. The responsibility lies with the writer and with the producers who
allowed the historical inaccuracies to remain in there. Here are the six cases:
(1) In the
movie we hear (and see) several references to “Germany .” When Victoria was young, there were several
German states, but there was no country with the name Germany . This country was not proclaimed
until 1871.
(2) In the
movie Lord Melbourne and Victoria meet at Windsor Castle on the occasion of King William
IV’s birthday. Victoria is not yet queen, and not yet 20 years old.
The actor who plays Lord Melbourne appears to be slightly older than her, around
30 years old. In the real world Lord Melbourne was forty years older than Victoria , because he was born in 1779.
(3) In the
movie the name of this politician is constantly mispronounced. He is called
MELBURN, which is wrong. It should be MELBORN. Why did nobody check the pronunciation of his name? Why
did nobody tell the producers or the actors to get it right?
(4) During
the birthday celebration at Windsor Castle King William IV made a speech during
which he accused the Duchess of Kent of trying to keep her daughter away from
him. In the film the Duchess is seated away from him, she gets up and leaves
the room in protest over this insult. But the other guests do not really react
to this. In the real world the Duchess was seated next to the king, and she did
not leave the room. But Victoria cried, and the other guests were shocked
by the incident.
(5) John
Conroy was a bully who tried to control Victoria , hoping to use her position for his
own benefit. She hated him for doing this, and she hated her mother for letting
him do this without protesting. As soon as she was proclaimed queen, she
banished him from the court. But in the film it does not happen like this. Victoria wants to dismiss Conroy, but she
allows him to stay out of respect for her mother. So Conroy pops up from time
to time. In the film he is not dismissed until after Victoria ’s marriage to Albert, and Albert is
the one who finally kicks him out.
I do not
understand this change from fact to fiction. I think the producers want to
present Victoria as an independent person (which she was in
many ways). But here they seem to say that she was unable to get rid of Conroy
- her husband had to do it for her.
(6) In June
1840, while Victoria and Albert were driving through London in an open carriage, there was an
assassination attempt on them. A man called Edward Oxford tried to shoot them.
In the film Albert is hit, while protecting his wife. He takes a bullet for
her. He is rushed back to the palace, bleeding. Fortunately, he recovers. Later
we see him walking around with one arm in a sling.
This is not
true at all. The would-be assassin missed. Neither Victoria nor Albert was hit.
Of all the alterations presented here, this is the worst, because it is a
deliberate falsification of history. I am sure Albert was ready to take a
bullet for his wife, but he never did, so why pretend that he did?
Some people
may ask me:
“Why do you have to complain about these historical details? Why
can’t you just enjoy the movie?”
Here is my
response:
I
understand that there may be a situation where the producers have to use some
kind of fiction, but the alterations presented here do not fall into this
category. The alterations presented here are not necessary, they are not
justified. Why do the producers try to rewrite and “improve” history, when the
true story would be just fine, perhaps even better, and it has the advantage of
being true?
I want to
recommend this movie, but as you can see, I have some reservations, and therefore I can only give
it four out of five stars.
The Young Victoria,
Released on a DVD in 2009,
Total running time: 105 minutes
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment