The Young Victoria

Apart from having the longest reign in British history (63 years), Queen Victoria also holds two other distinctions. She was, apart from our current Queen, the oldest ever British monarch, living to the age of 81. And she was also the youngest ever British (as opposed to English or Scottish) monarch, coming to the throne as a girl of eighteen. And yet whenever television or the cinema make a programme or film about her, they seem far more interested in the older Victoria than they do in the young girl; the version of Victoria with which modern audiences will probably be most familiar is Judi Dench in "Mrs Brown". "The Young Victoria" tries to redress the balance by showing us the events surrounding her accession and the early years of her reign. It has the rare distinction of being produced by a former Royal, Sarah Duchess of York, whose daughter Princess Beatrice makes a brief appearance as an extra.

There are three main strands to the plot. The first concerns the intrigues of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, a highly unpopular figure even with her own daughter, largely because of the influence of her adviser Sir John Conroy, who was widely rumoured to be her lover. (According to one unfounded rumour he, and not the late Duke of Kent, was Victoria's natural father). The second strand concerns the growing romance between Victoria and her German cousin Prince Albert, and the attempts of King Leopold of Belgium, who was uncle to both of them, to influence this romance. (Leopold's hope was to increase the prestige of the House of Saxe-Coburg, to which both he and Albert belonged). The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.

Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party. Their leader Robert Peel is shown as statesmanlike and dignified, whereas Melbourne, for all his dash and charm, is shown as devious and uninterested in social reform. There may be some truth is these characterisations, but Fellowes glosses over the fact that only a few years earlier the Tories had opposed the Reform Act, which ended the corrupt electoral system of rotten boroughs, and that they had benefited from William IV's unconstitutional dismissal of a Whig administration.

Lessons in dynastic and constitutional history do not always transfer well to the cinema screen, and this one contains its share of inaccuracies. Prince Albert, for example, was not injured in Edward Oxford's attempt on Victoria's life, and Melbourne (in his late fifties at the time of Victoria's accession) was not as youthful as he is portrayed here by Paul Bettany. King William IV certainly disliked the Duchess of Kent (who was his sister-in-law), but I doubt if he would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at her during a state banquet, as he is shown doing here. I also failed to understand the significance of the scene in which the Duchess and Conroy try to force Victoria to sign a "Regency Order"; the Duchess's constitutional position was made clear by the Regency Act 1830, which provided that she would become Regent if her daughter was still under eighteen at the time of her accession. No piece of paper signed by Victoria could have altered the provisions of the Act.

There are also occasional infelicities. In one early scene we see Victoria and Albert playing chess while comparing themselves to pawns being moved around a chessboard, a metaphor so hackneyed that the whole scene should have come complete with a "Danger! Major cliché ahead!" warning. Yet in spite of scenes like this, I came to enjoy the film. There were some good performances, especially from Miranda Richardson as the scheming Duchess and Mark Strong as the obnoxious Conroy. It is visually very attractive, being shot in sumptuous style we have come to associate with British historical drama. Jim Broadbent gives an amusing turn as King William, although he does occasionally succumb to the temptation of going over the top. (Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in "Moulin Rouge").

The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert. Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman. Her love for Albert, and their happy family life together, was one of the main reasons why the monarchy succeeded in reestablishing itself in the affections of the British people. (With the exception of George III, Victoria's Hanoverian ancestors had been notoriously lacking in the matrimonial virtues). Blunt and Friend make "The Young Victoria" a touching romance and a gripping human drama as well as an exploration of a key period in British history. 8/10

Greetings again from the darkness. Emily Blunt would have stolen The Devil Wears Prada if not for the queen of screen, Meryl Streep. Here she competes with no one and does a nice job of carrying the film based on the early years of Queen Victoria. If you are rusty on your British sovereign history, she ruled from 1837-1901.

For 20 of these years, she was married to her true love, Prince Albert (played well by Rupert Friend). While the two meet as youngsters, the bond between them comes from their letters ... an early precursor to eHarmony?? We know Victoria mostly from royal portraits, so it's nice to see her as a rebellious youngster trying to learn the tricks of the trade, even while being manipulated like a pawn by her mother (Miranda Richardson) and her lover (Mark Strong). We get to see her tenacity blossom as she matures and literally grows into the monarchy.

While Ms. Blunt's performance is strong, Julian Fellowes' writing is not at the level of his previous work in Gosford Park. We do get some of the same power plays, but it is missing the nuances of that much better film.

Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.

Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown.

I don't think the film really sets itself apart from other period-bio films from its ilk. It has the usual sort of sentimentality. But, that doesn't mean it's not a good film. Rupert Friend is his usual pretty self, very hot, but he does bring a lot to his role. He can usually be very stoic and emotionless while being just decorated as pretty, but can often not bring much to the table. Here, he absolutely does. He's able to paint the shades of his character well, even if another more talented actor could've brought even more to it. But really, the film belongs to Emily Blunt, a severely underrated actress who brings so much to her roles, and in a leading role, she can knock it out of the park like she does here. She's incredible, definitely snubbed of an Oscar nomination.