History isn’t just about bodice-ripping, you know

7 March 2009

Kate Williams, author of a book on the young Victoria, welcomes the new film on the early life of the queen, but says historical cinema should portray politics as well as romance

‘Utterly gorgeous’, declares the advertising for the new film The Young Victoria. Queen Victoria ruled a quarter of the world’s souls, and saw the world change immeasurably during her 64-year reign. As a biographer of Victoria’s young life, I relished the film’s investigation of the power struggles of her marriage with Albert and her battle for self-determination. But the review quoted might refer to a dress, not a film about the life of our longest-reigning monarch.

We are obsessed with the minutiae of modern politics, speculating endlessly on who said what at Granita, and relishing the replay of the fall of the Iron Lady in Margaret on BBC2. And yet when it comes to history, producers tend to emphasise romance, seemingly concerned that audiences have little interest in the political struggles and in-fighting of the past.

In 2008, The Other Boleyn Girl was indeed gorgeous. But Henry VIII’s dilemmas seemed to be reduced to a decision between blonde (Scarlett Johansson as Mary Boleyn) and brunette (Natalie Portman as Anne). Thomas Cromwell was relevant only to the extent that he administered Henry’s love life; the religious schisms that rocked the country and consequences of the severing of relations with Europe were forgotten. Eric Bana as a virile Henry was part of an eternal triangle, an erotic threesome with two pretty sisters, and kingship seemed to be a case of presiding over glittering parties. ‘Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart’, Lord Byron might have claimed, but this is not so in the historical film.

Whence this belief that the modern audience shies from politics? Sofia Coppola’s 2006 Marie Antoinette was a riot of pastel colours, semi-improvised party scenes, and strident pop music. Antonia Fraser, in the bestselling biography on which the film was based, highlighted how very young Marie Antoinette was when she arrived at Versailles, and Coppola illustrated this brilliantly, portraying a youthful Marie Antoinette throwing a birthday party that resembled a teen sleepover. And yet Coppola was much less sure than Fraser at exploring how the Queen’s gilded world was shattered by demands for equality. The film suggested the demands of the mob by depicting angry scribbles appearing on a portrait of the Queen — and a viewer unversed in history might believe that the royal family was forced to quit the palace because the Queen overspent on dresses. Fraser gave a detailed account of Marie Antoinette’s trial and execution. But the film closed with Marie Antoinette taking her last look at Versailles from her carriage.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Kate Williams | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

David Short

March 5th, 2009 8:51am Report this comment

For THIS, we miss out on Rod Liddle?

A. MacAulay

March 5th, 2009 2:36pm Report this comment

"The corset is clearly an alluring thing. One glimpse of it and we forget what lies beneath." Wow! Absolutely! It doth turn our minds to higher things.

It is part of the entertainment value of films that female viewers see themselves in the role of the corsetted and male viewers in the role of the de-corsetter. Just a quickie quote from W. Blake, "The nakedness of woman is the work of God."

Without a bit of bodice ripping it is just a waste of time and carries the title, chick-flick. Utterly boring fashion show from 200 years ago.

lauriemacdonell-sanchez

March 6th, 2009 1:30pm Report this comment

David Short's fear was precisely mine, although I'll gladly read KW's article. Hopefully the braying (mooing? -- in the case of the Jane Goody article) segment of the thundering herd will not silence our modern Juvenal's voice. Surely those endowed w/more than an ounce of brains, a little sophistication & an admittedly cynical sense of humor will not be sacrificed for them? Miss you, Rod!

David Short

March 8th, 2009 11:49pm Report this comment

Who thought up the, erm, witty, erudite, amusing headline?

I know the Spectator has economised on sub-editors to spend more on webmasters, but a headline that has to be padded out with 'you know'.....?

Adam Child

March 15th, 2009 9:44pm Report this comment

I think Kate Williams has a point with this. The whole relationship with Albert was conceived as a political union, which Victoria was initially dead set against. The romance was a happy coincidence. At the first meeting, Victoria was rather more fond of Albert's brother!

I was left a bit staggered after seeing this film, I did enjoy it, but there were some missed opportunities to develop characters and take this away from the 'chick flick' realm. I wanted to see more of the fatherly warmth of Melbourne, considering Victoria has no father. He actually seemed on the periphery. In reality he was central to Victoria's development politically towards a non-political head of state. He wasn't the schemer he was made out to be.

I think having an actual expert commenting on a relevant area is a good thing by the way!

Post comment