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

04 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

Many more historical films are set to come to our screens — including a Mary Queen of Scots with Scarlett Johansson. Apparently concerned that audiences eschew political detail, producers show the lives of kings as close to that of modern actors or pop stars, with a pristine parade of handsome houses, beautiful dresses and tasteful conversations. We could easily forget that our ancestors were as dirty, violent, prone to bad taste and obsessed with politics as we are. Every day, we give thought both to our personal lives and the wider political world in which we live, and we discuss the actions of our government on a regular basis. And yet we seem wary of accepting that our historical predecessors behaved similarly. The corset is clearly an alluring thing. One glimpse of it and we forget what lies beneath.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

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