My First Movies of 2010: "The Young Victoria" and "The Road"

No fear of plot spoilers with The Young Victoria.  We know how this one turns out: the sheltered teenager suddenly finds herself queen of England upon the death of her uncle, King William.  She is unprepared for the task, and quickly "seduced" politically by the prime minister, Lord Melbourne, but a counterforce emerges, for her other scheming uncle, the King of Belgium, has manipulated events to place before his royal niece the handsome, charming, and talented Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha - a royal marriage eventuates, and Albert weens her away from the dangerous attachment of the monarch to any one political party.  (And, afterall, Melbourne's social policies were much too retrograde for the spectacularly progressive Albert.)

OK, so the movie does a great job of animating this story.  Emily Blunt as the young Victoria is splendid, and Rupert Friend as Prince Albert is a heartbreaker.  Paul Bettany is spectacularly good as Lord Melbourne, and Jim Broadbent is ferocious (as usual) as King William.  The rest of the supporting cast are all splendid as well.  But the picture is stolen by the sets!!!  Those royal palaces of early 19th century England are depicted in stunning manner, and the costumes come a close second.  See it for the sets and costumes as much as for the intelligent script and fine acting and directing and photography.

The Road.  I went to see this because it was highly extolled by a friend.  I had not read the much-lauded Cormac McCarthy novel.  I am a fan of Viggo Mortensen -- have been ever since he strided into view in the first Lord of the Rings film -- and so the movie also recommended itself for his participation.  I have to say that this one is unremittingly grim.  It is a post-apocalyptic vision of a dog-eat-dog world, where the skies are always gray, out of control fires have destroyed the woodlands, houses and cars lie about in decrepitude and every hostile is scrapping for the last surviving tin can of fruit salad.  Mortensen does a brilliant job here, but the real hero of the film is Kodi Smit-McPhee, who plays Mortensen's terrified young son, as they hit the road to try to find their way south towards what they hope will be more liveable conditions.  (We are not told where they start out, but it seems to be somewhere in the northern U.S., where there is lots of winter snow.)  This is difficult to watch at times, but always compelling as drama.  I can understand, however, why it is playing in only a handful of "art houses" in Manhattan and not in the major theaters.  (The Young Victoria is also playing only in a handful of theaters, but they are mainstream theaters that show first-run major studio films....)

Comments

[caprice]

There were two problems I noted with Young Victoria. First, a little anachronism--I think I caught a glimpse of some baseboard heating in Buckingham Palace. The second, much more obvious, was that Queen Victoria was not particularly good-looking--nothing like the beautiful Emily Blunt.

[Art Leonard]

You thought you caught a glimpse of baseboard heating, but you can't be certain? I suspect if they filmed in real locations rather than constructing sets, there would be some baseboard heating because the real locations would have been modernized at some point to support modern living!

As to how beautiful Victoria may have been - remember that the Victoria depicted in the film was a teenager, and the Victoria of her earliest photos is already a mature woman who has been through some pregnancies. Based on early paintings, I would say Victoria was reasonably good looking as a teenage girl, which she was when she became queen at age 18.

And, by the way, Rupert Friend is also better looking than the real Prince Albert. In fact, since movie stars are cast in historical films, they tend to be better looking than the characters they play. Leo DiCaprio was better looking than Howard Hughes, right? And Jonathan Rhys Meyers is much better looking than any surviving photo of Henry VIII, and thinner too!

[Ken Sanders]

The young Henry VIII was quite svelte. See his armor in The Tower, the armor that was made for his use when he was young. The actor Jonathan Rhys Myers is like Henry Tudor, also Welsh judging from his name, but I would hazard JRM is taller (based only upon how short is the young Henry's armor). But having never seen JRS measured up against any standard of height (...and I suspect I never will.)

The young Victoria Regina was reputedly attractive when young. "The handsomest Queen in Europe", according to some (prejudiced) commentators. By the time she became Victoria Imperatrix, she had "matured" (think of "mature" students). At any age, Victoria was smashing, because, as reputedly said by Kissinger, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." Vicky was powerful in her mature age, and by the time she was old, frowzy and dumpy, she was rich and powerful enough to turn the heads of many a lesser mortal. Think of Barbara Streisand. She is not as rich nor as powerful as Victoria Regina, but she is still playing with boy-toys ... or think of Elton John...or not.

[Art Leonard]

My problem with Rhys Myers in The Tudors series is that by the time the events depicted in the series were taking place, Henry had lost his youthful athletic appearance and had already begun to be stout. In the very first season he suffers the jousting injury that would lead him to increasing incapacity, lack of exercise and stoutness. By the time he was on to his third and fourth wives, as depicted in the third season of the series, he was quite corpulent. But JRM remains the slender muscled monarch.

On the other hand, as I noted above, the teenage Victoria of the film (and of contemporary paintings) suggest a good looking young woman, so having Emily Blunt play her at that age is not a serious misrepresentation.

[The Young Victoria (2009)]

The movie is perfectly appropriate for girls, and its opening scenes play like a more intelligent and historically grounded version of their G-rated princess dramas.