The Young Victoria: "remarkable lack of anti-British prejudice"

[Maurice]

THE YOUNG VICTORIA (UK, US, 2009) date of release in UK: 06/03/09



In an article in The Daily Telegraph (18/02/09), ANDREW ROBERTS argues that the new film "is remarkable for its lack of anti-British prejudice".



Although he acknowledges screenplay by Julian Fellowes, some references to "Hollywood" ignore significant British participation in all aspects of THE YOUNG VICTORIA:



"Hollywood learns a history lesson at last" by Andrew Roberts



Hallelujah! Hollywood is finally releasing a movie about a British historical subject that is truthful, intelligent, nuanced and pro-British.



Here, at last, is a film in which a cut-glass English accent does not donote colonialist evil, sexual perversion or serial killing.



For decades Hollywood has treated its audiences like morons, straitjacketing complex historical issues into goodies versus baddies. A classic example is the recent release VALKYRIE in which the German generals' assassination plot against Hitler is presented as having been launched in order to promote human rights and the decent treatment of minorities.



The fact that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, the undeniably brave would-be assassin, described Poles as "an unbelievable rabble" of "Jews and mongrels" is conveniently forgotten.



THE YOUNG VICTORIA, released in Britain next month, could not be more different. In it we witness the highly political Bedchamber Crisis of 1839 being acted out between the Whig Lord Melbourne and the Tory Sir Robert Peel, something I never thought I would ever see on the silver screen.



Like A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS and OLIVER CROMWELL, two excellent historical movies also based closely on fact, VICTORIA works because the viewer is not patronised or told what to think.



The story is about how the politically-arranged marriage between Victoria and Prince Albert none the less turned into a genuine love match. Normally, filmmakers would have pared all the minor characters away to mere caricatures, yet this movie features the interaction between such esoteric figures as Baroness Lehzen, Sir John Conroy, Baron Stockmar, Lady Flora Hastings and any number of others whom one would otherwise have come across only in the pages of Elizabeth Longford's biography of Queen Victoria or the second volume of Lord David Cecil's life of Lord Melbourne.



With Hollywood movies such as THE READER asking us to believe that a Nazi concentration camp guard would willingly face life in prison sooner than be unmasked as illiterate, and U-571 claiming that the Americans rather than the Royal Navy captured the submarine codebooks that allowed Enigma to be decrypted, it is a liberating experience to watch a movie whose screenplay (by the British writer Julian Fellowes) is based on the most important primary sources of the early Victorian period.



Swathes of the script stem directly from the reported speech of the real people themselves. The splendour of it all makes one itch to visit Kensington Palace where it was filmed.



Where there are inventions in the movie - Albert is shown attending the Coronation and being grazed by the bullet during one of the many assassination attempts on his wife - these in no way intrude or detract. Contrast that to the way that Hollywood edited British and Canadian contributions to D-Day in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or regularly traduces the achievements of the British Empire.



When Hollywood attempts to deal with Irish themes, it produces narratives that amount to a vindication of nationalist terrorism, which would profoundly shock Americans were al-Qaeda to be transposed for the IRA.



MICHAEL COLLINS, ROB ROY, PATRIOT and scores of others have profoundly anti-British messages.



By contrast, VICTORIA is an intelligent investigation into the relatively little-known 1837-42 period of British history, with the Duke of Wellington treated sympathetically, and "Zadok the Priest" belted out just as it will be at the next Coronation.



It is probably too much to hope that Hollywood has fundamentally altered its view of the English - we are still the minority it's totally safe to be racist towards - but VICTORIA allows us a glimpse of how good Hollywood history movies could be if they didn't exude such prejudice against us and our past.

[faginsgirl]

Thanks for that. I was wondering what it was going to be like



Sounds a bit more authentic than bleedin` Braveheart



xx

[Mark O]

Thanks for all that Maurice, I'll more than likely go and see it now, I can't be doing with Films that twist fact and 'blame the British for everything'!

[m35541]

Interesting review although I'd dispute Roberts' claim that the Richard Harris film Cromwell is particularly accurate (the Lords and Commons all sit together in one chamber for example !!)

[jaycad]

name='Mark O']Thanks for all that Maurice, I'll more than likely go and see it now, I can't be doing with Films that twist fact and 'blame the British for everything'!

usually mel gibson is involved!(in between his anti semetic ranting!)

[Steve Crook]

name='jaycad']usually mel gibson is involved!(in between his anti semetic ranting!)

He's a well balanced young man - he has a chip on each shoulder



Steve

[m35541]

But at least we had Kevin "This is English courage" Costner fighting our corner in Robin Hood.

[Bleach2]

I've just bought Andrew Roberts' book about Waterloo, subtitled "Napoleon's Last Gamble", although I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I must admit that after my experience with Zulu Dawn, I remain deeply suspicious of American attempts to re-write British history in order to make it accord with their own retrospectively applied prejudices. It is, after all, not their history. I actually find offensive their "parachuting" in of so-called "Hollywood stars" into stories and settings where they have no place (Zulu Dawn is a good example of this), as is the sniping envy (for that is what it is) of the Empire which these "characters" then begin to articulate. Hollywood's seemingly obsessive need to traduce and degrade British history and British historical figures is rooted, I believe, in a sense of cultural inferiority to what they are traducing. I have come to think that American culture has an innate tendancy to debase and to degrade (the standard of culture as a whole), and that the Americans remain profoundly envious of those past societies (most notably the British) who have managed to attain and contribute to the world an artistic, political and cultural excellence which has almost entirely eluded themselves.



However, it does show how deeply entrenched in what passes for "culture" in America is the idea of cinema as an overwhelmingly effective propaganda tool through which the sensibilities of the masses (most of whom - the cynic probably calculates - do not read properly researched history) can be manipulated - or even re-modelled.



The one person whom you can be certain would have admired the methods of Hollywood is Doctor Goebbels.



So much for the anti-Nazi stance of Valkyrie...^^

[GRAEME]

name='Mark O']Thanks for all that Maurice, I'll more than likely go and see it now, I can't be doing with Films that twist fact and 'blame the British for everything'!

If you're referring in part to Braveheart - let's get it right. Gibbo was blaming the English for everything - not the British.



And, yeah, there is a difference.

[GRAEME]

name='Bleach2']



However, it does show how deeply entrenched in what passes for "culture" in America is the idea of cinema as an overwhelmingly effective propaganda tool through which the sensibilities of the masses (most of whom - the cynic probably calculates - do not read properly researched history) can be manipulated - or even re-modelled.



The one person whom you can be certain would have admired the methods of Hollywood is Doctor Goebbels.



So much for the anti-Nazi stance of Valkyrie...^^

Er... This is a bit hysterical.



In any case even if you're right and Hollywood is a mass propaganda tool (which is debatable to say the least), it doesn't follow that:



1 The Nazis used propaganda

2 Hollywood is propaganda

3 Therefore Hollywood is virtually Nazi.



This is just nonsence.



It does matter what the propaganda is trying to sell, you know! Have a look at British WW2 propaganda, for example.



If Hollywood has a message to sell en mass, it tends to be a liberal, sentimental, vaguely individualist, up with the underdog kind of thing. Hardly Dr Goebbels' cup of esatz coffee...

[ram4553]

name='Bleach2']I have come to think that American culture has an innate tendancy to debase and to degrade (the standard of culture as a whole),...

Thank heaven for standard-bearers. I have seen the light.



I'm tossing texts and other works by James Agee, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dorothea Lange, Billie Holiday, Patsy Cline, Billy Wilder, M.L. King, Frank Capra, Eugene O'Neill, Jefferson, Adams, Sherman Alexie, Robert Altman, and so on so forth.



Guess it depends on what part(s) of the "culture" you've bought into.

[Mark O]

name='GRAEME']If you're referring in part to Braveheart - let's get it right. Gibbo was blaming the English for everything - not the British.



And, yeah, there is a difference.

Well that's told me then!.........though if there's a 'difference', I'm buggered if I know what 'make' I'm supposed to be having both Welsh and English Blood in my veins.





The Young Victoria

[GRAEME]

name='Mark O']Well that's told me then!.........though if there's a 'difference', I'm buggered if I know what 'make' I'm supposed to be having both Welsh and English Blood in my veins.





The Young Victoria

Didn't mean to sound abrupt, Mark O!



Obviously, if Braveheart is anti anything, it is anti English. Hardly anti-Scots (and therefore not anti-British per se).



But I don't think it is anti-English really. Edward Longshanks was a bloody tyrant and a bastard (even to his own side, ask the people of Berwick!) and so I do think the English should stop whining about Mel's so-called bias - Braveheart has it's heart in the right place, it is anti-tyranny!



The Patriot is a much closer call as to Anti-Englishness. The film paints the English (ok, British) as being almost Nazi like in their brutality and this just wasn't historically accurate. It is part of an over-egging of the American foundation myths.



However, it must be said that many Hollywood films have been very scathing about the treatment of the Indians, especially in the last 50 years, so it isn't always Britain that is on the receiving end. Also, look at all those anti-Vietnam movies. The idea that Hollywood is always slavishly pro-American would highly amuse the American right!

[Steve Crook]

name='Mark O']Well that's told me then!.........though if there's a 'difference', I'm buggered if I know what 'make' I'm supposed to be having both Welsh and English Blood in my veins.

Like me, although I've got Irish in the mix as well.



It depends on whether you want to praise or blame them. I can be English, Welsh, Irish or British



Steve

[thatllbetheday]

THE YOUNG VICTORIA, released in Britain next month, could not be more different. In it we witness the highly political Bedchamber Crisis of 1839 being acted out between the Whig Lord Melbourne and the Tory Sir Robert Peel, something I never thought I would ever see on the silver screen.

Wow! worth seeing for that alone.

[gollum4]

name='GRAEME']However, it must be said that many Hollywood films have been very scathing about the treatment of the Indians, especially in the last 50 years, so it isn't always Britain that is on the receiving end. Also, look at all those anti-Vietnam movies. The idea that Hollywood is always slavishly pro-American would highly amuse the American right!

True, although there is a key difference in approach.



While Vietnam films will criticise America's involvement in the war, they are invariably told through the eyes of the decent, wide-eyed American soldiers. We can identify with De Niro in Deer Hunter, Sheen in Platoon, Cruise in Born on the 4th of July, etc. Dances With Wolves is sympathetic to the Indians plight, but again, who is the star? Idealistic hero, Kevin Costner. These films are about America (Left and Right) arguing with itself.



You never see a film about Indians or Vietnam done in the style of Braveheart/The Patriot, where Americans (all of them) are simply the bad guys -- cannon fodder for the freedom fighting heroes. Funnily enough, Americans aren't keen to see themselves portrayed as genocidal, slave-trading, war-mongering oppressors with no redeeming features! Yet they're happy to make films portraying the British that way, and quick to tell us to stop whining ('it's just a movie') when we raise any objection.

[trelawnee]

name='Maurice']



In an article in The Daily Telegraph (18/02/09), ANDREW ROBERTS argues that the new film "is remarkable for its lack of anti-British prejudice".

It has been a long week and both of us felt like going off to the movies to see some cheerful rubbish.



So I turned to my wife and said, "fancy seeing The Young Victoria?"



And she asked, "is that the one where Ben Barnes plays Prince Albert and spends the whole movie running around with his kit off and..?"



"No," I replied, " this is the one that is remarkable for its lack of anti-British prejudice".



"Sounds like a history lesson," she said



So we stayed in and read articles about the decline of the UK movie industry

[Marky B]

I remember a few years ago,noted British screenwriter,David Butler,was asked to go over to America and write a miniseries about the Battle of Hastings. When he arrived,he was told to make King Harold the winner of the battle.

I don't think the project went ahead.

Ta Ta

Marky B

[Marky B]

Whoops,was I wrong there.



Blood Royal: William the Conqueror (1990) (TV)



Ta Ta

Marky B

[GRAEME]

name='gollum4']True, although there is a key difference in approach.



While Vietnam films will criticise America's involvement in the war, they are invariably told through the eyes of the decent, wide-eyed American soldiers. We can identify with De Niro in Deer Hunter, Sheen in Platoon, Cruise in Born on the 4th of July, etc. Dances With Wolves is sympathetic to the Indians plight, but again, who is the star? Idealistic hero, Kevin Costner. These films are about America (Left and Right) arguing with itself.



You never see a film about Indians or Vietnam done in the style of Braveheart/The Patriot, where Americans (all of them) are simply the bad guys -- cannon fodder for the freedom fighting heroes. Funnily enough, Americans aren't keen to see themselves portrayed as genocidal, slave-trading, war-mongering oppressors with no redeeming features! Yet they're happy to make films portraying the British that way, and quick to tell us to stop whining ('it's just a movie') when we raise any objection.

True enough - but it should be pointed out again, that Braveheart does not paint all BRITISH in a negative light, for the simple reason that the goodies here are THE SCOTS and the Baddies are THE ENGLISH.



Also, usually, when American films have a Brit as a baddie they tend to be the only Brits in the film. That means there isn't the opportunity for balance. Hollywood movies set in Britain tend to have a much wider range of characters good and bad.



What I find odd is that even when the baddie is a German (Alan Rickman and Jeremy Irons in Die Hard 1 & 2) or even a Yank (Brian Cox and Tony Hopkins as Hannibal Lec(k)tor) - quite often they will be played by Brits anyway!