For Young Victoria, Second Time’s the Charm

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/koiart66/4171854107/" target="_blank">koiart71</a> (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a>)

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


How Victoria Fell in Love with Albert the Second Time She Met Him could well be an alternate title for The Young Victoria —in theaters Friday—a film that, despite pretenses of historical accuracy, is simply a love story. Whatever its faults, The Young Victoria proves that British actress Emily Blunt can carry a film: watching her smirk and simper for 104 minutes is entirely satisfying. You most likely remember Blunt as Miranda Priestly’s second-in-command in The Devil Wears Prada, and she was the most enjoyable thing about the nearly-unwatchable Sunshine Cleaning, despite the inexplicable presence of Alan Arkin. She’s also engaged to John Krasinski, better known as Jim from The Office

Despite the leading actress’s charms, the film’s dramatic tension relies largely on its viewers ignorance of British history, so it’s not surprising that some of The Young Victoria‘s loudest critics have been English. For one thing, knowing that Albert and Victoria eventually produced nine children makes it hard to get all misty-eyed when the prince takes a bullet for his newly pregnant wife. For another, Victoria and her husband had the misfortune of reigning during the birth of photography. Having glimpsed them in a textbook, viewers unfortunately do not likely imagine Prince Albert looking anything much like the excellent Rupert Friend. Nor do they imagine Victoria, who presided over the British Raj, Charles Dickens, and the Industrial Revolution, as looking at all like Emily Blunt, whose mischievous and malleable face seemed destined for indie films but made for period pieces. 

 

Critics have griped that the film is too much costume drama and too little politics, but they miss the point. That Victoria and her cousin Albert were rather aggressively arranged by King Leopold of Belgium would have put a damper on the whole romantic arc of the film if not for some deft handling by director Jean-Marc Vallée. To Vallée’s credit, he’s succeeded in making a love story that is sufficiently political and utterly romantic. Sure, one spends the last half of the movie expecting the end credits at any moment. But leaving aside the made-for-TV fades and some pretentious cinematography, I’d take the complicated (and consummated) romance of The Young Victoria over the limp but chaste romance of The Twilight Saga:New Moon any day. 

For those who still can’t imagine how Victoria and Albert’s courtship could manage to entertain for an hour and a half, consider Zadie Smith’s 2002 summary of their complex and ultimately doomed relationship. 

 “And now here are some facts. When Queen Victoria first met Albert she wasn’t really all that smitten. She was sixteen. He was her cousin. They got on well enough, but it was not what you would call a lightning/fireworks situation. Three years later, however, and suddenly he was right up her street. It was love at second sight. She was queen by then. It’s hard to tell whether that’s a significant fact in the story of How Victoria Fell in Love with Albert the Second Time She Met Him Rather Than the First Like Most People Would If They Were Intending to Fall in Love Suddenly. What can be said for sure is that after this second visit, Victoria describes Albert in her diary as “excessively handsome, such beautiful eyes…my heart is quite going,” and then proposes to him, which seems fairly fresh to us with our ideas about Victorians and how unfresh they were.”

–Zadie Smith, The Autograph Man

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up to $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate