OVP: The Young Victoria (2009)

Film: The Young Victoria (2009)
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent, Thomas Kretschmann, Mark Strong
Director: Jean-Marc Vallee
Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Costume*, Art Direction, Makeup)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There is a reason I have a "The Royals" tag at a website predominantly dominated by Oscar-winning films and American politics.  Like the tags that also read "Adventuring," and "Olympics" I'm not 100% in a box on what interests me, and the royal families of Europe, particularly those of Russia and the United Kingdom, completely enthrall me-I don't know if it's the pageantry or the history or the collection of lists and names and connections that I adore memorizing, but there's something about the royals that fascinates me enough to spend hours poring through old history books, learning about the intricacies of different dukes and viscounts and earls.

So I go into The Young Victoria with a predisposition for loving the film, and I think it's only fair to say that if, for example, your cinematic leanings are more toward that of Scorsese or Billy Wilder or Steven Seagal (if it's the latter, can you explain in the comments what google search got you to this site?).  The movie centers around the coming-of-age of one of Britain's most iconic monarchs, Queen Victoria.

It's well-known that Victoria, for all-intents-and-purposes wasn't really meant to be Queen.  Her father was the fourth of King George III's sons, and one would have assumed that one of his elder brothers would have had an heir that would surive, but that wasn't to be-most of the sons of George III had terrible marriages, and after the death of her cousin Princess Elizabeth of Clarence, it became evident that eventually, the princess would become Queen, probably at a rather young age.

That age, as is documented in this film, is a mere eighteen, just missing needing her mother as her regent (she had turned eighteen less than a month before taking the crown).  The film tells a couple of stories of the young princess (played with a too sharp formality by Emily Blunt).  First, there is her constant struggle with her mother, the Duchess of Kent (Richardson) and the object of her desire, John Conroy (Strong).  These scenes would seem plodding and over-the-top, except they seem to have been grounded in pretty solid fact-the Duchess of Kent detested Princess Victoria's uncle the King (Broadbent), and desperately kept her daughter from the Royal Court, hoping to become her regent and therefore the power behind the throne.

The film actually has a strong sense of accuracy, which can be expected when you have a writer as revered as Jullian Fellowes behind the typewriter.  The outbreak at the dinner party actually happened, as did the overall conflict between the king and his sister-in-law.  While there was some artistic license taken, overall what Fellowes does is relatively true to life, and that gives the film an authenticity that other movies regarding this era occasionally lack.

The second story, and of course the one that most attracts people, is the love story, with Victoria and Albert being one of the most iconic and devoted couples of the twentieth century.  Being a future queen, Victoria was one of the most desired bachelorettes of her era, but the obscure German prince was obviously going to be her mate from the moment he steps into the screen.  Shy, handsome, and just a wee bit practiced (enough so that she can mock him for it and for the trait to soon wipe away), Albert is the most suitable partner for Victoria, and though both Friend and Blunt are a bit staid in their courtship (their performances-I understand the characters are supposed to be), this is the best part of the film. When the movie tries to encounter gender politics after their marriage, and the otherwise gemlike Albert falling into levels of insecurity later in the film, it overreaches and gets a bit too preachy for my taste.

The film received a trio of Oscar nominations, and the most deserved of them is of course Sandy Powell's costume designs.  You're obviously dealing with beautiful works when you talk about this time period, but Powell's great mind is in accuracy-you see recreations of gorgeous formal and casual wear (as casual as you can get for a queen), and she seems to want to show off just a hint of panache (primarily in the clothes worn by Queen Adelaide).  The Art Direction nomination is also strong, but likely coasted off of the love of the Costumes.  The final nomination, for Makeup, is almost certainly more for hairstyling than the rudimentary makeup work, but even then it's still relatively routine.  The Makeup branch is an odd duck, though, and sometimes likes this style of period film.

And those are my thoughts, but what are yours-what count do you feel The Young Victoria should have reached with its Oscar tally?  Do you feel that Emily Blunt has been considerably better before, or are you a backer of this film?  And between Matthew McFayden's Mr. Darcy and Rupert Friend's Prince Albert, who is the dreamiest nineteenth century heartthrob?