Queen VICTORIA

Article first published as VICTORIA Review on Seat42F.

PBS’ Masterpiece presents a new drama this week called VICTORIA. Centered around the long-reining British queen of that name, the show originally aired in the UK, and is now coming to the states, the first two hours premiering this Sunday. The initial offering deals with Victoria taking the throne, befriending the prime minister, and her struggles between what she wants personally and what the politics of the country demand.

Although not a fan of Jenna Coleman’s Clara in the series Doctor Who, I do like her better as Victoria. She does a fine job portraying the young, short queen (only eighteen when she took the throne, and under five feet tall) as she comes into her own.

Victoria has a very sheltered childhood, controlled as she is by her mother (Catherine Flemming, Simones Labryinth) and her mother’s close pal, Sir John Conroy (Paul Rhys, Da Vinci’s Demons). When she gets that first taste of being in charge, it goes to her a head a little bit. Coleman keeps her sympathetic through those bits, helping us understand why Victoria makes the decisions she does, and rationalizing the more selfish ones.

I also like Rufus Sewell (The Man in the High Castle) as Lord Melbourne. He and Victoria had a special relationship, and while the way it is shown in VICTORIA isn’t wholly accurate, I like this chemistry, too. It avoids being romantic, which is certainly a good thing, but I do get that Melbourne really cares for her, and that’s important as Victoria transitions into power.

Other than that, though, this series, while interesting, isn’t overly compelling. Some of what is portrayed is relatively factual, historically speaking, but other parts are dramatized to try to add more excitement. This seems unnecessary, and feels forced, especially in making Melbourne so attractive. What happens with Victoria’s birthday cake is a good example of something that didn’t need added in, as is the scheming of relations behind her back. The show could have focused more on the real things, such as the possible scandal with Sir John, which is gotten through pretty quickly, rather than adding excess drama.

I would point to The Crown on Netflix as an example of how to do things better. It doesn’t help VICTORIA that its U.S. release comes just after The Crown has gained steam and awards. (It hadn’t yet premiered when VICTORIA aired across the pond.) The Crown keeps things more grounded, less episodic, and that makes it stronger overall. VICTORIA should take note of that as it develops season two, changing course to feel more like a docudrama and less like a soap. I doubt it will, but that would be the smart move.

The other comparison VICTORIA is sure to rate is to Downton Abbey, mainly because there are plenty of scenes for the servants, including the queen’s German baroness, Lehzen (Daniela Holtz, Phoenix), Mrs. Jenkins (Eve Myles, Torchwood), and the young Skerrett (Nell Hudson, Outlander). I feel like this is a bit of an odd choice because the household of a queen would have a LOT more servants than Downton Abbey, and yet it doesn’t feel like it does because VICTORIA focuses on such a small group. Which again, takes me a bit out of the story, and feels like an odd choice for a show about the queen herself.

Neither comparison, to Downton Abbey or to The Crown, leave VICTORIA the better for it. Taken on its own, I found it entertaining and beautifully produced. By comparison to its peers, it feels trite and superficial, as well as more soapy than it should be. For that reason, I can’t see continuing to watch it, even though it has been renewed for a second series overseas.

VICTORIA premieres this Sunday, January 15^th, at 9/8c.

THE ASSETS Not an Asset to ABC

Article first published as THE ASSETS Review on Seat42F.

There is a fantastic new series about spies set during the Cold War era on television. The Americans and Soviets clash, tensions run high, espionage is especially dangerous, plots are layered and intricate, loyalties are divided, and the characters engaging in this battle are well acted and well written. It’s a heck of a good show, and one you should definitely be watching.

It’s called The Americans, and the second season will soon be coming to FX.

THE ASSETS, on the other hand, ABC’s eight-part miniseries premiering this week based on real events and set during the same time period, isn’t very good. It’s melodramatic, over the top, and unnecessarily campy. When you think the story is moving in an interesting direction, it ruins the good will it has built up quickly. In short, it’s extremely disappointing, and it’s puzzling why ABC would even attempt this weak series when there’s currently an example of what it should be on another channel.

THE ASSETS stars Jodie Whittaker as Sandy Grimes. Sandy is a CIA operative who wears the pants in her household, and then second guesses whether that bothers her husband, Gary (Julian Ovenden, Foyle’s War), or not. In fact, she asks him straight out in the pilot, “My Name is Aldrich Ames,” if her personality makes him feel bad, and of course he replies that he loves her for who she is. Is this meant to call attention to the fact that she isn’t a ‘typical’ woman in the 1980s? It not only seems like an outdated stereotype, even for that time, but also paints her character as weak and unlikeable.

I know Whittaker can perform well; she did a terrific turn in the British series Broadchurch last year. Yet, here she yells in scenes where she shouldn’t and, in general, overacts. I wonder if it’s the direction or the writing that leads her to make these decisions. Her American accent is passable, but the way she plays the role takes away any points Sandy might score with viewers.

This is very unfortunate because Sandy is our plucky hero, the one in THE ASSETS who fights for what is right, even when her superiors don’t agree with her. While we should be admiring her intelligence and how she can keep her home and work life separate, instead she comes across as a stereotype played badly. THE ASSETS should rest on the strength of a multi-layered, compelling Sandy, but that strength is sorely lacking.

The villain is just a little bit better. Aldrich Ames (Paul Rhys, Borgia) may be Sandy’s co-worker, but the very beginning of “My name is Aldich Ames” lets the audience know right away that Amex is actually a mole, subverting the Americans from the inside as he helps out the Soviets and the Russians. Revealing this could be a really cool approach, except it takes away a lot of the depth and mystery in the way that it unfolds.

Now, no character suspects Ames of being dirty, and it’s easy to see why. He’s a geek in glasses, not one who would risk life and limb to take the big risks. Yet, because we know his secret, one wishes Ames would pull back a bit on telegraphing things. His tale, in real life, is an intriguing one because he did fool all his co-workers. What we are seeing wouldn’t fool anyone. Except maybe this watery version of Sandy.

The spy games are equally trite and nonsensical. In one scene, an operative loses his tail by turning back in the middle of crossing a street. So not only does the fellow following him appear unobservant, not keeping an eye on the guy, but he also is unable to follow from across a few lanes of traffic for a few blocks as the other man doubles back, and then cross later? I thought these were professionals?

THE ASSETS just plain doesn’t live up to its potential. As a concept, it should work quite well. In execution, it fails miserably. Perhaps I am influenced in my opinion because I have The Americans so readily available to compare it against, a much superior effort. But so does every other TV viewer, and the network should have known that before putting this on the air. I wouldn’t say THE ASSETS is the perfect example of how broadcast has become a paler imitation of great cable dramas because I don’t think that statement is completely true, but in this case, ABC is doing itself no favors.

THE ASSETS airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. ET on ABC.