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.

HBO's Parade's End

First published as PARADE'S END Review on Seat42F.

Grade: 91%

HBO will take its turn presenting the miniseries PARADE’S END this week, its partner in the endeavor, the BBC, having already broadcast it last fall. Perhaps HBO saved it so it would have a rich period piece this winter, just as it had Mildred Pierce last year, or perhaps they wish to attract those in the early stages of Downton Abbey-withdrawal. Whatever the reason, now seems an opportune time to air it.

The title PARADE’S END refers to the excising of the British upper-class way of life, the manner in which the elite of society put on certain airs, stay true to traditions, and worry about the way they are perceived. There is a strict social structure in place in the early twentieth century, mostly destroyed during World War I, and this miniseries tells that tale.

Well, it tells a personal take on characters who make that transition. Yes, the piece is somewhat sweeping, and does have a large-ish cast. But there are really three main players in the story who stand about above everyone else, and who are the case study made an example of here.

Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness) plays Christopher Tietjens, a noble Englishman who sticks with the way he is brought up, no matter what. This means he goes through with his marriage to the wicked, manipulative Sylvia (Rebecca Hall, The Town, Frost/Nixon), even though he knows she’s been sleeping around on him, and it’s very likely her pregnancy isn’t a result of his actions.

Their union is predictable unhappy, and Sylvia doesn’t even try to stay faithful, spending much time apart from her groom in the company of other men. Christopher, though, keeps up appearances, even as he begins falling for the sweet, strong-willed Valentine Wannop (Adelaide Clemens, Rectify, Vampire).

Looked at through the modern eye, it’s very hard to understand why Christopher doesn’t just leave Sylvia for Valentine, a topic discussed in the series. Why should he show any loyalty to someone who is so nasty to him? But that’s Christopher’s way of life, so I’m not sure it even occurs to him to end his own suffering, at least not for awhile. Part of the beauty of the piece is the illustration of the type of man Christopher represents, a specific guy from a specific period in time in a specific place.

In fact, PARADE’S END succeeds very well artistically. The sets and costumes are made expertly, and the details that set an authentic tone are present. The writing is smart, and the characters are well defined. Presenting World War I as a catalyst is a good idea, executed with much success.

The cast is fantastic, of course, especially the three leads. For those who are familiar with Cumberbatch’s work, this should come as no surprise. The girls’ talent matches hiw, but this is Cumberbatch’s showcase, and he owns every moment he is on screen, conveying much in his sad eyes.

The supporting players also lend both a fuller picture, and some levity to the proceedings. They include Roger Allam (The Thick Of It, The Queen), Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding), Miranda Richardson (Rubicon), Janet McTeer (Damages), Clare Higgins (Homefront), Stephen Graham (Boardwalk Empire), and Rufus Sewell (The Pillars of the Earth), each of whom adds a positive element.

My problem with it is that it’s slow and a bit boring. Like Mildred Pierce, it meanders for quite awhile, and there isn’t a lot of movement. Does it really take five hours for a trio to work out their romantic arrangements? Especially when we, the viewer, know right away the decision that Christopher should make. His struggle is interesting, to be sure, but the running time will likely drive some potential watchers away.

PARADE’S END is strongly British, and not completely accessible. One must pay attention to follow the story, and it isn’t very light-hearted. I enjoyed what I’ve watched of it (I haven’t finished it yet), but it’s a miniseries I’d have to be in a certain mood to really appreciate, for sure.

PARADE’S END airs this Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday on HBO.