Victoria

I usually don't mind when movies or shows are not historically accurate. Typically changed for dramatic effect and better pacing. However, they made Queen Victoria seem more caring about the ignored classes. She did not intervene on behalf of the Newport Chartists. She did not show compassion for the Irish during the Great Hunger and was known as the Famine Queen. Changing history to make people feel better about history is dangerous. It reduces the struggle and discrimination of people considered as other. Outside of the misrepresentation of Queen Victoria, the acting, set, costumes, screenwriting, and cinematography are commendable.

I was so looking forward to watching Victoria and I have not been disappointed. Having a keen interest in English history, especially of the Royal Family, I am obsessed with this series. I has been anxiously awaiting each new episode. Costuming is perfection, and the actors are are superb. I could not think of anyone better to play Queen Victoria. If you love period drama and English history, you will be enthralled by Victoria. I wish there was more shows like this on television. A definite must for fans of this genre. The betrayal of Lord M and Victoria's relationship may be elaborated a bit, but the basis of this show is worth the watch.

Jenna Coleman's acting is worth an award. Camera work by John Lee is extraordinary (the right eye for detail), music is extremely well suited, the costumes are exquisite. It's a feast for the eye and while looking at it you just tend to forget the quibbles about it's historical mistakes.

On the basis of seeing the first episodes of this Masterpiece drama, broadcast in the UK by ITV, I can freely say that I am hooked on to it. Daisy Goodwin's script is both taut and cleverly written, while the performances of the main protagonists are uniformly convincing. I particularly like Jenna Coleman's characterization of the young Queen - so apparently vulnerable yet possessed with an inner strength of will that enables her to resist the repeated blandishments of her self-interest mother the Duchess of Kent (Catherine H. Flemming), who so dearly desires to assume the title of Regent, aided and abetted by her unscrupulous ally Sir John Conroy (Paul Rhys).

This eight-part drama wears its moral scheme on its sleeve by contrasting the hissable villain the Duke of Cumberland (Peter Firth), with the pragmatic yet goodhearted Lord Melbourne (Rufus Sewell), who admires the Queen yet remains convinced that she has to transform herself from an immature girl into suitably monarchical material, and will try his utmost to achieve that transformation. Sometimes he has to be cruel to be kind, but all in a good cause. In between these two extremes stands the Duke of Wellington (Peter Bowles), and Sir Robert Peel (Nigel Lindsay), both members of the Tory Party (and hence implacably opposed to Melbourne's politics), but interested in maintaining the business of government.

As with most television costume dramas, the sets and decor are both opulent and historically accurate, supplemented by useful CGI shots where necessary. I especially liked some of the cinematographic effects (by John Lee) - especially the use of aerial shots to suggest the insignificance of humanity when compared to the greater business of running the country.

And it is this sense of contemporaneity that lifts VICTORIA out of the run-of-the-mill and transforms it into living, breathing drama. We hear a lot about the importance of "duty" - from the Queen as well as her friends and enemies - and we are led to speculate on what that term really signifies. Is it just a catch-all description masking self-interest, or do people really believe in it? In light of recent political upheavals in the United Kingdom, with one Prime Minister resigning (ostensibly out of "duty"), and the opposition party tearing itself asunder with different conceptions of the same term, we wonder just how much VICTORIA is commenting on the present as well as the past, especially in its concern with politics and its relationship to the country's future.

I am definitely hooked, and await the remaining episodes with eager anticipation.

**This is primarily intended as a rebuttal to some very unforgiving reviews.

I started watching this show when I first came out and as many other reviewers have already stated, I was absolutely captivated by Jenna Coleman's and Rufus Sewell's portrayals of Queen Victoria and Lord M, respectively. I maintain that Rufus was a brilliant Lord M, and frankly I think the reason the writers were able to successfully execute Lord M and Victoria's fabricated infatuation for one another is rooted in the casting. It wouldn't have worked if M was cast accurately, a bumbling old man 40 years her senior.

I'm actually very surprised to read so many criticisms of Tom Hughes's Albert. On the contrary, I thought he did an excellent job. I've always been quite interested in the monarchy and have read extensively on some kings and queens that have captured my imagination in particular - Victoria being one of them - and their personal relationships. It's well-known that V and A were besotted with one another; I believe Victoria wrote "Albert is beautiful" in her diary after their second meeting in 1839. It's also true that she did not want to get married and felt that she was being manipulated into a union with someone who was more convenient for the family than for love. Albert was shy, intellectually-inclined, and very handsome. I don't understand what element of that Tom Hughes neglected. His chemistry with Jenna was suspiciously compelling until I learned that they're together in real life. I think he was altogether very convincing - perhaps with a modern flair, but that seems to be the feel of the entire show.

Which brings me to my next point. For someone like me, who really enjoys costume dramas and romance, this is a wonderful show. The sets are magnificent (CGI leaves something to be desired, but it's not too offensive), the costumes are to die for, and the writing is good. No, it's not absolutely stellar. But it's certainly entertaining. The cast handles very artfully the script they've been given. If you are very knowledgeable about history and find it absolutely impossible to enjoy a show that has taken more than a few creative liberties, this is not the show for you. It's not anything near a documentary, and drama is paramount. I agree that truth is often stranger than fiction, and there are many stories that writer Daisy Goodwin could have spun into a far more accurate and believable series. That being said, I don't hold it against her. While there are some plot lines that seem to have been pulled out of nowhere, the majority of creative liberty comes in the form of exaggeration in this show. Inclinations and motivations are stretched to the nth degree to really show the watcher that this character is either a good guy or a bad guy.

I think the show is worth watching. If you're new to it, certainly watch up to episode 3 in season 1 - that's when Albert's character is really first introduced and the show begins to take a turn. Season 3 started last night here in the US and I found the premiere engaging. I'm excited to see what happens next, as long as Albert's death is conveniently delayed for as long as possible.