|
|
Post by marion on Oct 9, 2017 15:39:12 GMT
Re the gay scenes being introduced so that the audience would know gay men were around in those days....
I find that rather patronising! Thank you Daisy Goodwin, we are so grateful to you for enlightening us, the lumpen proletariat.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Oct 9, 2017 15:53:58 GMT
You can so tell this is aimed at markets that are more akin to historical romance and I have no problem with that but in most cases those people are fictional e.g. Poldark, Downton, but in this case these were real people and one of them was already dead apparently before the Queen stayed at Blair Atholl Castle. The other was married with more than a dozen children (although not at this time). There is enough history (actual history) going on without pretending this was real. I mean, two highly placed Victorian gentleman doing alright for themselves, go for a bit of a dance and then have a snog in broad daylight in the middle of the garden. I imagined we would see them sneak off into the woods or something discreet but no, let's come out of the woods and onto the broad expanse of the garden in front of the lake and go for it. I don't mind that historically she had already been to Scotland beforehand, but it now appears that she never got lost and never stayed in the Croft for the night either. I am not sure of the veracity of that but I wonder if they even listened to any poetry now.
THE SCENERY WAS EXCELLENT THOUGH!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 17:47:20 GMT
Quite. I have no problem with them putting gay characters in, but find some real ones or invent them, don't misportray historical figures like that. Imagine the furore if two known gay historical characters had been portrayed as straight!
*Grumpy*
Yes, I know its a story, but as you say Beverley, there's enough real history not to need to make things up.
(I haven't seen Victoria & Abdul but I gather it's been heavily romanticised; Abdul Karim was a thoroughly nasty piece of work IRL).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 6:32:23 GMT
Oops! Apologies for last week's accidental spoiler! Although (inevitably) they changed the details, anyway 2mo5pow
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Oct 16, 2017 10:41:36 GMT
Goodbye Lehzen! I hope she got a good pension after all those years......
|
|
|
|
Post by geometryman on Oct 16, 2017 11:18:00 GMT
Apparently yes, she did have a good pension.
They've tinkered with the historical timeline a lot, I see. The repeal of the corn laws was in 1846; in reality the Drummond shooting, Lehzen's dismissal and Princess Vicky's illness were respectively 3, 4 and 5 years earlier than that.
It's good entertainment though, and there's a Christmas Special to look forward to.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Oct 16, 2017 11:22:44 GMT
It is more of a romantic historical fiction with some "faction" thrown in but enjoyable nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by sootycat on Oct 16, 2017 11:33:50 GMT
With lots of artistic licence  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 8:58:10 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but the story goes that Queen Victoria enjoyed Alice in Wonderland so much that she asked Lewis Carroll to dedicate his next book to her. His next book was the snappily titled An Elementary Treatise on Determinants, With Their Application to Simultaneous Linear Equations and Algebraical Geometry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 10:18:07 GMT
I shall definitely put that on my reading list 😐
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 18:49:38 GMT
I have enjoyed this series,but for a couple of story lines. Putting it in that Leopold was (perhaps)Albert's father and gay characters who were probably not gay in real life spoiled it a little for me. Surely there was enough historical stuff from that era to stop it from stooping a little into soapland.
Victoria's gowns have been a triumph from the wardrobe department.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Oct 24, 2017 11:46:15 GMT
I so agree, this isn't the dim distant stone ages where historians might want to pad things a bit with a little fantasy history of their own. There was enough history going on and enough incidents in Victoria's reign to balance the imaginary e.g. conversations with the real history. Getting things out of chronological order, adding in gay character just to prove a point that gay people existed then was barmy........I think we knew that. Throwing in the rubbish about Albert's parentage and making it such a theme was ludicrous, we know enough about him and his parents to get it right and the problem with deliberately getting it wrong so that it adds to the story is that many people watching don't know what has been changed and what hasn't and will continue to believe it. Sometimes I have had discussions with friends who will watch something like this and somehow or other believe that the conversation they saw on screen was a documented fact and you have to point out that they didn't have a minute taker in their bedroom so how would anyone know what they said and that is how easy it is to get the history wrong and allow it to sit there in people's minds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 12:47:43 GMT
It always strikes me as strange that in a fact-based screen drama people are allowed to alter the facts however they like to "improve" the story, but anyone who did that in a book of non-fiction would be heavily criticised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 14:30:32 GMT
I so agree, this isn't the dim distant stone ages where historians might want to pad things a bit with a little fantasy history of their own. There was enough history going on and enough incidents in Victoria's reign to balance the imaginary e.g. conversations with the real history. Getting things out of chronological order, adding in gay character just to prove a point that gay people existed then was barmy........I think we knew that. Throwing in the rubbish about Albert's parentage and making it such a theme was ludicrous, we know enough about him and his parents to get it right and the problem with deliberately getting it wrong so that it adds to the story is that many people watching don't know what has been changed and what hasn't and will continue to believe it. Sometimes I have had discussions with friends who will watch something like this and somehow or other believe that the conversation they saw on screen was a documented fact and you have to point out that they didn't have a minute taker in their bedroom so how would anyone know what they said and that is how easy it is to get the history wrong and allow it to sit there in people's minds. Exactly. Fake television!!  |
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Oct 24, 2017 15:27:39 GMT
Like when they can't afford two actors so they get one to play a mixed part or they just ignore the fact that what someone said was in front of a crowd of people etc. to make it sound like a conspiracy rather than a discussion. That happened recently in a programme about Harold Godwinsson, they only appeared to be able to afford 5 blokes and three of the people didn't have speaking parts. Every conversation was Harold and his brother. Not mentioning at all that he had more than one brother and all were Earls except the youngest, not mentioning at all that the Witan was in London, and the Aethling was in London and the Queen was still there and he had sons old enough to fight, just making it sound like two blokes deciding to have a fight outside a pub. I would rather they didn't bother if they can't get it right. It was one of those 'docu-drama' things and I usually give them a pinch of salt but all the same. Ah just remembered it was Dan Snow, cancel everything I said, I should have known it would be tripe.
|
|
