assortedflavours - Tumblr blog

assortedflavours · 5 years

Text

Ooh do I have feelings about all this and the larger problems they reveal about the ‘what even was that??’ mess that was Series 3 (and I’ll leave out the finale since that hasn’t aired yet in the UK but boy does that add to this post). But first, amen amen amen.

One of the issues that will come up in a drama claiming to be a vaguely faithful representation of a real person’s life is the passage of time and, therefore, characters. Politicians, mistresses of the robe, family members, etc., will all be moving in and out of the storyline save for the few who are permanent (Victoria, Albert, and their children, essentially). As an example, we’ve gone from Melbourne to Peel to Russell (and Palmerston has been introduced) as prime ministers who will leave after their time in power is over. By design we’re dealing with a story that will be adding new faces constantly and losing ones the audience may grow to like. And seeing as nearly 15 years have passed between Victoria’s coronation to the Great Exhibition, there’s a degree of cast replacement every single series.

Series 1 had the easy job of introducing everyone, to varying degrees of success. It also only covered just over three years of Victoria’s early reign. By Series 2 we still had most of the characters we’d been introduced to, with the mostly well handled additions of the Duchess of Buccleuch, Wilhelmina, and Drummond. Buccleuch was basically Downton’s Dowager Countess brought back 70 years, but she made a good foil for Victoria and brought some comic relief. Wilhelmina had a sweet-if-underdeveloped fancy for Ernest, but there was plenty of legitimate criticism for what Daisy Goodwin did to her in the Christmas special. And Drummond....oh boy. Many, many others have summed up his started-great-and-then-*mimes explosion* treatment better than I could. I saw the Bury Your Gays coming from a mile away and Daisy, who appears to be allergic to subtlety, went right for every part of the trope and then some.

Yet we also saw development to many characters we knew from Series 1 that mostly made sense. Ernest, though he seemed mostly disinterested in being, uh, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, was still around with Harriet. Skerrett and Francatelli had their storyline developed further. Though I thought it poorly written, we saw the culmination of the brewing Albert/Lehzen rivalry. There was quite a lot developed between the Coburgs in general, with the loss of Albert’s father, the Leopold story, and Victoria’s ever evolving relationship with her mother. Alfred, briefly, had something to do beyond chuckling at a witty line. We even had the transition of Royal Pooch from poor Dash to the adorable Islay and Eos.

So what happened in Series 3 where 90% of these people disappeared without even a line of explanation??? Ernest? Harriet? Mama? Buccleuch? Wilhelmina? Even Alfred and Leopold were basically guest stars. Instead of characters who had been developed for 8+ episodes, we got: Sophie, Joseph, Monmouth, Turner (the new Skerrett because how many people even knew who that was until I said so? exactly), Feodora, Russell, and Palmerston. Palmerston’s writing benefits a lot from having been an actual person and is easily the best of the bunch (even though I hate how Daisy’s whitewashed yet another horrid man). Russell is just sorta there, but is obviously the ineffectual foil to Palmerston’s strongman. Feodora was also an actual person and Daisy’s decided to go, naaaah, I’ll make you a cartoon villain with seemingly no motivation instead because I need Victoria and Albert to fight without learning anything or growing. Turner is brash and working class and basically “Chartism is cool but working for the Monarchy is cooler.” She just sorta pops up when the plot needs her instead of being an actual character. Does she have a first name? Do I care?

Which brings us to the terrible “love triangle” the original post broke down so well. More than anything, I wonder: why? Why did we have to suffer through their cardboard cutout, screentime wasting nothingness? Having seen some of the ITV version and all of the PBS version, I know that quite a lot has been edited out in the former. Albert’s story seems to have been quite harshly cut up, which is a bit ridiculous to do to one of the two main characters. But you know who else deserved more time? Vicky. The children in general. Alfred. Leopold. ERNEST. MAMA. Why have those two in particular up and vanished when they were the two most important relationships to Victoria and Albert apart from each other? Could it be because the dastardly Feodora plotline would’ve never happened had Victoria and Albert both had someone else to talk to and provide guidance? So instead her mother and his brother have just gone *whoosh*??

The story development up to 3x01, the character arcs that we’d seen grow, the relationships, the actual history... all just go out the window for no real reason. No, the writers determined, let’s just watch Vaguely Sad Duchess and Creeper Footman roll around on the sand instead. Zzzzzzzzzzzz........

And to address point 5 above, It’s very obvious that we’re getting ever closer to 1861. Two massive deaths happen that year that completely shake Victoria’s life for good. We need to earn those scenes. Stop wasting time on characters and stories that don’t matter and focus on the ones that do.

Why Sophie and Joseph are an excellent example of how not to write relationships.

*empties a salt shaker into a china cup, adds hot water and a tea bag, and then takes a long sip* It’s a long post, so get yourself a cup of salty tea because BOI, do I have complaints to make.

First and foremost, they are both extremely boring.

Joseph has no traits aside from apparently being sexy (the actor isn’t personally my cup of tea, but maybe I’m in the minority so who cares what I think?) and that he likes to swim (which is just something the writer has thrown in as an excuse to see him in the nude, to “spice up” the show). I honestly cannot tell you a single thing about him apart from this.

Sophie is a bland character. She has no defining characteristics aside from being a bit of a ditz, and I’m not even sure that was deliberate. She consistently had one facial expression (not through any fault of the actress, but because she only experiences one emotion throughout the story - a sort of subdued mix of confusion and emotional pain; at least I think that’s it, it’s kind of hard to tell… but that’s what makes it artistic, right guys? Ugh.).

So, Problem No. 1 - They don’t have personalities so why should we care?

Secondly, Sophie’s story arch just makes no sense, because we have no context to relate her experiences to.

She talks repeatedly in the series about William, her son, but we don’t really see them interact, aside from a few throwaway scenes that are more to remind us that William exists than to build on a mother-child bond, so their relationship feels contrived. If we had been given a few scenes where we see her with William, maybe helping him with his studies or playing with him, then the audience can see the bond that exists between them; the writer should then juxtapose that with a scene with William and his father, Charles, where the atmosphere is uncomfortable and cold. Maybe show Charles as an absent father who is either working or is away at gambling houses and brothels, so on the occasions where he is home, his relationship with his son is awkward because they barely know each other. This establishes a family dynamic amongst the three characters and creates instant tension.

Also, I never really understood what the problem was in their marriage. Sure, Charles isn’t very bright and Sophie clearly doesn’t like him, but we have no evidence that their marriage is really… bad, so to speak. He never comes across as particularly abusive; he’s just kind of abrupt and a bit stupid. It doesn’t make for a very tense relationship. If anything, Sophie seems largely at fault – given how bland and lifeless she is, I wouldn’t be surprised if her husband disliked her. I wouldn’t like her if I was married to her; she’s the least interesting or intellectually stimulating human, real or fictional, to ever exist on this dimensional plane.

Another thing, why are they married in the first place? They clearly despise each other, so them being together in the first place with no additional context makes no sense. Was it devised by their parents? Did the Duke seduce her and when she became pregnant they were forced to marry out of honour? WHERE IS THE BACKSTORY?

If we fleshed out the Duke and gave him an actual personality, we have something to work with. In the show, he’s a Disney level villain with no development, goal, or purpose. This is the Duke of Monmouth in Victoria, not Jafar in Aladdin. The man needs character development, and that shit isn’t hard to do.

Make his vain and selfish. A man who fancies himself the “New Byron”, he wanders into parties dressed in furs and silks, he has many an unusual or exotic pet lying neglected around his house, and he writes poetry, though, despite his efforts, he isn’t artistically gifted, so he has to pay the magazines to get them to publish it. He likes running off to Europe at a moment’s notice – “Oh, Sophie, where’s your husband?” “He’s gone to Geneva.” “And he didn’t take you with him?” “Clearly not, Karen.” – he’s having affairs with the kitchen maids, and he enjoys a night at the gambling house. The debt this man has accumulated is impressively devastating, the illegitimate children have reached numbers incomprehensible to the common man…. and then there’s his wife. His poor little wife, Sophie. “That poor wee love,” the people whisper. But she doesn’t mind, not yet anyway; “It’s just the way things are,” she says, “All men do it.”

Maybe he’s in debt and riddled with STDs, which you could then use as another conflict – e.g. We meet Sophie in Episode 1 as a young mother whose husband is often away at “work”, and she wants to have another child. This reasonably wish is something that her husband, when he is home, doesn’t have an issue with, but we learn throughout the episode that she’s been trying for a while now and appears to be having difficulty conceiving. In Episode 2, she finally swallows her pride and consults a doctor to check if there’s a problem, at which point it is discovered she has become infertile as a result of her husband’s syphilis. Metaphorically, a crack appears in their marriage. Then, after getting over her shock, Sophie, being a sweet summer child, is confused as to how he got syphilis in the first place. A bit of digging around, and she discovers some cheques he’s been writing for a mistress. Another crack. Then, one of the maids in the household gets pregnant. The girl says it’s the Duke’s, and the word spreads like wildfire. It was kind of accepted that he was a adulterous prick before this, but this is new – this is, shock horror, a high profile scandal. Sophie tries to ignore it, but that only makes it worse. The couple become a laughing stock: “The Sex Pest and his Poor Little Wifey”. That’s the last straw; the final crack.

This way, there’s a build up to the point where Sophie goes, “Ah, fuck it,” and sleeps with another guy. Without it, it’s just like, “Here’s Sophie. She hates her husband and is looking to fuck someone else. Why does she hate her husband, you ask? It doesn’t matter and you’re stupid for asking.”

So, Problem No. 2 - A lack of context and contrived relationships means the subplot doesn’t make sense.

Now, onto Joseph. The fact he’s been employed by both the Cavendish family and Buckingham Palace is a stretch too far to contend with. He neglects his duties, he spends all of his time stalking one lady, and he doesn’t follow orders. The man should have been whipped within an inch of his life and then fired.

What makes more sense, methinks, is if he was actually a good footman who wasn’t interested in Sophie. That Sophie is the one to make a move. The way she sees it, her life had been ruined by her husband’s greed and desire, so what’s she got to lose? Joseph is handsome enough, and he’s always been nice and kind on the few occasions they’ve interacted, so why not? She goes up to him, takes him aside, and offers to pay him generously for a “service”. He’s initially hesitant, but once he gets the scope of this situation Sophie’s living with, he takes pity on her and does as she wishes.

In the show, he comes across as a bit creepy and manipulative, and I think Penge was actually in the right for telling on them when he found out. Penge, smoking out the fuckbois since 1849. Now, there’s nothing wrong with him being creepy and manipulative if representation of a toxic relationship is what you’re going for, but I get the impression that it really isn’t. It was the same with the characters Francatelli and Nancy; in S1, I thought Francatelli was a snivelling creepy weirdo, but it turns out you are actually supposed to ship them, which leads me to believe that Joseph’s underlying creepiness is not a deliberate writing choice. I think Daisy Goodwin just really sucks at writing men in a way that isn’t creepy or toxic. She sucks at writing generally, but that is a specific theme I’m noticing.

So, Problem No. 3 - Joseph is not likeable, in any conceivable way.

Then, there’s America. Okay, Joseph is a footman and he wants to explore the world. Him going to America and leaving boring old England in order to make his fortune is fairly realistic and makes sense. If only this had been built on earlier than Episode 7, to give him some sort of goal to be working towards. You could cut to him every so often putting a portion of his wages away into a jar, saving up for the ship ticket. (This doesn’t work with my AU where they’re developed characters, but it’s a nice idea if we’re sticking strictly with the canon.)

Sophie, however, shouldn’t want to go to America. She has a child, who she apparently loves very much. She can’t take William with her, the kid belongs to her husband. You can’t tell me that a mother who adores her child would ever contemplate leaving her kid behind for some guy she’s slept with and barely knows. No one does that. An absent mother who doesn’t care about her kids? That’s more realistic, but that’s not the character type we’ve been presented with, so that fact this is a dilemma for her at all is a direct deviation from the little information we’ve been given about the sort of person she is. I don’t care if her husband is supposedly abusive, nothing is stronger than a mother’s love and it’s borderline insulting to suggest she loves a one night stand more than her child.

So, Problem No. 4 - The characters don’t have consistent goals or consistent character types, so every single significant action they make falls apart.

And the finally thing I’ll talk about here… they aren’t real historical figures.

So, Problem No. 5 - This is supposed to be a biopic about Queen Victoria. Who the fuck are these people?

#itv victoria #victoria itv #one of my many issues with series 3 #i've never been a huge fan of the secondary storylines #partly because whenever the writing veers from history #we get into daisy's imagination territory #and she's just not a good writer #but never has this been more on display than this year #the strengths of the show aren't being played into #which just makes the weaknesses even more glaring

31 notes · View notes