This is a biopic about the great great grandmother of our present Queen ("The Queen" as far as Stephen Frears's earlier film starring Helen Mirren is concerned). It also features her great grandfather Edward VII, another real and in many ways important historical figure shown in such a non-positive light that it must be seen as a profoundly wrong and impertinent portrayal (unless what is shown here is really true, which seems far from plausible to the casual viewer).
In fact, this film begins by declaring it is "mostly" telling a true story - in the context of a kind of jokey presentation style that scarcely inspires confidence. Indeed, at no time does this BBC offering directed by Frears really seek to inspire said confidence. Rather, it is cynically happy to spend half its time one step away from farce (albeit pointed and cruel farce), while parasitising on the well-known capacity of Dame Judi Dench to add gravitas and class to any role she takes on. This is indeed the case as Dench takes the heroine of our story through to her very deathbed of 1901, and to that epoch-making moment in the constant company of her real-life steadfast companion and Munshi (teacher) from Agra, Abdul Karim.
Now this is clearly an amazing story, and - to be fair - Frears at no time strays from the remarkable truth that Victoria was truly a non-racist in an era of unthinking racism. Dench's portrayal of Her Majesty makes her a sympathetic and wise figure, even if she does get to utter a number of implausible-looking lines about how fed up of being Queen she really is, how lonely, how disappointed in her family, and indeed how self-loathing. Ali Fazal is the Moslem Karim, who comes to the rescue of his Empress, endlessly loyal, though also it seems plagued mercilessly by a sexually-transmitted disease! Does Her Majesty fancy him anyway, or is she just touched by his devotion and capacity to cut through the protocol to show real feeling? No stone is left unturned in this area, but it all remains pretty decorous and at times touching.
In contrast, Frears has little mercy for the royal households at Windsor and the gorgeous Osborne House (Isle of Wight), or indeed for the aforementioned "Bertie" (the future Edward VII). The latter is portrayed very convincingly by Eddie Izzard in terms of looks, but far-from-plausibly in what the character says and does. When he meets Karim's fellow Indian servant, who has failed to make the same meteoric rise his colleague has managed and is now near death due to TB, he gets to hear an embittered and angry diatribe against the British Empire (you can just feel how much Frears loves every minute of that), before promising the would-be rebel that he is not going to make it out of the place alive! Did the future King really investigate such matters himself? Might he really be so angry and merciless and devious?
Background reading makes it clear that a (surprisingly) great deal of what is shown in the film DID INDEED actually happen, or at least is very much in the spirit of what happened, so YET AGAIN we are left with a biopic showing real people doing (some) real things that very often fails to convince. And in this case quite a lot of the blame must be laid with Director Frears. Just for starters, he should follow the basic rule that - if one really insists on simplifying centuries of Empire involving countless millions of people down to a single cliché word or concept - it is necessary to choose between "evil" and "ridiculous" and not try hopelessly to suggest both at the same time! Likewise, comedy is comedy, farce is farce and a historical film is a historical film. Films do in fact have genres for a reason.
As usual, a piece of this kind inspires a huge desire to read up further on its subject matter - which can only be a good thing. But it is also absurd in many ways that more pleasure and insight is gained from the reading than from the film inspiring that response in the first place!
That said, Dame Judi really can do no wrong to my mind, and she does indeed achieve a pretty compelling portrayal of a monarch only now being revealed, not as a one-dimensional figure, but as someone who can be a genuine source of wonder in all her multi-stranded diversity.
Perhaps that is reason enough to give "Victoria and Abdul" a watch, for all its imperfections?
In fact, this film begins by declaring it is "mostly" telling a true story - in the context of a kind of jokey presentation style that scarcely inspires confidence. Indeed, at no time does this BBC offering directed by Frears really seek to inspire said confidence. Rather, it is cynically happy to spend half its time one step away from farce (albeit pointed and cruel farce), while parasitising on the well-known capacity of Dame Judi Dench to add gravitas and class to any role she takes on. This is indeed the case as Dench takes the heroine of our story through to her very deathbed of 1901, and to that epoch-making moment in the constant company of her real-life steadfast companion and Munshi (teacher) from Agra, Abdul Karim.
Now this is clearly an amazing story, and - to be fair - Frears at no time strays from the remarkable truth that Victoria was truly a non-racist in an era of unthinking racism. Dench's portrayal of Her Majesty makes her a sympathetic and wise figure, even if she does get to utter a number of implausible-looking lines about how fed up of being Queen she really is, how lonely, how disappointed in her family, and indeed how self-loathing. Ali Fazal is the Moslem Karim, who comes to the rescue of his Empress, endlessly loyal, though also it seems plagued mercilessly by a sexually-transmitted disease! Does Her Majesty fancy him anyway, or is she just touched by his devotion and capacity to cut through the protocol to show real feeling? No stone is left unturned in this area, but it all remains pretty decorous and at times touching.
In contrast, Frears has little mercy for the royal households at Windsor and the gorgeous Osborne House (Isle of Wight), or indeed for the aforementioned "Bertie" (the future Edward VII). The latter is portrayed very convincingly by Eddie Izzard in terms of looks, but far-from-plausibly in what the character says and does. When he meets Karim's fellow Indian servant, who has failed to make the same meteoric rise his colleague has managed and is now near death due to TB, he gets to hear an embittered and angry diatribe against the British Empire (you can just feel how much Frears loves every minute of that), before promising the would-be rebel that he is not going to make it out of the place alive! Did the future King really investigate such matters himself? Might he really be so angry and merciless and devious?
Background reading makes it clear that a (surprisingly) great deal of what is shown in the film DID INDEED actually happen, or at least is very much in the spirit of what happened, so YET AGAIN we are left with a biopic showing real people doing (some) real things that very often fails to convince. And in this case quite a lot of the blame must be laid with Director Frears. Just for starters, he should follow the basic rule that - if one really insists on simplifying centuries of Empire involving countless millions of people down to a single cliché word or concept - it is necessary to choose between "evil" and "ridiculous" and not try hopelessly to suggest both at the same time! Likewise, comedy is comedy, farce is farce and a historical film is a historical film. Films do in fact have genres for a reason.
As usual, a piece of this kind inspires a huge desire to read up further on its subject matter - which can only be a good thing. But it is also absurd in many ways that more pleasure and insight is gained from the reading than from the film inspiring that response in the first place!
That said, Dame Judi really can do no wrong to my mind, and she does indeed achieve a pretty compelling portrayal of a monarch only now being revealed, not as a one-dimensional figure, but as someone who can be a genuine source of wonder in all her multi-stranded diversity.
Perhaps that is reason enough to give "Victoria and Abdul" a watch, for all its imperfections?