MovieChat Forums > Vanity Fair (2004) Discussion > NOT Victorian!

NOT Victorian!

posted 20 years ago by leelee1592
88 replies | jump to latest

Sorry, I must vent. So if you do not wish to hear my ranting, please don't read this.

Why must everyone go around calling this movie "Victorian"? It is set in the Regency period, which is *before* the Victorian period. This movie is set around 1815, and a few years beyond, which is more than 20 years before then! Please people, get your dates straight! I am thirteen and I know the difference. You can't even compare the two periods. They had completely different values and rules. They didn't even wear the same clothing.

I'm very sorry if I've offended anyone, but it really annoys me.

[–] SimplyClassic 15 years ago

The film is marketed as an "adaptation" of a Victorian classic. The movie is not earmarked as being "Victorian."

Have you read the book? Vanity Fair was published somewhere between 1847-48 which would make it a "Victorian" work (as in Queen Victoria's reign).

[–] babs7479 15 years ago

Are you as smart as a 13-year old??

The book was published in 1848 (Victorian Period) but the setting was a generation earlier (Regency Period). It's very easy to confirm that with a couple of clicks on Google. So kudos to Leelee1592!

[–] Kat-tastic 15 years ago

Thackeray published Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero in serials from 1847/48 -- which was about ten years into the reign of Queen Victoria. This makes the novel, and therefore any adaptations of it, a Victorian era piece. The novel works as a satire, it mocks the Regency period for its supposed emphasis on an elite society that was ruled by honor, grace and manners. In my opinion, this film does not do the novel justice...at all.

Random fun fact: Patrick Colquhoun, who was a statistician and magistrate during the height of the Regency period, estimated that in 1797 there were some 50,000 prostitutes in London. That would be 10% of the female population.

*Kat*
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy - Tom Waits

[–] Ash-lee 15 years ago

Only 50,000? I honestly thought that number was higher. But the number probably didn't include the demimonde and the personal mistresses (I guess that would be harder to tally).

[–] intofilm 12 years ago

Good for you! A knowledgeable 13 year old! Keep it up!