Discuss Victoria
Discuss → TV Shows → Victoria → General
Jenna Coleman as Victoria...?
posted by HoneyWestSTAFFMOD on February 21, 2017 at 2:17 PM
I am curious what others think of the casting of Jenna Coleman. I think she is wonderful in the roll but I don't think she looks the part. Not only does she look nothing like the real Victoria but I also don't think she looks at all from that period. Sometimes she just looks very modern to me... maybe it is just me? It really is a minor distraction to me, she is so good in every other respect that I can put this aside and enjoy the show. I was just curious if anyone else felt the same?
Reply by laceystew
on February 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM
Yes, I feel the same way. I have been watching documentaries on YouTube and I find this actress too pretty to play Victoria. However, I am enjoying the show. Would love to see it continue as Victoria grows older.
Reply by genplant29
on February 21, 2017 at 11:31 PM
The young actual Victoria was quite mousy looking, according to portraits, but seemed to border on mildly pretty. Definitely Jenna Coleman is outright beautiful, and far outshines the real Victoria's looks. That said, I think Jenna's face does somehow capture the real Victoria's essence.
Reply by merryapril
on February 22, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Since actors tend to be better-than-average looking, and since beautiful people are generally more compelling to watch, IMO Jenna Coleman is about as good as it gets as far as casting for the role. Prince Albert wasn't as handsome as Tom Hughes either -- and I'm nevertheless enjoying his performance very much as well!!! I think they're great together. Good chemistry.
Reply by genplant29
on February 22, 2017 at 10:42 AM
For sure! I think this series has everything going for it, from casting, to production values, etc. I much prefer Victoria over Downton Abbey.
PS: Love the opening credits "morph" bit, with the "Alleluia" being sung as accompaniment. Powerful!
Reply by HoneyWest
on February 22, 2017 at 11:19 AM
Well, I really don't believe that to be true. Many amazing actors are not what most would consider "beautiful" especially by today's unrealistic standards. Just off the top of my head I can list; Bette Davis, Charles Laughton, Judy Garland, Kathy Bates, Edie Falco, John Cusack, Maisie Williams (who I think may have made a great Victoria and not saying she is ugly but not a traditional beauty), Norman Reedus, Judy Garland, Olivia de Havilland, Al Pacino... to name a few.
Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder... I am fine with Jenna and do agree that the chemistry is good but I think a plainer actress might have been interesting way to go... imo.
Reply by merryapril
on February 22, 2017 at 11:33 AM
IMO Bette Davis, Judy Garland and Olivia De Havilland were beauties! But point taken HoneyWest -- Charles Laughton was extremely compelling. Hobson's Choice and Witness For The Prosecution are favorite films of mine. Still, I contend that most leading actors tend to be good looking. Even those who aren't are often what could be considered "jolie laide".
Reply by HoneyWest
on February 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM
I agree merryapril, most today are good looking. I also agree the Bette, Judy and Olivia were beauties but I bet they'ed have a very hard time making it today. The obsession some have with perfection is kind of alarming and also sad.