Slow, historical European films seem to have been doing well in the United States lately, and especially in the Oscars. With The Artist last year winning the big award, it seems no surprise that A Royal Affair, the Danish submission to the Oscars for 2013, has been nominated for Best Foreign Picture. It has, almost formulaically, all the things that people like about period films, and is at the same time deep enough to appeal to the ‘critical’ eye.
A Royal Affair tells the story of the short renaissance that blessed Denmark unexpectedly in the 18th century. A British princess, Caroline Mathilde, goes on to become the newest Queen of Denmark and Norway in 1766 after marrying King Christian VII. As we expect, the marriage is one made out of convenience, with little love in it and even less compassion, as Caroline has to deal with the madness and antipathy of the king. Things change for her once the King’s personal doctor and adviser, Johann Friedrich Struensee, joins the Danish court. Struensee and the Queen Caroline start a tumultuous love affair, kindled through their passion for Renaissance authors, banned by the conservative council of state. Through their influence and Struensee’s appeasing nature, the King takes control of the state and together pull forward a number of reforms that make Denmark the symbol of European Renaissance. At least for a while.
A mad king, a rebellious queen and a mysterious, revolutionary adviser singlehandedly change the destiny of Denmark, while defying a malicious conservative council of old men. It also helps, that in defiance of many other independent European films, who seem to be filmed by amateurs, “A Royal Affair” is made with careful attention detail and scenery. Lavish courts that are never over-done with unnecessary luxury and the peaceful scenery of the countryside are juxtaposed to the filthiness of Copenhagen to outline physically a plot that only picks-up half-way through the film, as Struensee arrives in Copenhagen.
But that remains just the surface of the film, and it is not the part that convinced the Oscar committee to put it on the list of nominees. The appeal of A Royal Affair’ remains its intellectual nature, and moving, hopeful ending. Its representation of the archaic council of state rings a bell for many politically-inclined viewers. The arguments used in what represented Denmark’s parliament remain true to form today. It is easy to draw a parallel between something that happened 250 years ago and how often the same ideals of preserving tradition and being right by proxy are used in politics to date. It reminds the viewer, albeit subconsciously, how some ideas, however wrong, still remain.
It should be said, however, that it’s not only historical films that have been drawing the American eye, though that proud historical tradition definitely helps. Though a long shot, if Austria’s Amour wins this year, it would be the third European film in a row to be granted the honor, after The Artist in 2012 and The King’s Speech in 2011. What all films have in common are their lack of action, focus on character and a slow building up that never really delivers anything that the viewer had been not expecting. They also share the feeling of nostalgia for a lost time, when things were different, where the romantic was shown in its true form. The American public seems to be missing their motherland’s perfume and history, which they consider their own.
Still, a question begs to be asked: is the European film-making industry getting better, per-se, or has the American public grown to enjoy the slow paced, anti-climactic style of the other side of the continent? The easy answer out of this would point to a little bit of both, but that does not matter. What matters is the fact that the Oscars, though they have become in the past five years more accepting of international talent, have still confined their selection to the like-minded European artists. It should travel farther.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.