| Suggested film list: “The Royal Prerogative” I began writing this list of brief reviews of films when I was a graduate student at the University of Arizona in 1996. I recently began the process of revisiting these films and revising my earlier reviews. Becket (1964): Sterling adaptation of Jen Anouilh’s stage play, which chronicles the test of wills between Henry II (Peter O’Toole) and his erstwhile friend and minister Thomas Becket (Richard Burton), who turned renegade defender of the medieval church upon his appointment as archbishop of Canterbury. Nicely paced and generally accurate historically- this role was made for Richard Burton, who chews up the scenery in what remains his best performance ever. With John Gielgud as King Louis VII of France. The Lion in Winter (1968): The second best film on this list. Peter O’ Toole reprised the role of Henry II, in the twilight of his years, as he gathers his family for a thoroughly out of control Christmas holiday. The script positively sizzles as it unfolds the dynamics of intrigue and betrayal that plagued the Plantagenet royal family. Katharine Hepburn won her third Oscar (a tie with Barbra Streisand!) for her portrayal of the ambitious and scheming Eleanor of Aquitaine. With Anthony Hopkins as Richard, and Timothy Dalton as the youthful Philip Augustus of France. The Lion in Winter (2003): Take this version back, and exchange it for the 1968 version, which cannot be improved upon. Braveheart (1995): Mel Gibson (who also directed) as William Wallace, the legendary defender of Scottish independence. Thoroughly entertaining (especially on the big screen), Gibson takes more than his fair share of dramatic licence, relying heavily on unhistorical plot devices (I have students whose task is to figure out what these are, so forgive me for not revealing them here!). Patrick McGoohan, though, is positively chilling in his portrayal of the darker side of Edward I, the English Justinian, as the godfather of pan-British imperialism. Oscars for best film and director. Edward II (1991): This is an art film. Derek Jarman’s modern adaptation of Christopher Marlowe’s sixteenth century play depicts England’s most openly homosexual king in modern dress, displaying a gay sensibility that simply did not exist in the fourteenth century. Still, one does get a feel for why Edward is usually considered to be the most unsuitable of medieval English kings. With Stephen Waddington as King Edward, and Tilda Swinton as his ferocious queen Isabella. Henry V (1945): this first filmed version appeared just in time to provide a powerful historical metaphor for what had been Britain’s darkest hour during World War II. Thanks to the bard of Avon, Henry V still holds the popular title of England’s greatest medieval king. The historical Henry was, of course, darker and more ruthless than the hero of Shakespeare’s most patriotic historical play. This version, directed by and starring Laurence Olivier, holds up well. Henry V (1989): this later version is a truly spectacular production. Kenneth Branaugh (who also directed) sparkles as a more ebullient and charming king than Olivier’s earlier depiction. The sets and costumes would have pleased the bard himself, while the Battle of Agincourt is a particular delight. With Emma Thompson as Catherine of Valois. First rate. The Tower of London (1939): a bastardized screen version of Shakespeare’s Richard III, this nicely costumed melodrama leaves historical accuracy on the cutting room floor to tell the tale of England’s most reputedly sinister king. With Basil Rathbone as the scheming and homicidal King Richard III. The Tower of London (1962): a campy remake, this time seen through the lens of schlock filmmaker Roger Corman. I don’t know why I even put this lurid low- budget potboiler on this list, except that Corman manages to work in every single bit of anti-Ricardian Tudor propaganda. Vincent Price is wickedly delightful as Richard III. Richard III (1955): Shakespeare’s play was the culmination of a century of bad press endured by the last Yorkist king, unable to defend himself from the grave as a host of historians have done for him in the twentieth century. As filmed drama, however, Laurence Olivier was hysterically diabolical in the title role. With John Gielgud as George, duke of Clarence. Richard III (1995): another “art” film, like Edward II, offensive to the purist. This time the setting is between the wars Britain, nicely timed for Nazi allusions. Frankly, I do not see the point. What could be next? Antony and Cleopatra, living it up on Miami Beach? With Ian McKelland as Richard. The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933): this film capitalized on the then current popular biography of the same name. Charles Laughton won an Oscar for his vivid portrayal of the corpulent sixteenth century monarch. Though lauded in its day, to the modern viewer it is nothing but high camp, full of unintentionally funny scenes (or were they intentional?), as Laughton cemented Henry’s enduring reputation for notoriously bad table manners. Historical accuracy rarely prevailed in the early days of Hollywood- this film is a prime example. For instance, while the historical Henry VIII was trim and athletic in his youth, Laughton is fat all the way through the film, while Elsa Lanchester looked more like an alpine hausfrau than Anne of Cleves. Once you know what Henry and his wives actually looked like, you will know what I mean. A Man For All Seasons (1966): Hands down, the best film on this list. Robert Bolt pared his stage play to the essential bone to chronicle the test of wills between Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) and Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) over the “King’s Great Matter.” A deft use of dramatic license does not significantly alter the essential historical accuracy of the screenplay, derived from sixteenth century primary sources. Beautifully filmed on location in England, the sterling supporting cast includes John Hurt (Richard Rich), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), Wendy Hiller (Lady Alice More), and Nigel Davenport (The Duke of Norfolk), with stunning cameos by Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn, and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey. Directed by legendary filmmaker Fred Zinneman (High Noon, From Here to Eternity, Julia). A Man For All Seasons (1988): refer to my instructions for The Lion in Winter (1988). Anne of the Thousand Days (1969): Historians have never lost their fascination with Anne Boleyn, the most controversial of all English queen consorts. Richard Burton cuts a fine figure as the bewitched Henry VIII, who moved heaven, earth, and the Reformation Parliament to win his second wife, while the lovely French actress Genevieve Bujold was an appropriate choice to play a queen who spent a good deal of her youth at the French royal court. In fact, Bujold actually looked a lot like Anne Boleyn, and that helps. Despite these obvious virtues, the screenwriter compacted chronology and blended spurious fiction with historical fact to create a plausible (to the non-specialist!) dramatization of Henry and Anne's torturous ten year relationship. (revised June 2008) Lady Jane (1985): This elegant film tells the tragic story of Lady Jane Grey, the “Nine Days Queen of England.” Helena Bonham Carter, darker and smokier than the historical Jane, who was red-haired and freckled, considerably softened the character of Grey who, like her cousin Edward VI, comes down in history as a brilliant but prim, humorless Protestant prig, the tragic victim of a typically brutal Tudor upbringing, in which childhood had no place. (When I originally wrote this piece in 1996, Lawrence Stone was all there was!) Young Bess (1953): typically 1950s period piece of Elizabeth I’s life before she became queen. Even so, Hollywood took more than its fair share of dramatic license to brighten what was the darkest period in Elizabeth’s life. Charles Laughton reprises the role of Henry VIII, to engage in a series of unaccountable conversations with his younger daughter. Similar to The Private Life of Henry VIII, the utter lack of attention to even a semblance of historical accuracy is noticeable to even the most casual student of Tudor history. Of course, it would have been bad box office to have shorn the devilishly handsome Stewart Granger of his trademark salt and pepper Caesar-style locks in his portrayal of Thomas Seymour, who actually sported long black hair and flowing beard. Jean Simmons, however, was never lovelier in the title role. The Virgin Queen (1955): Jean Simmons takes a backseat to Bette Davis in this episodic account of the fabled Tudor queen. Davis vividly captures Elizabeth I’s queenly mastery, while the historical accuracy is pretty solid for 1950s Hollywood. Definitely worth watching. Elizabeth and Essex (1939): Bette Davis’s first romp as Elizabeth I. The bare bones of the relationship between the aged Virgin queen and the youthful earl of Essex is fleshed out in typically early Hollywood style. However, the film does present, in a sanitized form, the sexual dynamic of the late Elizabethan court. With Errol Flynn as the reckless earl of Essex. Elizabeth (1998) Cate Blanchett is luminous as Elizabeth I, while cinematographer Remi Adefarasian did a masterful job of creating what may be the best modern screen equivalent of Tudor era indoor lighting- dark and dank. But that is about all this production has to recommend for itself as a filmed historical text; Michael Hirst’s screenplay inexplicably gutted the drama inherent in the early years of Elizabeth’s reign to present a fictionalized, chronologically compacted melodrama, as the characterizations of Cecil, Dudley, and Walsingham bear little relation to their historical counterparts, although the duke of Anjou’s romp in drag is great fun. Any rational notion of historical time was thrown out with the bathwater, as the film concludes with Elizabeth consciously, and over night, transforming herself into the white faced clown of her final years. Watch for its entertainment value only. Mary of Scotland (1936): Solemn, turgid version of Maxwell Anderson’s play of the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. While the names and dates are accurate, the film fails to capture the complexity of the historical Mary’s character. Indeed, one has to wonder how legendary filmmaker John Ford and star Katharine Hepburn could make such a boring film. With Florence Eldridge as Elizabeth I. Mary, Queen of Scots (1971): Davis, Simmons, Blanchett, and Judi Dench (see below) all must take a back-seat to Glenda Jackson’s superb portrayal of Elizabeth I (you must see the 1971 miniseries Elizabeth R if you have not already), although Vanessa Redgrave fails to capture the transcendent charm that served Mary Queen of Scots so well over the course of her tortured career. While the religious and political dynamics of the second half of the 16th century are nicely fleshed out in the screenplay, the film depicts a series of secret chance meetings between the two rival queens who never actually met face to face. This lavish Hal B. Wallis production is solid entertainment, and the chance meetings employ dramatic license to good effect, but I remain ambivalent about a film that gives the audience the impression that these two queens actually knew each other personally, when much of the drama inherent in their story was the fact that they never met. With Patrick McGoohan as James Stewart, earl of Moray. (revised June 2008) Shakespeare in Love (1998): Judi Dench appeared onscreen for all of eight minutes to become the only actress to win an Oscar portraying Elizabeth I. Dench was memorable, though (“The Queen does not attend lewd performances!”), as was Joseph Fiennes, Gwynyth Paltrow (in her Oscar winning performance), Geoffrey Rush, and Tom Wilkinson in a fictional account of a chain of events that inspired the writing of Romeo and Juliet. This film is not only hysterically funny; it does a fine job portraying the ups and downs of Elizabethan theater life, as well as the seamy underbelly of late sixteenth century London. Cromwell (1970): The story of the Puritan military genius who deposed Charles I. While lavishly filmed, with spectacular battle scenes of the English Civil War, the film ultimately is a certified snore, as Richard Harris fails to ignite the passion and implacable will of Oliver Cromwell. Not surprisingly, Alec Guinness steals the show as Charles I. Restoration (1998): Only recently have filmmakers come to realize how fun Charles II and the Stuart Restoration could be on screen. This film, the first of a seemingly unintentional trilogy of Restoration era films, is based upon the novel by Rose Tremain, concerning the adventures of Robert Merivel (Robert Downey Jr.), ordered by Charles II (Sam Neill) to marry his mistress, but not to sleep with her. This proves hard for Merivel to do, who eventually finds the inner medical doctor within, just in time for the London plague of 1666. A visual treat, with fine performances all around- as in Stage Beauty and The Libertine, Restoration England is stunningly brought alive in this delightful film. Stage Beauty (2004): In the second installment of the Restoration trilogy, Rupert Everett is a riot as the early restoration period Charles II, who relaxed the ban on women actors in the theatre, creating big problems for Mr. Kynaston (Billy Crudup), trained as a youth to portray female characters, particularly Shakespearean heroines (A woman playing a woman? Where’s the trick in that?”). Based loosely on fragments of reminiscence from Samuel Pepys, the film vividly and humorously recreates the rather relaxed sexual mores of the Restoration court (Edward Fox is particularly delightful as a decidedly puritanical Edward Hyde), and the gender dynamics of Restoration England. This film boasts a plethora of excellent performances from Claire Danes, Tom Wilkinson, Hugh Bonneville, and Richard Griffiths. You must see this film! The Libertine (2004): the final installment of the Restoration trilogy finds the older and less ebullient Charles II (John Malkovich) , troubled by his foreign entanglements and the looming Exclusion Crisis, and stymied by the machinations of poet John Wilmot, earl of Rochester (Johhny Depp), whose debauchery led to his ultimate ruin. Based on the play by Stephen Jeffries, Depp adds Wilmot to his resume of offbeat performances, who casts his final vote in the House of Lords in favor of an indefeasible hereditary monarchy. The Madness of King George (1994): Engaging drama, with comic overtones, about the Hanoverian king who lost, successively, the American colonies and his mind. Nigel Hawthorne is brilliant as George III, as is Helen Mirren in her portrayal of the devoted and determined Queen Charlotte. For the most part historically accurate, screenwriter Alan Bennett (who adapted his stage play) managed to find a most sardonic wit and humor in the characterizations of Charles James Fox (Jim Carter), William Pitt the Younger (Julian Wadham), and George, Prince of Wales (Rupert Everett). Mrs. Brown (1997): Judi Dench’s Oscar for Shakespeare in Love is partly explained by her loss the previous year (to Helen Hunt in As Good As it Gets) in what remains her finest screen performance. Dench vividly recreates the widowed Queen Victoria’s unbridled wall of fury that only John Brown (Billy Connelly), an uncouth thuggish Scot, was able to penetrate, to the disconcertion of “Bertie”, the Prince of Wales (David Westhead), and the rest of the royal household and staff, and the amazement of Benjamin Disraeli (Antony Sher), who recognized in Brown a successful conduit to communicate with the isolated queen. This film is as good as it gets; performances, production values, and the attention paid to the actual drama inherent in the pages of history; as the producers wisely chose to leave the true nature of Victoria and Brown’s relationship unexplained. Not to be missed! The Queen (2006): Helen Mirren is superb as her current majesty, Elizabeth II, who failed to grasp the enormity that the death of Diana, princess of Wales, had on the British psyche in August of 1997. Stephen Frears (The Grifters) fearlessly filmed this story of the inner workings of the contemporary monarchy, as newly elected PM Tony Blair wears down the Queen’s icy resolve for the monarchy to “deal” with Diana’s death privately. What I especially enjoyed about the film was the way that Mirren’s performance betrayed Elizabeth II’s devotion to the essentially Victorian morality that had served the Windsor dynasty so well; a reverence she was unable to transfer to the next generation of royals.Mirren won a much deserved Oscar for this performance; luckily, perhaps, she has already been created a Dame Commander of the British Empire in 2003. |
