Cromwell

Rating:
Summary: A Very Stylized Rendition Of The English Civil War
Review: 1970 film on the life of Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the revolt against the monarchy of Charles I in 17th Century England. Although the direction and musical score have some problems, the film has great cinematography and is complemented with the talents of Sir Alec Guiness and Sir Richard Harris in the leading roles.

Charles I was King of England in early to mid-17th century England. A Catholic king married to a devoutly Catholic and foreign queen, Charles I soon found himself in the political aftermath of the reformation and Henry VIII's creation of the Church of England. In addition to the religious-political paradox he found himself in, Charles I sought to retain his power by abolishing Parliament leading him to civil war. Oliver Cromwell was a devout Puritan who soon became the leader of the Roundheads against the Royalists. After taking command of the army and disposing of Charles I, Cromwell appointed himself as a dictator and ruled over parliament for several years during the period called the 'Interregnum' .

The best performance in the film is that of Alec Guiness as Charles I. He takes all of the royal airs of the monarch down to his light speech impediment. Although some have complained about Richard Harris' performance, I thought his theatrics and shouting accentuated the fact that Cromwell was a religious fanatic and politically inflexible: this disposition is adequately demonstrated by historical fact. Not only was Cromwell unwilling to compromise with the disposition of Charles I, he was intolerant and unmoving with the rest of England and was considered too rigid even by the Puritans themselves.

The worst part of the film is the soundtrack. The liturgical choir in the background presents Cromwell as some divine liberator which he wasn't. As history shows, Cromwell became just as arbitrary and inflexible in his politics as Charles I. Yes, Cromwell had very deep convictions about religion and governance but then, don't all religious zealots?

Again, this film has a great cast with beautiful costumes and reenactments. It's uneven in how it seeks to present the characters and theme: although it seems to show Charles I in a good light, it improperly places Cromwell on some biblical podium with the overdone choir music shouting "Rejoice in the Lord." England was hardly rejoicing in Cromwell after his self-appointment as dictator.

Rating:
Summary: Magnificent
Review: A magificent cinematic portrayal of the English civil war , 17th century England & the complex character of Oliver Cromwell___ with brilliant costumes , enchanting scenery & an evocative musical score.Cromwell comes across as a truly remarkable historical figure .Some folks may take exception to his supposed "ruthlessness" & cruelty in chopping off Charles 1's head but as Napolean Bonaparte is said to have aptly remarked ___"you cannot make an omelette without smashing a few eggs!" After all , what's a king's head worth when compared to the freedom of an entire people?Sir Alec Guiness (who died last week) gives an impeccable performance playing the role of the wishy-washy but supercilious Charles the 1st .Harris , I think , does a pretty good job playing Cromwell___ rough-hewn , full of courage , iron-willed ,raspy-voiced and obstinately determined to make the crown subservient to the will of the parliament .Finally , an important point which is glossed over in this age of instant soundbites and pollyanish drooling___ DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE NATURAL STATE OF MAN .For instance after finishing off with the King , Cromwell retires to his farm in Oxford hoping that the members of the parliament will govern themselves justly .No such luck as thy make a hash of things thanks to their narrow bickerings & corruption .Cromwell had to make a comeback & send the parliament packing , after which he assumed full powers and became the "Lord protector of England" in which office he served till his death in 1658 __having successfully laid the foundations of modern democracy in England .The obvious lesson is that countries toying with democracy (atleast in its embryonic stages) do need a (for want of a better term) "strong man" to "guide" the upstart "democrats" who are not above the petty considerations of pay & pelf. However only the luckiest of countries get a Cromell to do this tough job for them. Overall a great cinematic achievement .

Rating:
Summary: Our Chief of Men
Review: A magnificent summary of the fundamental issues, and their resolution, which made the British nation what it once used to be, and was for 300 years, right up until 1945. There is obviously not the slightest hope of compressing the complicated historical events from 1640 to 1660 into 2 hours, and simplification is so inevitable as to be not worth even discussing. But the basics are presented with excellent clarity, and produced with a marvellous balance between entertaining drama and solid essentials. Guinness and Harris are both on tremendous form: the defining characteristics of Charles were vacillation and weakness, and those of Cromwell force and resolution. Both were pious in their own ways. Charles, however, thought he could do what he liked in his position because God had put him there. Cromwell didn't share this belief, and that is what makes him a great man, and a great architect of the British political values which lasted for so long. The ruthless crushing of the threat in Ireland has to be addressed, of course, and perhaps I'll add something on that at a later date. Such was the man's personality, however, that even an author from a British Roman Catholic background felt obliged to title her biography: "Cromwell, Our Chief of Men".

Rating:
Summary: Historically accurate, beautifully filmed.
Review: Alec Guiness' portrayal of Charles II is perhaps one of his best. Harris, on the other hand, seems detached and cold in his portrayal of a devoutly religious man reluctant to lead a nation against its king. As a history teacher I found this film a good way to illustrate to students a rather complicated and little touched upon subject in English history and its relationship to the developing colonies in America. I strongly reccomend this film.

Rating:
Summary: For a biased view of English history, purchase "Cromwell"
Review: Although this film is highly entertaining(Good Costumes,Battles,Settings) it's account of history is far from factual. Richard Harris played the role of Oliver Cromwell, the torn and ever pious puritan, quite poorly... because Cromwell WASN'T torn over the pursuit of power and his piety only justified his rise to dictator, sorry I mean Lord Protector.

Religion was lightly touched in this film although this period revolved around it. They substituted democracy and "the rights of man" into the picture although these were ideas that would not even be practiced in this era. When I am in a forgiving mood I simply presume the makers were uneducated about this. However, my darker and prevalent opinion finds this is because the makers(England)of this film have to justify/hide this Monstrosity of English History.

Here is an parallel example of how outrageous this film really is... Imagine If some 40 years from now Germany released a film about Hitler's rise to power where it portrayed Hitler as a peaceful, but just artist who was drawn into political turmoil where the flamboyant Jewish leaders were abusing their power over the Aryans and Hitler only rose to power for the sake of democracy...and they fail to mention the wars,persecutions,holocaust,etc. that he left behind.

That is the same effect I get from this "Cromwell" picture.

Rating:
Summary: More Yelling!
Review: Great production values and a terrific performance by Sir Alec Guinness cannot entirely overcome the turgid pacing of this lavish historical epic. The biggest fault with "Cromwell" is well...Cromwell. Richard Harris, an actor who was either very, very good or very, very bad, seemed convinced that he was on the London stage rather than a film set. His postures and attitudes all seem very staged as if for a theatrical performance. Then there is the yelling. I swear 80% of Harris' dialogue is yelled and at one point in the movie his voice is hoarse from constant yelling. (It's like that SNL skit about Chris Matthews- "More yelling!) Overall, it's just too over-the-top and hurts the film.

Movies about historical subjects ALWAYS have to take liberties with their subjects. It's just the way it is. Thus, I tend to judge movies on history by a scale- some rate higher than others in capturing an era and the facts. I would rate "Cromwell" in the low mid range on that scale. It certainly captures the look of the era. The battle scenes are very impressive with literally thousands of extras courtesy of Hollywood's then favorite rent-an-army- dictator Franco's Spanish army. However, it puts Oliver Cromwell in the midst of every important decision of the English Civil War which is way off the mark. I guess the scriptwriters wanted to ensure that in almost every scene Richard Harris would be there scowling and yelling at the camera and forget about historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: More Yelling!
Review: Great production values and a terrific performance by Sir Alec Guinness cannot entirely overcome the turgid pacing of this lavish historical epic. The biggest fault with "Cromwell" is well...Cromwell. Richard Harris, an actor who was either very, very good or very, very bad, seemed convinced that he was on the London stage rather than a film set. His postures and attitudes all seem very staged as if for a theatrical performance. Then there is the yelling. I swear 80% of Harris' dialogue is yelled and at one point in the movie his voice is hoarse from constant yelling. (It's like that SNL skit about Chris Matthews- "More yelling!) Overall, it's just too over-the-top and hurts the film.

Movies about historical subjects ALWAYS have to take liberties with their subjects. It's just the way it is. Thus, I tend to judge movies on history by a scale- some rate higher than others in capturing an era and the facts. I would rate "Cromwell" in the low mid range on that scale. It certainly captures the look of the era. The battle scenes are very impressive with literally thousands of extras courtesy of Hollywood's then favorite rent-an-army- dictator Franco's Spanish army. However, it puts Oliver Cromwell in the midst of every important decision of the English Civil War which is way off the mark. I guess the scriptwriters wanted to ensure that in almost every scene Richard Harris would be there scowling and yelling at the camera and forget about historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: overall, very entertaining
Review: I am a great student of the English Civil War and found this movie to be, overall, very entertaining despite just a few historical inaccuracies such as Oliver Cromwell being one of the five Parliament memebers that Charles I personally came to arrest ( Cromwell wasnt one of the five ). The costumes, stage sets and battle scenes, especially the cavalry charges, were without equal. A lot of the musical score was fitting and added to the atmosphere of the film. I dont believe that Harris's portrayal of Cromwell was uninspiring as previous reviewers have suggested. Cromwell, according to some historical sources, was a deep believer in freedom, both religious and private property, hence the films early reference about Cromwell leaving England for America. Cromwell was simply not known, historically, to have worn his emotions on his sleeve. Timothy Dalton's Prince Rupert was magnificent. Alec Guiness certainly looked like Charles I. Truthfully, most of the actors fairly resembled their characters.

I know this film was made for mass audiences and thus needed star name appeal to sell it. But it is too bad that this most interesting period of history could not have been portrayed in a miniseries (in the way Glenda Jackson's ELIZABETH R was) with all the same actors. That way, other central characters such as Charles I, Thomas Wentworh the Earl of Strafford, Parliamentary leader John Pym and others could have been developed more fully because they are just as interesting as Cromwell. Not to mention the decade or so long struggle between Parliament and Crown that led up to the Civil War and Thomas Wentworths treachery by going from Parliaments greatest champion to being Charles I right hand man thus earning Parliaments unending enmity. Lots of great storyline potential there.

Yes, it is too bad it was not made as a miniseries because so much dramatic history was left out. This film gem was unfortunately to brief. But I liked it alot!

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining historic epic
Review: I found Cromwell to be an entertaining historic epic movie. I know the period pretty well and although the movie is hardly historically accurate, I thought it was entertaining. Alec Guiness totally steal the movie. He managed to generate a lot of sympathy for being a bad King while Cromwell played by Richard Harris gets too hammy and his character comes out looking like a blood thirsty tyrant. Bit ironic. I hope no one is looking for any history lessons here. Sir Thomas Fairfax founded the New Model Army, not Cromwell who only commanded the cavalry during the initial stages of that army's creation. Historical inaccuracy are too many to write down here. The battle scenes were great (although bit short) but both Guiness and Harris were well supported by an excellent cast.

The DVD looks pretty good overall. It was nice to see this movie in (anamorphic) widescreen once again - I haven't seen it that mode since I last saw it in the theaters back in 1971!! The audio is good (Dolby surround), clarity in the presentation but there was no extra features outside of few trailers. This is a totally strip-down DVD, just the movie!

Rating:
Summary: Is historical accuracy important?
Review: I read with great interest the comments of the Reverend RP Mortimer with regards to this film, and his review brings up one crucial issue concerning historical films or at least those depicting historical figures: is true historical accuracy important? Anyone who has seen "The Thin Red Line" or "Apocalypse Now" or "Schindlers' List" or the Channel Four film "Welcome to Sarejevo" will surely accept, as I do, that minute detail can be compromised so long as the general picture is a sound one. Thus the above films successfully convey the, undoubtedly truthful, impression that "war is hell". However, one must at this point make a distinction between films such as this, which are polemical, rather than pertaining to minute historical accuracy. Reverend Mortimer clearly accepts that "Cromwell" falls into this category; however, I have two problems with this. Firstly, and less seriously, I am not convinced that this is the case: there does not seem to be an obvious point to the picture apart from as some sort of history lesson and if this is the case then accuracy is surely crucial.

My second reservation, though, is far more serious. The films I mentioned earlier make abstract and indesputable points; "Cromwell" if Rev. Mortimer's view of the point of the film is to be accepted - and I believe it is a largely useful interpretation - is making a series of more specific points of history, and it is here where the problems exist. Let us examine a few.

Rev. Mortimer suggests that Cromwell was in a one man pursuit of "justice and truth". Yes, as far as he was concerned he was attempting to spread what he saw as the word of God. So much so that he saw his fortunes at war (the Battle of Worcester was famously "God's crowning mercy") as denoting God's approval or dissaproval of his political/religious policy: the expedition to the West Indies ended in disaster so he had to rejig the constitution having fallen from God's favour. However, this aim, by definition, precluded him from laying the foundations of "true democracy". Mortimer laments the failure of the Cromwellian system of government to stand the test of time but I wonder how many Englishmen today would approve of a government that did not tolerate atheism, Catholicism, even what became Anglicanism; that places spies in the major towns to expose anti-governmental sentiment; that closed the theatres, many alehouses and cancelled Christmas; that put entire Irish communities to the sword largely due to their religion; that kept a severely restricted franchise no wider than it was under Charles I; and that executed the leaders of true democratic movements such as the Levellers. Admittedly it is not fair to judge Cromwell by the standards of today; but the founding father of democracy? Surely not.

Possibly the great problem of the film is to blur the two contrasting periods of the Civil War, on which the film concentrates, where Cromwell only became a significant player towards the end; and the so-called "interregnum" where he ruled England, and maybe most significantly, Britain, as a virtual King. The former was the period where true politcal and religious innovation took place; the latter was, in effect, a period of reaction with much greater absolutism than under the ill-fated Charles, who had no standing army while Cromwell had 80,000 men. The fact is, and the film fails miserably to convey this (hoodwinking, it seems, some of its viewers) that like Napoleon Bonaparte, Oliver Cromwell turned his back on the revolution that created him.

I would finally like to take brief issue with some of Reverend Mortimer's lamentations with regard to our society and that of Cromwell's. Firstly he opines that "modern man cannot stand 'Puritan' principles and Godliness" (he uses Godliness in its Cromwellian sense, meaning Puritanism). While this is true it is also the case that the vast majority of Cromwell's contempories could not stomach them either. Puritans were no more than a vocal minority during the mid Stuart crisis and while this does not make them insignificant it does make them unpopular: one only has to read some of the spate of anti-Puritan literature during the Restoration period to see this. One could also suggest that the spirit of Puritanism lives on in such modern-day practices as buying organic foods or "ethical investment" but that is another story.

The second issue I have is that Mortimer talks of a people's loyalty to the "nation" which does not exist today. I wonder what Cromwell's perception of a "nation" would have beem; it would certainly be nothing like that we have today, traditionally seen as growing after the French Revolution and maybe even much later. Most people in the mid seventeenth century were not loyal to any "nation" but to what they called their "country", ie: in todays parlance their county or region - hence the fact that during the wars more people took up arms to defend their county's neutrality than did to fight for either side.

These points render the "polemical" and general points of the film largely invalid and therefore spurious. This, despite what one thinks of the question of minute accuracy, makes the film poor history and a misrepresentation of the truth.