Scandal

I've read the book that the movie is based on (a collection of reports on the 1963 affair that shook the UK politics). I must say that the movie is very accurate in its portrayal of the times and facts of the case.

That of course would not have made it the film to watch. So it has a lot of nudity to spice things up (man, the sixties were a decadent time!), good acting, and brilliant soundtrack of theme songs just recreates the times for you. John Hurt as the ambitious 'doctor' is excellent, as is Bridget Fonda. Joanne Whalley-Kilmer, who played the protagonist, Christine Keeler, is quite forgettable though.

I highly recommend this movie, but beware it's a STRONG "R" film.

What seemed shocking in the 50's is almost commonplace in the debauched 21st Century, so to get a proper perspective on how controversial this was, one would probably have to have been alive during the period. In the absence of possessing a time machine though, one can only guess the outrage at the revelation that British MPs had secret sex parties and slept with prostitutes. WOW! If there is a similarity between now and then though, it's seems to be the determination of the tabloid press to publish as many lurid headlines as possible, regardless of how many lives they ruin. Vultures, the lot of 'em.

For such a saucy role, it's surprising that Joanne Whalley-Kilmer doesn't show much skin... Apart from the most obvious use of a body double ever. Never mind, her co-stars more than make up for it on that score, including a rather young Bridget Fonda, fumbling with an English accent. John Hurt and Ian Mckellen complete an impressive cast, who tackle their roles with gusto and make it an engaging ensemble piece.

I enjoyed it as an exposé of the morals and hypocrisies of a Britain on the verge of the Swinging Sixties, but was never truly engrossed. Nowadays, in a world where a woman can build a business empire based on one sex tape, you just know that everyone involved in this tawdry affair would be big reality TV stars. A sign of the times indeed. Sigh... 6/10

This is one of the better contemporary fictionalizations of historical events, though it suffers from lack of exposition. Here's the history that you need to follow events: John Profumo, England's Minister of Defence (equivalent to the US Defense Secretary) was introduced to party girls (like Christine Keeler) by popular osteopath Stephen Ward. But unlike some upper-crust friends of Ward, Profumo had more to lose. When it got out that Keeler had dated a Soviet Navy attache at about the same time as she dated the married Profumo, British tabloids had a field day noting that there were national security concerns atop the infidelity problem. One reason folks in the US have difficulty with this issue is that the story was overshadowed in the States by the almost simultaneous Cuban Missle Crisis.

The great soundtrack's now been out on CD for a few years; the theme was produced by the Pet Shop Boys and sung by authentic 60's icon Dusty Springfield. All other songs chosen charted during the early 60's, giving the film the ring of authenticity. And due possibly to legal problems, the original performance of Chubby Checker's THE TWIST couldn't be used, so Checker re-recorded it for this film. This newer, punchy 1989 version is the one used today behind Pantene shampoo commercials.

I saw this for the first time last night on Channel 4. I've never sought out the film before because I assumed that it would be an uninvolved telling of an uninteresting piece of British history. I was wrong.

The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.

Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.

Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.

The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.

If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.

I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.

The British have always enjoyed this kind of masochistic self-scrutiny, and what better wound to scratch than the notorious Profumo affair? The sex and treason scandal toppled England's conservative government in the early 1960s, and cost the life of at least one man: London doctor and celebrated freethinker Steven Ward, who enjoyed the heady, highbrow thrill of life in high places and understood how the quickest way into the corridors of power was through the pants of the men at the top. John Hurt manages to pull a sympathetic character out of the doctor's unsavory reputation, and freshman director Michael Caton-Jones recreates (with pitch-perfect sleaze) the boozy, lascivious mood of early '60s sex and politics. The details would have been compelling even without so much trendy visual overkill, but a little stylistic embellishment is to be expected in a film condensed to feature length from a proposed five-hour television miniseries. And although the script by Michael Thomas says nothing about power and privilege that isn't already common knowledge, it's nice to be reminded of the all-too human animal lurking just behind the typically English stiff upper lip.