ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,4/10
5,8 k
MA NOTE
D'après le scandale Profumo de 1963, une liaison entre une danseuse exotique et le ministre de la Guerre secoue le gouvernement britannique.D'après le scandale Profumo de 1963, une liaison entre une danseuse exotique et le ministre de la Guerre secoue le gouvernement britannique.D'après le scandale Profumo de 1963, une liaison entre une danseuse exotique et le ministre de la Guerre secoue le gouvernement britannique.
- Prix
- 1 victoire et 2 nominations au total
Joanne Whalley
- Christine Keeler
- (as Joanne Whalley-Kilmer)
Jeroen Krabbé
- Eugene Ivanov
- (as Jeroen Krabbe)
Avis en vedette
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.
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.
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.
I remember the names of the people involved when I was a kid. I had no idea what the Profumo Affair was all about, so I was very interested in seeing the film. Names from my childhood kept cropping up: Christine Keeler, Stephen Ward, Lucky Gordon. I was able to see the whole thing played out before me. Most of what is shown is historically accurate. It is certainly true that the osteopath Stephen Ward was hounded to his death by the British establishment.
Of the performances John Hurt was excellent as Ward. Joanne Whalley Kilmer has been criticised for a two dimensional performance. I don't agree. She had decided to play the part of someone who is essentially shallow (however deep the real Christine Keeler might or might not be) and makes a fair fist of it. I thought that Roland Gift was OK as Johnny edgecombe - although at the time I thought he was supposed to be Lucky Gordon.I thought that Leslie Philips was going to be a disaster as Lord Astor, but he was excellent.
The problem of having lived through the period is that when it is portrayed on film, you can see all the mistakes in fashions and background. This film is no exception.
The music is quite apt - in one case (see below) spot on - and I thought that the truly appalling rendition of "She Wears Red Feathers" in the night club scene was very atmospheric.
Someone else pointed out the scene as the girls are dressing while The Shadows play "Apache." That scene stimulated me, too. If you can, watch this scene in a cinema. Watching stockings been drawn on on a big screen while Tony's bass drum, Cliff's Japanese drum, then Jet's bass come rolling out of those gigantic cinema speakers is an experience not to be missed - believe you me!
Of the performances John Hurt was excellent as Ward. Joanne Whalley Kilmer has been criticised for a two dimensional performance. I don't agree. She had decided to play the part of someone who is essentially shallow (however deep the real Christine Keeler might or might not be) and makes a fair fist of it. I thought that Roland Gift was OK as Johnny edgecombe - although at the time I thought he was supposed to be Lucky Gordon.I thought that Leslie Philips was going to be a disaster as Lord Astor, but he was excellent.
The problem of having lived through the period is that when it is portrayed on film, you can see all the mistakes in fashions and background. This film is no exception.
The music is quite apt - in one case (see below) spot on - and I thought that the truly appalling rendition of "She Wears Red Feathers" in the night club scene was very atmospheric.
Someone else pointed out the scene as the girls are dressing while The Shadows play "Apache." That scene stimulated me, too. If you can, watch this scene in a cinema. Watching stockings been drawn on on a big screen while Tony's bass drum, Cliff's Japanese drum, then Jet's bass come rolling out of those gigantic cinema speakers is an experience not to be missed - believe you me!
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 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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis movie narrowly escaped an X rating in the U.S. because of some questionable footage during the Cliveden House orgy scene. Closer scrutiny revealed that two extras were having real sex on a piano in one of the background scenes. Even though the images were blurry, the scene had to be trimmed for all general releases to avoid the restrictive rating, which BBFC censor James Ferman accomplished by defusing the light from a table-lamp in the foreground. The inquisitive-minded will find this sequence about 49 minutes and five seconds into the movie.
- GaffesA title card says, "One Year Later, 1962," indicating that Profumo addressed Parliament about Keeler that year. Profumo addressed Parliament in March 1963.
- Citations
Stephen Ward: All Russians are spies, it's how they're brought up.
- Autres versionsOriginal 114-minutes British version was shortened to 108 minutes for the USA theatrical release in order to avoid a X rating.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Wogan: Wogan with Sue Lawley (1989)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Scandal?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 7 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 8 800 000 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 658 660 $ US
- 30 avr. 1989
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 8 800 000 $ US
- Durée1 heure 51 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant