Le premier ministre

Such an abscure film, which finally came to TCM. There have been several films made about disreali, from his humble beginnings as writer to prime minister in the late 1800s, and trusted friend of the royals. The mighty geilgud had already been doing stage for twenty years when this role came along, although most of us know him from the films "arthur" and "becket". To some, the specific details of british political history can be pretty dry. The writers must have thought so also, as they frequently use written cards to move the story along, showing disreali, as he climbs the steps of offices. It's okay. The 1929 version with george arliss focuses more on trying to purchase the suez canal and keeping the russians in check. That one is a little more fun to watch. This 1941 version is directed by thorold dickinson, who was nominated for "oeuverture". Released in 1941, geilgud made this very early in his film career, possibly to influence england's actions during world war II.

"The Prime Minister" is loosely based on the life and career of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The film first portrays his earlier life and career and then rapidly transitions to his time as Prime Minister.

The performances in this film were respectable. John Gielgud delivers a fine performance as Disraeli himself. Diana Wynyard is convincing as Disraeli's wife and Fay Compton was also notable as Queen Victoria.

This film is watchable and has a decent storyline. It is apparent that the story emphasizes certain points because this film was made as British propaganda for World War II, but that didn't bother me. Overall the film somewhat touched on the wit and energy of Disraeli, though not as much as it could have. I found "Disraeli" (1929) to be a much more engaging portrayal of Disraeli, and Arliss' performance as Disraeli is more charismatic and makes more of an impression.

"The Prime Minister" is a film of its times. As Britain had its back up against the wall against the German war machine, most of the films made in the UK were intended to bolster the war effort...either directly or indirectly. So, while the film is set in the 19th century, its aim clearly is to harken back to a bygone era...when Britain was the strongest colonial power on the planet. It also has the theme of unity and draws obvious parallels to Churchill and his seemingly lone campaign against the Axis. The film also was designed to turn American sentiment towards the cause of this underdog. As a result, the film seems a bit overly schmaltzy and overly dramatic at times. Realism was being sacrificed for propaganda reasons.

Unlike the earlier Warner Brothers film, "Disraeli" (1929), this film from the same studio tries to do an overview of Benjamin Disraeli's entire career. It follows him as a rich dandy to joining Parliament to becoming Prime Minister (several times...off and on). All the while, his wife is by his side...encouraging and pushing him toward greatness.

So is it any good? Yes, but I was surprised that occasionally John Gielgud (Disraeli) overacted a bit. He also struggled with showing emotion...any emotion. He was a great actor, but you can't see a lot of this greatness here. But as I said above, realism was sacrificed a bit in order to make the film rousing and a propaganda piece...and that had to effect his acting. The film also, at least in 2022, a bit stodgy and slow. Not a bad film...but you might learn a better lesson about the man by reading the Wikipedia article on him. Also, I agree with the reviewer, as it seems odd that the movie never once mentions that Disraeli was Jewish (though he later converted to the Church of England)...odd considering the state of Jewry in 1941.

Obviously, this film was designed to bolster the morale of the Brits at the time of the Blitz, but couldn't Warner Brothers have been more careful with the flow of the picture? It begins, as many biopics do, by reducing a great person's life to a flimsy love story. Only later, when his wife leaves the picture, does this truly become a political film. John Gielgud, looking wispy and vaguely Disraelite, turns in one of his least believable performances, especially in the scenes where he plays the elderly Disraeli. The poor make-up job, and his ridiculously stereotyped "old man" facial features make some of those scenes almost unwatchable.

This is the second film from this era that I have recently seen (the other being "The Life of Emile Zola") where a studio can make a picture about a Jewish person without ever mentioning the "J" word. When a person's Jewishness is so central to the plot, pussyfooting around it is unforgivable.

From a historical perspective, my favorite parts of this film were the Disraeli harangues in which he is obviously rubbing salt in Chamberlain-the-appeaser's wounds. I'm sure Churchill would have loved watching those scenes.

John Gielgud makes a great performance as the formidable statesman Benjamin Disraeli, emerging from nothing to a successful novelist, and then embarking on politics for good and for worse, in constant clinch with the equally great statesman William Gladstone, whose part in this is rather secondary; while Diana Wynyard as Mrs. Disraeli always is a treat and has a superior qualitty and knack of dominating every film she is in by simply outshining everyone else, apparently by her beauty, but there is a very special magic about her. The film was one-sidedly patriotic, it was made in the worst time of the war, when anything was needed to bolster the British resistance fighting spirit, and so the film is hopelessly tendentious, keeping dead quiet about the fact that Disraeli was a Jew, importing a complex which is a driving force for so many of that ancestry, often leading them to extremely high and responsible positions, which they usually carry with honour, of which Disraeli is a perfect example. The film is a feast for the eyes from beginning to end, the costumes are consistently sumptuous, there are overwhelming ball scenes and the fascinating love story between Diana Wynyard and John Gielgud; and then there is Fay Compton as Queen Victoria, almost vying with Wynyard for charm and adorability - she makes a fascinating portrait of the Queen, which must be true. In brief, for all lovers of historical costume films, this is a major treat, and if you also are capable of appreciating great acting, that adds to the treat.