Il nemico di Napoleone

I finally got to see The Young Mr. Pitt, a film I had wanted to see for decades. Mainly because Robert Donat perfectly fit my conception of what William Pitt, the Younger was like. In that I was not disappointed, Pitt is definitely one of Donat's best screen performances.

William Pitt, the Younger 1759-1806 was the second son of William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham. As he was the second son, he did not inherit the earldom, but he did inherit his father's name and in British history, he is probably one of the five greatest individuals ever to be their Prime Minister. And he became Prime Minister at the ripe old age of 24 and held that office for most of the rest of his life.

Although certain things were left out, what was in the film stuck pretty close to the facts. When Pitt turned 21 he entered Parliament in 1781 and the following year, Lord Frederick North, the Prime Minister who lost the American Revolution was finally kicked out. There was a bit of jockeying for power and several governments were formed over the next two years when George III got the idea to ask young Pitt to take the job. He managed to win the next elections and was master of Parliament the rest of his life. He also never lost the confidence of his sovereign.

Donat captures Pitt perfectly, his only vice was every now and then to drink a bit much. No cheap swill for him though, only the finest of wines did he occasionally overindulge in. His chaste behavior around Phyllis Calvert is also true, it's pretty much established the man was celibate all his life, probably due to a low sex drive, though that's not explicitly gone into.

Without family attachments, Pitt's whole life was devoted to the protection and governance of the United Kingdom. He saw the danger of radical Jacobinism from France to British society and the even greater menace of Napoleon Bonaparte. Like FDR and General George C. Marshall reaching down the ranks to get Dwight D. Eisenhower in World War II. Pitt was the man who found Horatio Nelson and gave him command of Great Britain's fleet and who responded with victories at Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar.

As Pitt was chaste and aesthetic, his great rival of the period Charles James Fox was a rake and a gambler. Robert Morley gives one of his greatest performances also suitably cast as Fox. My favorite moment in the film is after Aboukir Bay, Fox gets a brick thrown through his window while dining with four lovely young ladies. When one of them asks what this was, Morley drolly replies, 'the voice of public opinion.'

What makes that particular scene more effective is that the next scene cuts to demonstrations against Pitt, calling for a truce in the war. The fickle finger of public opinion very graphically demonstrated.

John Mills plays William Wilberforce of whom a film was made about last year to great acclaim. He was Pitt's devoted friend and ally, but Wilberforce's crusade to abolish slavery gets a brief mention in The Young Mr. Pitt and nothing more.

What gets no mention at all is King George, III's periods of insanity and the Prince Regent, later George IV is not a character here.

The film takes us up to Trafalgar. In real life Pitt died very soon after the battle of Austerlitz which left the United Kingdom bereft of continental allies for several years. Worn in body and spirit, sadly he died without knowing of Great Britain's eventual triumph over the force of despotism.

Of course the film was made while the United Kingdom was also going through a great trial against an even greater evil, with another resolute Prime Minister who devoted his heart and soul to his country's service and protection. I'm sure Winston Churchill saw the film as some propaganda against his critics, but I'm also sure that William Pitt the Younger was a role model for him.

As Pitt should be a role model for all who put country above all.

The Young Mr. Pitt is a well mounted rather civil wartime propaganda minus the bellicose dehumanization of the enemy, substituting revolutionary France (Vichy ruled during the making) and the Little Corproral (Herbert Lom) as the latest megalomaniac in search of world domination.

The son of a former prime minister, Pitt (Robert Donat) is given the position by the flaky King George lll (Raymond Lovell) but faces heavy opposition in Parliament from the likes of James Fox (Robert Morely). His greatest enemy though is on The Continent and he is tasked with trying to get the British people up to speed on this threat while facing strong opposition at home.

Donat is spot on noble as Pitt whether passionately speaking on the house floor or in private conversation, his oratory avoiding bombast, exuding sincerity. There's a nice foppish turn from Morely and a discombobulated one from Lovell while Lom and Albert Lieven as Talleyrand fill the iniquity bill.

Directed a decade before his halcyon period of superb suspense films, Carol Reed's direction is hamstrung by a contrived romance (Pitt was a lifelong bachelor) as the film remains respectful and at times cloying but remains steadfastly patriotic from end to end, hence, mission accomplished.

The eighteenth century was the most interesting century. It was the century when the modern world was born, when countries and empires were created and as Dickens described it: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness etc. One of the most important people of that time was of course William Pitt so surely a film about the great man would be truly amazing?

Unfortunately although he was one of our greatest prime ministers, if not our greatest, he was famously dull. He would never have succeeded in this personality and media focussed age, he was focussed on just one thing: running the country and ensuring Napoleon's ambitions were thwarted. He had no significant relationships, no significant friends, no scandal, not even a social life. So, not the ideal subject for a film then!

Nevertheless Carol Reed does manage to inject some life into our hero. He is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Donat whose sense purpose we can very much empathise with. So despite the handicaps, Gaumont-British do pull a rabbit out of empty bag with this and make a pretty decent and very watchable biopic.

"The Young Mr. Pitt" is a type of propaganda film that the British film industry made...and made quite well. Instead of filling the movie with evil Nazis, the movie is about another period in time...a period when the British people all banded together to defeat a different tyrant.

The film begins just before the American Revolution and focuses briefly on William Pitt the Elder. There are a few scenes with him and his very young son. Now, the film jumps ahead to just before the French Revolution. Young Pitt now is a member of the House of Lords like his father...and soon he'll be appointed the youngest Prime Minister in British history. The film follows him throughout the French Revolutionary period through the Napoleonic Wars.

Robert Donat is wonderful playing both Pitt the Elder and Younger. And, the film looks marvelous and is very well made. It essentially pushes the viewer toward patriotism as well as emphasizes that although the battle may be long, victory is on the horizon....just like WWII. An exceptional film that is probably much more interesting for British viewers or nuts like me who love history.

I have no idea how a film starring the accomplished Robert Donat and a superb supporting cast could be disappointing, but it was. The film seemed to move in fits and starts, with Donat and Morley jabbing for 15 rounds. Napoleon was more energetic than either of them. He was well-played by Inspector Clouseau's boss, Herbert Lom.

We follow the rise of young Mr. Pitt, who ages rapidly into poor health and premature retirement during the conflict of England and France during the Napoleonic period. During this time, the US was a staunch ally of France, which was a major reason for the War of 1812.

We follow the victories of Lord Nelson on the seas, but there is no mention of Cromwell or Waterloo. The film was understandably talky (as that is what politicians do), but a few more examiniations of the military engagements would have been much more interesting.