Uccidere il re

What seemed to be billed and potentially a good film was for me not only disappointing but inaccurate both in it's historical content but in the tone it set. In general terms it was an enjoyable romp and it portrayed Fairfax reasonably well but Cromwell was sidelined to almost be the butler of Fairfax until he stood aside and Cromwell somehow stood in for him which is completely untrue. A lot of the important events were telescoped into amazingly small time frames almost to get them out of the way to give us an unshaven Fairfax looking gloomy. The Puritans were also treated as ignorant fanatics, particularly Ireton which made me think back to the BBC children's serials of yesteryear where Cavalier = Good, long hair, flashy uniform and Puritan = Bad, poor complexion, bad haircut and BLACK clothes which again a real parody of the actual events. I suppose if you know nothing about the English Civil War and the Commonwealth and Protectorate and like your history served up as soap opera then ok otherwise avoid.

My reaction to this movie was similar to my reaction to "Elizabeth: The Golden Age." A lot of attention was paid to casting and period costuming and location. However, budget constrictions apparently were such that the story could not be told on a greater scale. For example, the movie begins with the mopping up after Cromwell's army has defeated the royalist forces. But unless you are well versed in English history, you don't know why or how they were fighting. (Like the Roman Legions, Cromwell's--or Fairfax's--army had a distinct organizational, tactical and weapon advantage over their opponents.) Gradually the differences in philosophy of governing is portrayed and we begin to get some idea of why everyone hated Charles I, although we really don't see much from a commoner's perspective. The reason for the close relationship of Lady Fairfax to the King and to Cromwell is never made clear (at least not to me). If you have to tell this story with limited locations, then it's better done as a mini-series, where the historical reasons for the conflict can better be elaborated. If you're going to make a movie, at least show us some battle scenes and better explain the motives for everyone's actions.

We Americans are pretty bad at knowing our own history let alone that of other countries. As a retired World History teacher, I know that very, very few of us know about the English Civil War of the 17th century. Who fought on each side and what they were fighting over is not something most Americans would know. I know--but considering my job, that's no surprise! So, unless you are really up on English history as well as the lives of Oliver Cromwell and Charles I, you might just want to read up on it before you watch "To Kill a King". Also, you might want to read a few different sources, as most British authors I've read seem to think killing the king was a bad thing--whereas non-Brits probably are more willing to concede that this was pretty cool (particularly American or Marxist historians--who, for once, would agree with each other).

So, I'll give you a bit of background. This story is about the latter portion of the Civil War. Many years have passed and the armies of the Parliament and the King's have fought many battles against each other. Each time the King's forces have been vanquished, he makes promises to make reforms. And, once the armies went home, the King simply ignored these reforms--and the war began anew. The main problem, as I see it, is that the King believed he was an absolute monarch and the Parliament was standing firm on their traditional rights--such as the right to tax (which the King repeatedly ignored). Now, with few remaining friends of his own, the King takes a 'divide and conquer' strategy. In other words, divide the members of Parliament by promising various rewards and bribes. He also escaped custody and threatened to raise yet another army to begin the war again. Now, in light of all this, the leaders of the insurrection now see a need to end it...by killing their king. The army's leader, Fairfax, is reticent--and the man who is one of the powerhouses in Parliament, Cromwell, sees the execution as inevitable. While the film is about this divide and conquer scheme and the eventual trial of the King, it is difficult to understand all that led up to this--a weakness in the film that might have been dealt with by using a prologue or stretching out the film a bit longer.

For history teachers and folks in the know, "To Kill a King" is good stuff--well acted and produced (even if the army of the Parliament only seems to have been made up of about 50 guys in this film!). Otherwise, it does seem to be lacking context which would make it easier to follow--as well as very low energy despite the theme.

In 1645, after the revolutionary movement of the puritans against the King of England Charles I of Stuart (Rupert Everett), with the leadership of the best friends General Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth) and General Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott), the king is judged and condemned to death by decapitation. General Oliver Cromwell wishes to implement the republic in England, but his monarchist friend Fairfax does not agree, and they break their friendship. Cromwell becomes a dictator, with the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, until 1658, when he is very sick and dies. When I was a student, I had classes about this period of England history, but unfortunately not enough to make any judgement of the historical accuracy of this movie. As far as I remember, the period of the dictatorship of Cromwell was very violent, and it was omitted in the story. As a film, it is a beautiful story of the friendship and relationship of two leaders with different political objectives. The cast and direction are excellent, and the reconstitution of the period is wonderful. I have appreciated and recommend this movie without analyzing the accuracy of the events. If the viewer knows this period of history well, he will have the opportunity to verify its accuracy, otherwise he will a chance to enjoy a good movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'Morte ao Rei' ('To Kill a King')

It's amazing that, three decades after Antonia Fraser's great biography of Cromwell ("Cromwell: Our Chief of Men", 1973; out in a new edition, 2002), the old clichés and inaccuracies about him - ultimately derived from the post-Restoration character assassination satirized in "1066 and All That" - are still being as enthusiastically retailed as they are in this film.

That the dominant image of Cromwell is going to be of Ollie the psychopath is telegraphed in advance by the casting of Tim Roth to play him. Why people think this man can act has always been a mystery to me, but ever since "Reservoir Dogs" he has become so identified with the image of a psychopath that his mere presence is a sign that irrational violence is coming up soon. Right at the beginning of the film we are smacked over the head with this characterization when, before we have heard Cromwell speak a word, we see him barely being restrained from murdering a defenceless man. Later he organizes the torture and then murder of a prisoner, randomly shoots a street vendor in the leg, and ordains a painful execution for a would-be assassin in a fit of uncontrolled rage.

On the other hand, he loves his old mate Fairfax, spends hours writing up a proper constitutional settlement to give ordinary people the right to a fair trial, and shows an almost Woody-Allenesque unconfidence in his abilities as a military commander (comically, since even his enemies conceded his military genius). All these positive character traits are presumably thrown into the mix in order to give the semblance of roundedness, depth, or complexity to the characterization. The trouble is that the combination makes this Cromwell not complex, but simply incoherent. One cannot suspend disbelief in him. That's why, in this case, to say "it's a movie, not history" is not an answer to the criticism. It's precisely because it doesn't make sense as history that it doesn't work as a movie either.

The film is also notable for perpetuating the great Royalist lie that Charles I's death warrant was signed by the regicides before the verdict had been announced - indeed, before the trial had even begun. The document was certainly drawn up in advance (the defendant's guilt being as much a matter of public record as Goering's at Nuremberg), but there is no evidence that it was *signed* beforehand; on such a serious matter it's extremely unlikely the regicides would have opened themselves to the accusation of not observing the proper legal process (see the excellent page about the death warrant that I give the address for in the message boards). From the point of view of film-making, though, the most striking thing is how it totally squandered the dramatic opportunity of the trial itself - which took three days, incidentally, not, as it's presented here, three minutes, with people shouting "guilty" before any evidence has even been presented. As an opportunity to probe Charles's psychology, as he was presented with evidence of the damage his actions had caused, it was completely wasted.

Rupert Everett plays Charles brilliantly, and in the context of a better film it's a performance that would surely have drawn more of the plaudits that it deserves. His mixture of regal dignity, seductiveness, arrogance, and overweening self-belief make a compelling portrait (being true to life, these contradictions, unlike those assigned to Cromwell, actually make a coherent whole). Throughout all his conversations with his captors, his fundamental inability to accord their grievances the slightest legitimacy clearly illustrates how frustrating and ultimately fruitless the attempt to negotiate with him must have been, and why the conflict could only end with his death. Dougray Scott also brings gravitas and pathos to his role of Fairfax, and he sustains the tension of his conflicting loyalties well - even if that tension is historically bogus. As actors, he and Everett deserve to have been in a better film.

While Americans work the comparatively narrow seam of their history so intensively, it's a great shame that the Brits don't make more of some of the incomparably dramatic moments in their own. An even greater shame that, when they occasionally get the chance, it's fluffed with a script of such silliness and banality as this.