O Belo Brummel

Stewart Granger, in his prime, was damned by being too handsome and too British. It is fascinating to see the way he was used in films in England in the late 1940s and films in Hollywood in the 1950s. His countrymen recognized he was good looking, and muscular, but while he could play an adventurous rug dealer in CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA, it was a supporting part (the male lead was the less handsome looking, but greater actor, Claude Rains). In CAPTAIN BOYCOTT, he played an Irish farmer and horse racer (there the title character was a supporting character - played by Cecil Parker). In BLANCHE FURY he was a scheming murderer after an estate, based on the 19th Century killer James B. Rush. In THE MAN IN GREY he was one of a pair of doomed lovers (and the main role was a Regency buck villain played by James Mason, who in venting his anger on Margaret Leighton for her evil gained the audience's support). In short, Granger's English roles were a wide variety of types (they also included the violinist Paganini, and the unfortunate courtier Count Koenigsmarck). He had a wide variety of parts, and sometimes was not at the center of his films.

Hollywood was determined that he was at the center of the films. At his best (KING SOLOMON'S MINES, YOUNG BESS, SCARAMOUCHE) he was given good material, and good direction, and some humor (in SCARAMOUCHE anyway). But he was soon straight jacketed into costume films no matter how weak they were. Granger did occasionally break away from sword and leotard flicks, like ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALLIANT and THE LAST HUNT and (a little later) NORTH TO ALASKA - a welcome comic part. But most of his Hollywood films were like BEAU BRUMMEL and FOOTSTEPS IN THE FOG: Weak stories with Granger pushed into British historical costumes.

BEAU BRUMMEL had been a play written at the turn of the century by America's leading dramatist of the day, Clyde Fitch. Forgotten (somewhat unjustly today), Fitch was usually a social comedy writer. His best known comic play (not revived for many decades) was a vehicle for a young actress named Ethel Barrymore called CAPTAIN JINKS OF THE HORSE MARINES. After watching Barrymore pursue the actor portraying Captain Adolphus Jinks (yes, that's his name) for two and a half hours, the play was so successful that Ethel added a line at the end to still the demands for encores: "That's all there is, there isn't anymore." Ironically, due to savage critics like Brooks Atkinson, Fitch's plays are rarely staged, so that final line is better remembered than it's play.

A number of years back (about 1986 or so) a group of female actors put together a review, called "The Club" (I believe that was the name). They were dressed in turn of the century clothing as male members of a club. Part of the review was a one act play of Fitch's. The critics felt it was quite well acted and even entertaining.

Fitch was known for historical dramas as well. He wrote one on NATHAN HALE. He also wrote this play, BEAU BRUMMEL, for Richard Mansfield. It is actually a study in a dandy's fall from "greatness" or social fame into tragedy. The real Brummell was to lose his social position, his fortune, his friendship with George, Prince of Wales ("Prinny" or "Florizel" - later George IV), and finally his sanity. The original play was grim. For an actor like Mansfield, who reveled in roles that emphasized opposites (the original "Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde") he must have enjoyed going from plushy costumes to rags. The 1924 film version with John Barrymore as Brummel is closer to the original.

Brummel was a leader of social fashion. One of the Regency figures (including his "fat friend" the Prince) who created the style known as "Regency" that is for the period of 1795 to 1837. He influenced the Prince about wardrobe and social behavior - so much that George was called "The First Gentleman of Europe". But he had no political influence. He probably had no political ideas of importance at all.

The film tries to make him more important historically than he was. He was a fop who briefly influenced culture - but he did not confront William Pitt the Younger as this film suggests. In fact Prince George was not the best person to try to influence politically at all. Although in his youth he was frequently seen with Whig figures like Charles Fox (Peter Bull in the film) or Richard Sheridan, this was to spite his Tory father George III (Robert Morley in this film). If you saw that better historical film, THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE III, the poisonous relationship of the King and his heir was shown quite well. As Prince George grew older, his basic conservatism grew. By the time he was acting Prince Regent and then King (1811 - 1820; 1820 - 1830) he was firmly in the Tory ranks. But Pitt the Younger was dead by then.

As mentioned in another comment on this thread, Morley as the mad King, and Ustinov as the Prince (later King) were the best performers in this film. Poor Granger tries, but he has a terrible script to work with. They should have kept to the original - it might have been worth while as a film. For the sake of Ustinov and Morley I am giving this film a 6 out of 10.

Unusual to see Stewart Granger in period costume without a flashing blade, but I found this costume drama on the rise and fall of the Regency dandy and confidante to the then Prince of Wales, eminently watchable. Granger himself shows more acting depth than he was usually allowed in the swashbuckling actioners he frequented and is well cast as the proud, aspiring but ultimately over-ambitious George "Beau" Brummell, whose loose tongue and haughty wit ultimately saw him cast out of high society into a life of penury in France, on the run from his numerous creditors. However the real acting plaudits unquestionably lie with Peter Ustinov, who again, like his portrayal of Nero in "Quo Vadis", easily demonstrates his character, the king-in-waiting Prince George's initially fey and petulant ways but later conveys the depth of character of a man who matured into his kingship and his conflicting loyalty which turns to generous magnamity to best friend but loose cannon Brummell. Robert Morley gets to act a fine cameo performance as the mentally ill King whose condition leads to the Regency crisis and Elizabeth Taylor gets to wear some elaborate costumes not to mention hairstyles as Lady Belham, torn between her passionate attraction to Brummell's rebellious individual and the safe society gentleman Lord Edwin Mercer played stoically by James Donald. Historical figures of the day flit in and out of the narrative, but surely the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" Lord Byron should have been played with more zest and by a more handsome actor than we get here. The sets and costumes are sumptuous, the direction steady if uninspired, (for example, an intimate dialogue scene between Granger and Taylor pans back and forth unimaginatively between their faces with every sentence spoken). The dialogue while well-written and rarely trivial, does get bogged down in speechifying, forced wit and point-scoring which gets decidedly stultifying at times. The key scene were Brummell rashly insults the Prince is well staged and played and the viewer is left in no doubt that the bold Brummell has gone too far this time, prefiguring the fate of another high society dandy from a later generation, the writer Oscar Wilde. Having read a little background on the real Brummell's life, I'm aware that the usual Hollywood bowdlerisation has occurred (nowhere did I read of the Prince when King's final reconciliation with the broken Brummell in France), but it makes for a good finish to a meatier costume drama than I might have expected given the subject and personnel involved.

George Bryan "Beau" Brummell (1778-1840) was a leader of fashion in Regency England and a close friend of the Prince Regent, although they eventually quarrelled. Brummell was eventually forced to leave Britain because of debts and spent the latter part of his life in poverty in France. He appears to have a considerable influence on the men's fashions of his day, helping to popularise cravats, trousers instead of knee-breeches, natural hair instead of wigs and to make fashionable the restrained, sober elegance which was to be the keynote of gentlemen's costume in the nineteenth century in place of the ostentatious dandyism of the eighteenth. Outside the field of gents' tailoring, however, he was not a figure of any great historical significance, so it is perhaps not surprising that this film is not an academically serious biopic, but rather a celebration of a colourful figure in a colourful age.

The film is far from being historically accurate, especially as regards chronology. The events depicted here (the Regency Crisis of 1788, the Prince's marriage to Caroline of Brunswick, Brummell's rise in the Prince's favour, his fall from grace, the death of King George III in 1820 and Brummel's own death in 1840) historically cover a period in excess of fifty years, but here they are presented as occurring over a much shorter timescale. Rather oddly, the villain of the piece is William Pitt the Younger, widely regarded as one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers but presented here as a cunning, power-hungry schemer who refuses to allow King George III to be certified as mad (although he quite obviously is) in order to protect his own power. (The relationship between Pitt and the King depicted here more closely resembles that between the Austrian Chancellor Prince Metternich and the feeble-minded Emperor Ferdinand I who, for political reasons, was never declared to be insane). In reality Pitt died in 1806, but here he is shown as outliving not only George III but also Brummell.

The film's politics are, in fact, rather inconsistent. Early on, Brummell, whose family although wealthy are of fairly humble stock, is portrayed as something of a radical filled with the spirit of the French Revolution and complaining about the class divisions within British society. Later on, however, he becomes as the Prince's friend an arch-reactionary, encouraging the future George IV to defy Parliament and to rule more as an autocrat than as a constitutional monarch. Brummell's justification for this apparent change of heart is that he feels that the Prince will make an admirably liberal ruler, far more liberal than Pitt, but the character played by Peter Ustinov does not really make us feel that this confidence is well-founded.

Stewart Granger was known for playing dashing heroes in costume dramas, so was well-suited to the lead role, although it contains less in the way of physical action than some of his other parts from this period. Ustinov gives a good comic performance as the petulant, self-pitying Prince, and Robert Morley a more serious one as the mad old King. I was, however, surprised to see Elizabeth Taylor, already a major star in her early twenties, in a comparatively minor role. She plays Brummell's love-interest Lady Patricia Belham, although he eventually loses her to another man. Apparently Lady Patricia, a fictitious character not found in the play on which the screenplay was based, was inserted to allay any suspicions on the part of the ultra-puritanical American censors that the friendship between Brummell and the Prince might be homosexual in nature.

"Beau Brummell" is not the sort of film which is likely to please the historian, but then it was never intended to. It was clearly intended as an enjoyable period romp and, to some extent, still works on that level. 6/10

Beau Brummell was the leading dandy of his age, determining the fashion of men for centuries to come. Lord Byron called him the greatest man of his age, and yet he never made any pretensions to be something special. He just showed men how to dress properly and distinctly, doing away with all the exaggerated foppishness of 18th century fashion. Stewart Granger makes one of his best performances and makes Beau Brummell quite a credible character of consistent honesty, while the prize goes to Peter Ustinov as the prince of Wales, later George IV, who crowns the film by his formidable character of both humour and wit and pathetic awkwardness. Robert Morley plays his father, the mad king George III and has only one great scene, but that's the centre of the play and perhaps what you will be least likely to forget. Nigel Hawthorne made an entire film on this theme, but yet Robert Morley's brief appearance of the same character is more impressive. The main asset of the film though is the brilliant dialog, which sparkles with wit, spirituality and cleverness perpetually, and you will find it worth watching the film all over again just to concentrate on relishing the splendid dialog. Some would find the film overburdened with talk and miss the usual swashbuckling action of Stewart Granger, but he himself always desired to play more parts like this and less of the action virtuoso. Elizabeth Taylor was not yet a great actress at this point, but she nevertheless shines with her diamond beauty. The greatest credit goes to the script writers.

Giving up a military career when he is rude to the Prince of Wales, Stewart Granger is excellent as the handsome gentleman consumed with looking great and cavorting with upper class society in this elegant film.

Peter Ustinov is just marvelous as The Prince of Wales. Again and again, he shows that he was just born to play these majestic spots. Robert Morely is fabulous in the one scene that he appears in the film as the insane king.

The weak link here is Elizabeth Taylor. She seems like she is acting in 1944's "National Velvet."

The picture is a wonderful study of class values, snobbery and redemption in the end.