Cromwell

For some reason the English cinema seems to prefer the sixteenth century to the seventeenth. There have been numerous films about the Tudor dynasty, most recently "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" and "The Other Boleyn Girl", but fewer about their Stuart successors, apart from Restoration romps and bodice-rippers like "Forever Amber" or "Stage Beauty", which generally feature a walk-on part for Charles II.

"Cromwell" is one of the few exceptions. As the title suggests, it is based on the life of Oliver Cromwell and concentrates on the 1640s, the decade during which Cromwell rose from a modest Huntingdonshire country squire to commander of the Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War and played a leading role in the deposition and execution of King Charles I. It has less to say about Cromwell's rule as Lord Protector of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1650s.

The film has been criticised for its historical inaccuracies. This sort of thing can normally be put down to a lack of adequate research, and the film does indeed contain a few mistakes of this type. (Cromwell's son Oliver junior was not killed at the Battle of Naseby but died of natural causes, and the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Manchester are shown as sitting in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords). In most cases, however, inaccuracies which might appear to be careless errors are really deliberate distortions made to fit in with the film's underlying agenda which is to whitewash Cromwell's character and to present him as a hero of democracy.

In the period leading up to the Civil War, Cromwell's prominence in the opposition to Charles I is exaggerated. In a meeting which never took place, he is shown as telling the King that England should be a democracy and he is incorrectly numbered among the five members of Parliament whom Charles attempts to arrest.

During the war itself the film depicts Cromwell as single-handedly transforming the Parliamentary Army, after a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Edgehill, from a disorganised rabble into an effective fighting force and as a military genius whose tactics are responsible for the defeat of a numerically superior Royalist force at the Battle of Naseby. In fact, Edgehill was an indecisive battle rather than an outright Royalist victory- if Charles had won as decisively as he is shown doing here the war would probably have been over very quickly- and at Naseby it was the defeated Royalists, not the victorious Roundheads, who were outnumbered. The film omits the Battle of Marston Moor, arguably a more decisive turning-point than Naseby, possibly because Cromwell was not in overall command of the Parliamentary armies on that occasions. (The commanders in that battle were Sir Thomas Fairfax and Manchester, neither of whom are shown in a good light in the film). To emphasise Cromwell's piety, the famous prayer of the Royalist Sir Jacob Astley at Edgehill is put into his mouth.

The main reason why the film does not concentrate too much on Cromwell's record after 1649 is that that record will not bear too much scrutiny if one regards him as a hero. Although one view of history has traditionally seen the Roundheads as fighting for parliamentary democracy, Cromwell made himself dictator of Britain by force of arms, succeeded where Charles had failed in ruling without Parliament and had himself proclaimed Lord Protector, monarch in all but name. Had his son Richard, who briefly and ineffectually succeeded him, been a man of the same ruthless stamp, Britain might today be a Hereditary Protectorate under the House of Cromwell. The greatest stain on Cromwell's memory, the brutal subjugation of Ireland which cost several hundreds of thousands of lives, is totally ignored. (The film gives the impression that he spent the years in question, 1649-53, living peacefully on his farm in Huntingdon).

As a costume drama the film is not a bad one and succeeds in bringing seventeenth-century England to life. Richard Harris is not particularly good in the title role, especially as he is not always successful in concealing his Irish accent. (Given Cromwell's antipathy to, and persecution of, the Irish, it seemed ironic to have him played by an Irishman). There is, however, an excellent performance from Alec Guinness as Charles I, who is treated more objectively than are his political opponents. There is no attempt to blacken Charles' character, although there are a couple of inaccuracies. Charles did not treat his nephew Prince Rupert as shabbily as he is shown doing here, and his trusted adviser Sir Edward Hyde did not testify against him at his trial. (Had Hyde done so, he would doubtless have been executed at the Restoration instead of becoming Charles II's chief minister). Guinness plays Charles as a man who, beneath his outward dignity and firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings, is nervous, hesitant and self-doubting, something indicated by a stammer. One senses from Guinness' portrayal that although Charles was a bad king he may not have been a bad man.

Some have seen a film which praises a republican rebel as revolutionary, but in fact hagiography of Cromwell is far from something new. The film's politics fall broadly within the Whig tradition, which saw English history in terms of a steady progression towards the triumph of liberty and Protestantism- two concepts which for the Whigs were practically indistinguishable- and the Civil War as a vital step in this process. The film also shows the influence of Thomas Carlyle, who regarded Cromwell as one of the heroes of history and eulogised him in his "Heroes and Hero-Worship". By 1970, however, this approach to history was starting to look outdated and Carlyle's idea of hero-worship hopelessly naive. If the charismatic dictators of the twentieth century have taught us anything, it is to beware of the strong man on the white horse. 7/10

It is to be admitted that Oliver Cromwell (a.k.a. THE LORD PROTECTOR, "Old NOLL") was a great figure in British history. But Cromwell was a flawed hero. He did rebel against his liege king, Charles I, and voted for his monarch's execution. He also truncated Parliament, when he found it impeded his own reforms. His treatment of Irish Catholics, while typical of the ruthless massacres of religious opponents in the period of the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648), is still a stain against his fame. Still, in the period that he was the dominant figure (1644 - 1658) he rebuilt the British army and navy, restored Britain to major power status, and actually did one act of surprising religious toleration - he allowed the Jews to return to England in 1655, a reform that Charles II decided not to undue when he was restored to the throne five years later.

Such a career deserves a careful movie. CROMWELL is not that film. It does do well in showing King Charles I (Alec Guinness) as a untrustworthy individual (though one driven to such actions because of his need to maintain his rights as monarch). It does make one serious howler regarding Charles I and his trial for treason. Charles may have been a liar and betrayer at times - but Sir Edward Hyde (who was a leading supporter of his, and would be a statesman in his son's reign and the father-in-law of the future James II) did not testify at Charles's trial as a witness for the prosecution.

Such glaring errors are frequent in the movie (for example, Prince Rupert was not dismissed so callously by his uncle King Charles - Rupert was a very fine cavalry leader, and would remain a fixture in English society when Charles II was restored). The subtle acting of Guinness is not matched by Harris, who rants and raves throughout the film - even in the closing moments talking about his intentions to create better schools and laws. Charles and Cromwell are two fascinating characters, and both deserve a better film than this as the sole film about the English Civil Wars (except for Vincent Price's THE CONQUEROR WORM) to come out.

Oliver Cromwell the real person was not quite the people-loving man betrayed in this decent movie version drama of the English Civil War during the 1600s. In reality he became more the dictator & tyrant than the person he replaced in King Charles I.

However, putting that to one side, the film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate and well done. Richard Harris, as Cromwell, makes a decent effort although I do feel he makes too much of a theatrical job with the role, with far too much posturing, self-smugness, and above all shouting....

I can understand his unhappiness at the Royalists encroachment of the Common People's liberties; and I can understand him fully remonstrating his feelings in the House of Commons, but Harris seems to shout in nearly every scene. So much so that by the end of the movie he is struggling for breath.

Conversely, Alec Guiness's Charles I is far more intelligently done. Underplayed yet convincing & too some extents we feel more sympathetic to his plight. After all he has a rather scheming Cathloic French Queen, the Catholic Church and a lot of other distractions to occupy his mind and usurp his powers.

The battle scenes are convincing but don't carry the same kind of savagery than the more prosaic Braveheart. But the supporting characters do a good job and add a more rounded feel from Harris' turgid performance.

The directing blows hot & cold, sometimes the story drifts & meanders before pulling back into sharp focus; while the choreography is sweeping & rich in content. The musical score, however, seems tacky & amateurish, lacking any depth in conjunction with what's going on in the film.

However, for all its faults and historical inaccuracies, we do get a slightly better insight into a rather grim & dark chapter in England's turbulent history.

Cromwell is a good film but should be taken with a large pinch of salt as far as retelling history is concerned.

***/*****

Right, let's first get one thing straight: the acting is okay - Guiness, as always is very identifiable with (if that's a real phrase) and Harris portrays some of Cromwell's famously torn character.

Secondly, yes there is some idea conveyed of the turmoil of the period; the Levellers get a slight, if ridiculously truncated, mention.

However, anyone who knows the slightest snippet about the period must have left the TV screen or whatever nothing but annoyed by the gross licence taken with the events of the civil war. And it is not just the fact that I have studied the period in depth that makes such glaring inaccuracies as:>

Cromwell being named as one of the Five Members, he wasn't.

Cromwell even being present at Edgehill, let alone rescuing the day. Neither are true. At the same time the "arrangement" between the officers of the opposing side which was so crucial to the film never happened; and, at the end of the day the Royalists did not actually win the battle. It was a draw. Okay, I can live with some details being slightly wrong, but the outcome of the entire engagement...?

Why miss out the most bloody, viscious and, many would say, crucial battle of the war? At least at Marston Moor Cromwell was actually there.

Naseby, too, was grossly misrepresented: a) Cromwell did not command the parliamentary forces, Fairfax did; and b) in reality the Royalist force was just over half the size of that of parliament: hardly the stunning victory of a smaller force led by Cromwell as portrayed in the film.

The Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant and, to be technical, both were mostly heartily opposed to Charles' Laudianism (a kind of mixture of the two). However in 1970 some scholarship did maintain this so this mistake can perhaps be understood.

These are just some of the many nitpicking points that seem to preclude the idea that "Cromwell" provides "an excellent history lesson". However, "Appocalypse Now" and "The Thin Red Line" are both examples of historically inaccurate but still highly effective and powerful films. How come "Cromwell" fails on this count? Well, on the one hand neither of these, more recent, films even claim to portray real people -"Cromwell" does and therefore its stubborn disregard of the truth cannot be ignored. Then, on the other hand, if the film attempts to be more than just a reasonably nice looking swashbuckler (which it does) and to really look into the character of its protagonists then surely its case is harmed by these shocking errors. For example, how can the film attempt to portray Cromwell as a man made by his times (rather than the other way around) when it suggests that he was a significant player from the start. Before the outbreak of Civil War Cromwell had made just one vaguely significant speech in parliament. He was never contacted by Pym before the call of Parliament and there was no question of him ever leading the armies of Parliament until the retirement of Fairfax on the eve of the (curiously unmentioned) Second Civil War. Indeed he did not become official leader of the country until 1653. His rise to power was a great surprise to him and his countrymen.

Finally, why miss out Ireland completely from the equation when surely there is no more interesting aspect to the man's character than his opinions on religion?

Cromwell deserves a more accurate cinematic perspective, and surely half of the problem is that this film attempts to cram the ten most monumental years of British history into three hours.

Definately a "could do better".

This film ultimately fails as an historical drama. It has some pretty good elements. The production values of the costumes, scenes, etc., are overall quite good. Guinness is great as Charles: he looks a lot like him, and he does a good job at conveying the king's tyrannical, autocratic stance, his conviction in his belief that he's right, his nobility to the end, and the fact that while he usually ended up taking bad positions or doing the wrong things, he did so not entirely for bad reasons (at least in his own mind), for he was sure that he was right. The film also makes some modicum of effort at showing Cromwell's more troubling qualities, too, making him out to be the noble hero, but not entirely covering up his transformation into ruthless, hypocritical dictator.

However, the film has equally strong bad points. It tends to drag at many points and frequently gives the impression of being an overly drawn-out stage production that fails to be fully convincing. More serious, though, is the problem that, although presenting itself as historical, it plays fast and loose with history. It does not fully explain the causes of the Civil War or the differences of viewpoints within each side, especially the Parliamentarians, not all of whom were fighting for the same reasons. It portrays the Royalist forces as the flashy, well-equipped and stronger element when in reality the Parliament forces were not only much more numerous, but usually much better equipped as well (after all, it was not a war of rag-tag, grass-roots rebels trying to topple the government; each side represented in part one branch of the government and Parliament, not the king, was the body that held the purse strings). In addition, the Royalists often did quite well in battle despite their inferior forces. It clearly makes Cromwell out to be too important from the start: rather than being one of the key leaders in the beginning, he really started out as a military commander and simply rose to prominence over time. Finally, Cromwell, despite some of his autocratic tendency coming through, is still shown to be too much the reluctant, noble hero, and the film only hints at his other face, one which in short order made him none too popular in England, let alone Ireland. Needless to say, nothing is mentioned of his willingness to shed the blood of Royalists and Catholics, or to destroy historic architecture that conflicted with his Puritan views.