Film Review | Cromwell (1970)
Finally finished watching Cromwell (1970) yesterday. Out of all entries in my to-watch list I have been wanting to watch this the most because the English Civil War is a subject in which I am quite interested. Even then, going in, I prepared myself for historical inaccuracies and departures from my understanding of certain events and personalities because that’s just what you do when you watch a historical film.
First thing to note is that the film has many good points. For its time, the film looked marvellous. I love the battle scenes and those scenes set in the House of Commons and the royal court — simply beautiful sets. Charles I’s entrance into the Commons is my favourite; his flamboyantly colourful clothes set against a sea of MPs in black, providing a powerful contrast between royal decadence and somber Parliamentary sensibilities.
There’s also a lot to admire in the acting. Alec Guinness is exquisite as Charles I and the character was played largely in line with my impressions of the doomed king: a sympathetic personal side (his reunion with his family after the war reportedly even moved Cromwell to tears) but a truly awful and weak ruler who didn’t hesitate to drop even his most loyal supporters, as convincingly conveyed in the scene where Charles unfairly dismissed Prince Rupert after the Bristol surrender (“You promised mountains and yet performed molehills!”). Masterful performance.
Other supporting performances were strong too. I thought Dalton’s Prince Rupert worked, despite the character being so different (read: less flamboyant) in my mind. Jayston’s Ireton and Thomas Fairfax (not familiar with the actor, sorry) are even more different than what I imagined. I wasn’t sure how I feel about the characterisation of Ireton and Fairfax. Seeing as I know Ireton primarily for the Heads of Proposals (probably the most famous document of that period, certainly influential in the Putney Debates, so there’s really no escaping it) the differences stand out a bit. And no mention at all that he’s Cromwell’s son-in-law. Weird choice since that could have supported the storyline of Ireton being a strong influence on Cromwell, but on the whole I think that didn’t take away from the story.
All this would have made the film an acceptable one save for one very key thing. I really couldn’t stand Richard Harris’s take on Cromwell. I know many biographies (even the ones that are sympathetic, like Antonia Fraser’s Our Chief of Men) make allusion to Cromwell’s ‘changeable moods’ but I don’t think what Harris did captured what it means. Cromwell was most likely having nervous breakdowns (melancholia was the term used at the time by his physician) at certain periods of time, usually when he was faced with big decisions to make.
What Harris did however was something else. As I said, I don’t mind occasional departures from history especially if they serve the film but here they did not. History aside, Harris made Cromwell changeable in a matter of seconds which backfired spectacularly considering that Cromwell is still one of the most divisive figures in English history. A careful balance must be struck between his nervous personality and his well-documented charisma and charm that helped him win supporters. There was no suggestion of the latter in the film. Even and calm tone of voice one second and suddenly booming rage in the next, shouting at everyone around him, even politicians who were on his side. Hard to see why anyone would see a leader in this unpredictable man sorely lacking in charisma.
The personal side was more successfully portrayed –in scenes with his wife and when he received news of his son’s death — although not enough to make up for the dismal attempt at capturing Cromwell the politician. On top of the lack of political charisma, film Cromwell wasn’t even portrayed as a visionary. It’s like all ideas and plans he had for a better England seemingly originated from or were suggested to him by others around him chiefly Ireton. So, no charisma, no vision. Bad combo especially when stood next to Guinness’ Charles I.
As the film is titled ‘Cromwell’, its success would largely depend on whether the character is convincingly played. I don’t think it was. The film would have me believe that Cromwell’s authority comes solely from his booming voice, as if sound volume was the only thing that matters in leadership. That’s mainly why, despite all the good things that recommend this film and despite my willingness to forgive historical inaccuracy, I couldn’t really enjoy it. I give it 2-star rating out of 5.
