University of Virginia Library

CINEMA

The Massive Battle That 'Cromwell' Loses

By Paul Chaplin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Film is the worst media for
anyone to learn or develop an
appreciation for history. I should
correct myself and say that current
films seem incapable of breathing
life into their historical subjects. I
would make an exception in the
case of "A Man For All Seasons,"
only because of Paul Scofield's
performance as Sir Thomas More.
A poor historical film would be last
year's "Anne of the Thousand
Days," and Ken Hughes' film,
"Cromwell," will have to be added
to the list.

The first problem involved with
a historical film concerns the script.
To please historians, all facts must
be accurate, but the events
portrayed must be dramatic to
satisfy an audience. There are two
approaches for the scriptwriter: he
may write about one period, such
as "How The West Was Won," a
device which is fortunately not too
popular, or the scriptwriter may
examine one interesting character,
and write a biography picture. This
is the traditional approach taken,
and it usually results in massive,
gaudy productions.

Ken Hughes' script passes the
accuracy test but is short in the
dramatics. There is a big battle
scene, the Battle of Naseby (June,
1645), which is a credit to director
Hughes. This is one of the easiest
battles to understand visually since
all the battle scenes in the Russian
production of "War and Peace."
Unfortunately, Hughes'
development of characters and
dialogue is unbearable. There are
such classic lines as "You promised
me mountains, but delivered
molehills," which King Charles says
to Prince Rupert.

The acting is very good however,
or I should say Richard Harris as
Cromwell is quite good. At times,
though, Mr. Harris appears to be
impersonating Richard Burton, a
role he's done before in "Camelot."
Alee Guinness' portrayal of Charles
is very perplexing. Guinness stutters
through his speeches and frequently
seems to forget where he is. He
looks and sounds as if he were
completely blotto during the entire
filming.

Screen Stereotype

The supporting cast is not very
exciting. Dorothy Tutin as Charles'
queen stumbles into the screen
stereotype of every English queen
of French blood, namely she's very
bitchy and gives her husband bad
advice. Timothy Dalton gives a very
uneven performance as Prince
Rupert. We first see him riding to
battle with a white poodle, and
later in the film, his character has
changed considerably. Perhaps after
having been wounded at Bristol,
young Rupert changed his ways.

One of the biggest problems
with "Cromwell" is its size. The
subject is too large for a movie, and
consequently this film suffers from
it. I couldn't believe thirteen years
had passed since the first scene of
the film. "Cromwell" seems to be
the longest picture I've ever seen.
There should be an intermission,
and it's very obvious where it
should have gone. But even with
the break, the film would still be
too long. There is no flow of the
material, which gives the film its
feeling of length.

There is, however, a redeeming
element in the script that should
have been explored in greater
detail. Cromwell's overthrow of the
crown is not an actively pursued
goal. It is when the king attempts
to create another civil war that
Parliament establishes a court to try
the king for treason against the
people and nation of England.
Later, Cromwell dismisses
Parliament when it becomes

corrupt, and he assumes control of
the government. He says he will
return decent government, "if I
have to do it myself." The audience
chuckles, but the narrator tells us
that for the next five years, he did
establish himself as Protector of
England.

Quite obviously, Cromwell's
revolution could conceivably be
pulled from history as another
example of the people taking the
rule from incompetent rulers. I
have to admit that this could easily
be interpreted as a "Right On! All
Power to the People!" approach.
Rather than fall into this trap of
relevance, I am suggesting that
Hughes should have spent more of
his energies dealing with Cromwell's
conflict of religious and political
beliefs and his feelings toward
realistic action on the part of the
king, Parliament, and ultimately
himself.

Have To Be Smaller

If Hughes had taken this
approach to his subject, the
production would have to be
smaller than it is. Perhaps it would
resemble Carl Dryer's "Passion of
Saint Joan," which used close-ups
and a minimal use of sets. I doubt,
however, if "small" historical films
will ever be made in the future.

If "Cromwell" may be used as
an example. I would suggest the
following for other historical films.
First, trim the production down to
a workable size, in subject and
settings and costumes. Then, avoid
the tendency of having lengthy
scripts, and also avoid
pseudo-Shakespeare mixed with
trite expressions. Finally, entertain
the audience, but don't send the
historians gasping at inaccuracies.

This is one of the pleasures of
criticism: making ideal suggestions
that look great on paper, and meet
with everybody's disapproval.

(Now at the University)

* * *

Other films this week: The
Cinema has brought Andy Warhol's
"Trash" back to town for a week.
This funny and repulsive film
features amusing performances by
Jane Forth and Holly Woodlawn, a
transvestite. Across the street at the
Paramount is "Elvira Madigan."
This is the film which popularized
Mozart's Piano Concerto, number
21 (or was it 19?) and is noted for
its beautiful color photography, as
well as reviving romance in picnics.