To Kill a King
Cromwell and Fairfax are really good buddies, and Fairfax has a sickeningly fantastic relationship with his wife (I mean really, they're what Oscar Wilde meant by washing one's clean linen in public) Anyone who's ever read their Todorov* will know that it won't stay that way for very long. All this set against the background of England's only truly turbulent bit of history, our dear old Civil War.
(*we looked at him in film studies. His theory is that stories start with a balance, which gets disrupted: all plots are a quest to restore this damaged equilibrium)
I have wanted to see this for ages. I'm an English Civil War maniac - I don't know a lot about it, but I get pretty impassioned...on the side of the king. So naturally I loathe Cromwell with a vengeance reserved for historical figures and Roger Ebert.
Thoughts? Well, you know a film's off to a bad start when the first thing that happens is physically impossible (with the obvious exception of R+GaD, of course...) Shooting a sword out of someone's hand at that distance must be tricky. Using the pistols of the period, nigh on impossible. So says my military-nut father (who also noted, by the by, that they skipped the second and third civil wars entirely).
There were a lot of rubbish things about this movie - the script was shaky and predictable, the whole subplot about Lady Fairfax' kid made me yawn and there was just a feeling of terrible averageness.
At the same time, there were a lot of nice things too. The design referenced the clothing and art of the period subtly - more "he looks like King Charles" than "LOOKIE HE'S DRESSED IN THAT OUTFIT THAT VAN DYCK PAINTED HIM IN!". There were some lovely directorly touches here and there (I liked the bit when he kept the camera on Lady Fairfax as she left the this massive hall, while having this big and important scene in the background)
The characters were drawn perfectly. Rupert Everett captured King Charles exactly as I imagined him - bit of frail, poncified gentleman, bit of truly dignified monarch, with a touch of cool scheming statesman here and there. Tim Roth made a truly fantastic Cromwell - selfish, stubborn, uncharasmatic (and that's a compliment coming from someone who, I finally admit, finds him pretty attractive) and basically a bad chap - yet also redeemable. Though not too much. I'd have been seriously peeved had they turned him into a goodie, a la Cromwell. As Friend 4 correctly pointed out, they both have their loathesome and admirable sides. Thomas Fairfax was default hero-guy, and Lady Fairfax was playing "wife-with-career-husband" cliches #1, #5 and #11, but at least she had some pretty blue dresses.
The movie had a strange, strange relationship between the audience's plot preconceptions. Because anyone with a slightest notion of English history knows how the whole king vs parliament thing will turn out, and will be looking veeery suspiciously at that quiet Cromwell chap who doesn't seem to be doing that much at the moment. Which puts a strangely doomful air on the proceedings, because you know it's all going to go horribly wrong. At the same time, I don't think someone without some prior knowledge (the clue's in the title) could follow the plot - there's very little pause for explanation.
That was the background plot. But actually, there was very little about the actual war going on at all. It was more about its effects on the relationship between Fairfax and his wife (insipid!), and Fairfax and Cromwell (wonderful!) - which creates this very strange situation. Because while on the face of it I know where the backstory's headed, I have absolutely no idea what those three characters will get up to. If you watch a fantasy movie, you're expecting a quest; detective films will showcase a bunch of twists leading up to a neat resolution; romances will feature lots of gooing, and probably end with a marriage.
Yet I was completely in the dark, so let me warn you now: the surface plot is all melodrama. It starts ok and just goes downhill cheesewise. By the investiture scene, it's about as bad as cinema gets in the faux heroic stakes. But here's where my critical powers fail. I can take a step back and say "pfeugh ridiculous twaddle", but at the same time...I like cheesy heroics. I'm a sucker for a good speech, and a friendship gone sour gets me in the gut every time. Personally, I adored the investiture sequence, and Fairfax and Cromwell's conversation at the end of the film. I'm kinda tempted to watch the last half hour again, just to savour the stilton sweetness.
Was it any good? No, not really. It achieved what it set out to achieve - no more. A solid, average film with no spark.
Did I like it? I liked lots of things about it, they just didn't come together consistantly. And while I admit to the corniness of some of the stuff at the end, I personally thought it was fantastic.
Best moment: I enjoyed watching well bred Lady Fairfax deal with simple dinner in a puritan household (you may think: Blackadder!). But seriously, all the sweet buddyish moments.
Recommended for: Anyone else who loves a good bit of heroic, stirring(ish), heartbreaking(ish) emotional turmoil;
Don't watch if you: just fell out with a close friend; have no interest or knowledge of the Civil War; alternitavely, if you have a LOT of knowlege of the Civil War, and are easily annoyed when films squelch by-the-book history
0 comments:
Post a Comment