Cromwell

Dir: Ken Hughes

1970

****

Director Ken Hughes became hooked on the subject of Cromwell and the English Civil War after reading a biography of Cromwell in the early 60s. Over the next nine years, he read more than 120 books about him and toured England in his spare time between film jobs visiting historic sites and conducting research in museums and record offices. Hughes was determined to pull together a tragic drama that would have "all the haunting inevitability of Greek tragedy." His dream became possible when he met Irving Allen, a producer who shared his obsession with Cromwell and after the success of Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang he finally had his chance to make his film. Considered by many as a classic, Cromwell is an enjoyable historical drama that isn’t 100% accurate but is pretty close all things considered. It is based on the life of Oliver Cromwell, who rose to lead the Parliamentary forces during the later parts of the English Civil War and, as Lord Protector, ruled Great Britain and Ireland in the 1650s. It features an ensemble cast, led by Richard Harris as Cromwell and Alec Guinness as King Charles I, with Robert Morley as Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester and  a young Timothy Dalton as Prince Rupert of the Rhine. The film begins in Cambridge 1640 as members of parliament visit Cromwell and ask for his help. Oliver Cromwell is a devout Puritan, a country squire, magistrate and former member of Parliament. King Charles I's policies, including the enclosing of common land for the use of wealthy landowners and the introduction of "Popish" and "Romish" rituals into the Church of England have become increasingly grating to many, including Cromwell. In fact Charles regards himself as a devout Anglican, permitting his French Queen to practice Roman Catholicism in private but forbidding her to bring up the young Prince of Wales in that faith. Cromwell plans to take his family to the New World, but, on the eve of their departure, he is persuaded by his friends to stay and resume a role in politics. Charles has unenthusiastically summoned Parliament for the first time in twelve years, as he needs money to fight wars against both the Scots and the Irish. Although to appease the Commons he reluctantly agrees to execute his hated adviser the Earl of Strafford, the Parliament of England will still not grant him his requests unless he agrees to reforms that could lead to a constitutional monarchy. Committed to the divine right of kings, and under pressure from his queen to stand firm, Charles refuses. When he attempts to arrest five members of Parliament, war breaks out in England itself, Parliament against the king, both sides convinced that God is on their side. When the Parliamentary forces in which Cromwell is a cavalry officer proved ineffective, he, along with Sir Thomas Fairfax, sets up the New Model Army and soon turns the tide against the king. The army's discipline, training and numbers secure victory and Cromwell's cavalry proves to be the deciding factor. With his army defeated, Charles goes so far as to call on help from Catholic nations, which disgusts his Protestant supporters. He is finally defeated but, a brave man in his own way, he still refuses to give in to the demands of Cromwell and his associates for a system of government in which Parliament will have as much say in the running of the country as the king. Cromwell, who has had to maintain discipline in the highly politicised New Model Army by hanging a ringleader of an incipient mutiny, later hears from Sir Edward Hyde, the king's once-loyal adviser, that Charles has secretly been raising a Catholic army to resume the war against Parliament. He and his supporters thus have Charles put on trial for treason. Charles, found guilty and sentenced to death, faces execution bravely and even his most ardent critics are moved by his dignity and the fact that he has forgiven his captors. There is little celebration or satisfaction over his death, even on Cromwell's part. However, Parliament soon proves itself just as useless in governing the country and, like the late king, Cromwell is forced to undertake a coup d'etat. But where Charles failed, Cromwell succeeds: his troops remove the MPs from the House of Commons, leaving Cromwell sitting symbolically alone in the Chamber as virtual dictator where he outlines to the viewer his vision for The Protectorate. The film ends with a voice-over stating that Cromwell served very successfully for five years as Lord Protector before Charles I's son, Charles II, returned as king of an England "never to be the same again". Hughes originally wrote the script in 1961. Richard Harris liked it and wanted to star but financiers did not consider him a big enough star at the time to finance the film. They wanted Charlton Heston but Hughes, quite rightly, did not think he was appropriate. He tried to get Richard Burton to read the script but Burton was not interested. Ken Hughes said to Sir Richard Harris that no self-respecting Irishman should ever play Oliver Cromwell, but Harris laughed it off. Although a fierce Irish nationalist, Harris saw past the historical circumstances and became intrigued with Cromwell as "a symbol of integrity, anxious to reform society," as the actor described him. Harris insisted it wasn't necessary for an actor to strictly believe in the character he was playing. Instead Harris drew inspiration from Cromwell's idealistic nature, his goal to take the country out of aristocratic hands, and his "rigorous self-discipline," a trait Harris admired. Alec Guinness was cast as King Charles I with no other actor considered for the role. Both actors were said to enjoy the filming, although in his memoirs, Sir Alec Guinness stated that he was seriously unimpressed with Timothy Dalton's behavior during the production. I thought that the film balance the epic battles with the scenes in parliament rather brilliantly, although many of the dates aren’t correct and some of the characters weren’t really where they they are put in the film and some not having the amount of involvement as is depicted. Although publicity for the film boasted that it had been made after ten years of research, the film has been criticised for its historical inaccuracies. To be fair, any film that covers so much that happened over many years cannot truly fit everything in. The important thing is that all key issues are covered. The main thrust of Cromwell is true, it gets a great deal of history, and the sense of history, right. Costumes, locations (e.g., the layout of the then-House of Commons) and the appearance of actors were generally accurate but, as in many historical films – as much as for practical film making purposes as anything else – liberties were taken with the exact course of events. The main issue was that it seriously exaggerates Cromwell's role in the events leading up to the outbreak of the English Civil War, suggesting that he and Ireton were among the five members of Parliament whom the king tried to arrest when he entered the House of Commons and that Cromwell stayed in his seat and defied the king. In reality, the five members were John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Hesilrige. Charles' occupation of the Speaker's chair, signalling his sovereignty over Parliament, and quip that "the birds have flown" are genuine, as is Speaker Lenthall's claim that he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak save those words which the Commons would let him use. Also, both the Earl of Essex (Parliamentary commander-in-chief in the early years of the war) and the Earl of Manchester are shown as sitting in Cromwell's presence in the House of Commons. The Earl of Essex is shown to be present in the last scene when Cromwell dissolves Rump Parliament six years after the execution of Charles I but they would actually have sat in the House of Lords and the Earl of Essex died in 1646 anyway. John Pym is reported dead in 1646 when it was actually 1643, the Battle of Naseby was reconstructed with the New Model Army being represented as significantly outnumbered by the Royalists which wasn’t the case, the Battle of Marston Moor of July 1644, the biggest battle of the Civil War, goes totally unmentioned and Cromwell's son Oliver is depicted as having been killed during the Battle of Naseby in June 1645, when he actually died of smallpox the year before. All other inaccuracies are trivial and forgivable  all things considered and for the genre it is actually well researched. Hughes said that the film was the best thing he’d ever done but I would have to argue that it was his second best achievement after Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang but still a great historical drama with two spectacular performances.