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.
