Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is the greatest movie ever made. David Lean’s epic masterpiece encapsulates everything films can achieve. A remarkably complex mixture of historical drama, character study and absorbing spectacle, it’s an unparalleled cinematic experience.

T.E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) is an ambitious intelligence officer in Cairo during the First World War. Political officer Dryden (Claude Rains) taps Lawrence as a liaison to Prince Feisal’s (Alec Guinness) fledgling Arab Revolt against Ottoman Turkey. Lawrence finds Feisal’s Arabs riven by factionalism and disastrously outgunned by the Turks. He recruits brash Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) and flamboyant Auda abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn) to cross the Nefud Desert and capture Aqaba. Lawrence’s achievement impresses General Allenby (Jack Hawkins), who provides the Arabs arms and money while dodging questions about British “ambitions in Arabia.” Lawrence leads the Bedouin in a brilliant guerrilla campaign, with American journalist Jackson Bentley (Arthur Kennedy) making him an international celebrity. As Lawrence’s fame grows however, his arrogance makes him believe he’s capable of anything.

It’s a miracle that Lawrence of Arabia got made it all. Lean spent 18 months filming in Jordan, Spain and Morocco, plagued by adverse weather, disease, logistical nightmares, political finagling and tyrannical producer Sam Spiegel. Lean cast unknown Peter O’Toole after Marlon Brando and Albert Finney turned him down. Actor Edmond O’Brien had an on-set heart attack and was replaced by Arthur Kennedy. Michael Wilson was fired after a year writing the script; his replacement, Robert Bolt, arrested at a political demonstration with his revision incomplete! The movie was cut from its 222 minute length to under three hours; even the 1989 restoration remains short of premiere length.

Lawrence’s most obvious appeal lies in its landscapes. Lean and photographer Freddie Young craft a unique visual experience, mixing the handsome composition of John Ford Westerns with the other-worldliness of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The desert becomes a character, beautiful and forbidding, absorbing with its impeccably polished dunes, towering cliffs, scorching salt flats and menacing quicksands. Lawrence astounds with bravura artistry: Sherif Ali appearing as a speck on the horizon, Lawrence rescuing Gassim (I.S. Johar) from the "Sun's Anvil," the sweeping crane shots through Wadi Rumm, the ship sailing through a sand dune. These awe-inspiring visuals remain unparalleled in cinema history.

Lean keeps genre tropes fresh with atypical presentation. He stages exposition on impressive sets, like the cavernous Seville palaces that backdrop Lawrence’s negotiations with Allenby. Action scenes impress with their huge scale but Lean’s unique touches register strongest. The attack on Aqaba climaxes with an incredible tracking shot following the Arabs through the town, Turkish guns pointing impotently to sea. Lawrence caps a successful train raid by posing for Bentley’s camera, his glowing robes back-lit by the sun while the Arabs chant his name. The story ends not with Lawrence capturing Damascus but the fractious dissolution of his dream.

Other technical aspects impress, too. Editor Anne Coates borrowed the hard cutting of French New Wave films, eschewing traditional dissolve-and-wipe methods. Lawrence’s editing style is less jarring today, but individual cuts stand out: the match to sun transition, Lawrence posing before a Greek mural to his assembled army. John Box marshals impressive production design, including the 300-building Aqaba set. Phyllis Dalton's outfits mark Lawrence's character development: ill-fitting khaki, flowing white robes that dissolve into bloodstained rags. And Maurice Jarre’s thundering score perfectly captures Lawrence's romanticism, Arab tribal violence and the desert's harsh beauty.

Lawrence transcends mere spectacle, presenting a cerebral historical drama. Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson’s screenplay mixes colorful dialogue with a sophisticated view of Middle Eastern politics. The British cynically fan Arab nationalism to further military goals, ignoring the dangerous political consequences. The Arabs are so beset with tribal rivalry that their wartime alliance seems foredoomed. The piratical Auda has no interest in government while Feisal only retains power through tortured compromise. Lawrence provides pointed commentary on imperial ambitions West and East: timely in the era of Suez and Nasser's United Arab Republic, it remains prescient through the War on Terror and the Arab Spring.

But Lawrence succeeds through its protagonist. An Oxford-educated archaeologist, Lawrence enters the campaign with likeable ambition and Kipling-esque romanticism. He gains acceptance by besting the Arabs at their own game, while his outsider status helps diffuse ancient rivalries. But his double game of appeasing Arab and British leaders exacts a horrible mental toll, Lawrence believing he can work literal miracles. Supporting players, from the manipulative Allenby and Dryden to the sensationalist Bentley, fan his ego to monstrous proportions. Capture and defilement by Turkish troops further unhinge Lawrence, revealing an "enjoyment" of violence that he vengefully unleashes.

Some reviewers criticize Lawrence’s lack of clear motivation, but this is the film's greatest strength. A shy, mischievous and brilliant man, Lawrence wrote Seven Pillars of Wisdom, a masterful memoir that reads like an epic novel. Lawrence was tormented by his illegitimate birth, capacity for self-punishment and aberrant sexuality: he may have been homosexual and was certainly a masochist. Yet he was a brilliant scholar, gifted soldier and skilled writer. He loved fame yet loathed attention; he served anonymously in the RAF while befriending George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill. He served the British government yet resented their selling out Arab nationalism. No film, however long or complex, could do Lawrence justice.

That said, providing this man a clear motive would miss the point. Lawrence wasn't a traditional hero but a complex, tortured personage, more akin to Joseph Conrad than G.A. Henty. Lean undoubtedly sensationalizes his personality, Lawrence primping in his Arab robes and enjoying pain ("The trick is not minding that it hurts!"). But it scores in its generalities: Lawrence transforms the Middle East through sheer will while gradually destroying himself. His identity grows lost in a messy thicket of military carnage, political backstabbing and psychological torment.

Peter O’Toole is flawless. Just 27 at the time, O'Toole captures all sides of a frustratingly elusive character. His performance can be outsized, capturing Lawrence's flamboyance and gleeful role playing. Or he dials down to intense brooding, recounting how he enjoyed executing a colleague or pondering his personal demons. O'Toole can be naively charming or hatefully arrogant, but he always commands the screen. It remains one of cinema's all-time great performances.

Lean assembles a gold standard supporting cast. Omar Sharif makes a charismatic foil for O'Toole, parlaying his role into super-stardom. Alec Guinness's cultured Feisal, mixing Arab nationalism with Western deceit, balances Anthony Quinn's feral Auda. Jack Hawkins and Anthony Quayle provide complex variants on their usual military roles. Claude Rains plays his disreputable diplomat with droll, urbane relish. Jose Ferrer provides a frightening cameo as a lecherous Turkish general. Less successful is Arthur Kennedy, recycling his cynical journalist from Elmer Gantry.

Lawrence of Arabia speaks for itself. From its amazing spectacle to wonderfully complex protagonist, it's a truly flawless work.

Note: In January 2013, this article was heavily edited from my original 7/31/08 posting. I was never satisfied with my initial piece and, having written so much about Lawrence in the meantime, thought to synthesize my thoughts with a more cogent review. Hopefully my readers won't mind.

Mini-Review of Gosford Park

Today's viewing (through a headache and humid weather) was Robert Altman's "Gosford Park" (2001). I'm not going to write an in-depth review, but some brief comments on it.

Billed as a dark comedy of manners, Altman's film attempts to analyze British class differences and the parallel lives of the upper class and their servants. The movie is well-made, with an exceptional cast - Michael Gambon, Alan Bates, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Eileen Atkins, Tom Hollander, Jeremy Northam, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Somerville, Clive Owen, Ryan Phillipe, Bob Balaban, Stephen Fry, Richard E. Grant, to name just a few - but I didn't really care for it that much. Either the humor was much too dry and understated for my tastes (not bloody likely, as I've spent years cultivating a taste for British comedy), it was unsuccessful in what it set out to do, or it wasn't a comedy at all, really. A bigger problem, though is that the characters are interchangable and very hard to keep track of, causing a large amount of confusion and preventing one from generating much interest in what's going on. The only really funny parts were Stephen Fry's cameo as the police Inspector - now there's a funny man. Also, I now know that Jeremy Northam is a great singer, and that Bob Balaban is horribly annoying in pretty much everything.

If it were an attempt to be a crime film/social satire, I give it a 7. If it's supposed to be a straight comedy, it gets a meager 6. Either way, that's the third film I found rather disappointing this week. Hopefully I'll be receiving The Train from Netflix tomorrow - now THERE'S a classic movie (I hope).

As I continue to flex my writing muscles, I will attempt to provide for you a new featured article tomorrow, on my favorite film of all time. Most of you who know me will probably be able to guess what that is already - if not, well, wait and see.

Day Two

As a companion piece to my Tudor article, Nolesy posted (a week or so ago) a lengthy and decidedly negative review of The Other Boleyn Girl. Worth a look, even if you disagree:

http://nolesy.blogspot.com/2008/07/best-of-best-and-worst-of-worst.html

I watched Syriana yesterday. I don't feel like writing a lengthy, in-depth review of it, but suffice to say I found it a boring, dull, confusing slog with nothing new or insightful to say about terrorism, US foreign policy or the oil industry. At least the acting was pretty good.

I will try and have another featured article up by the end of the day. I hope the two of you currently reading this blog will be satisfied.

Tudor Mania!

Ah, the Tudors. One of the most infamous royal dynasties in the history of the world. We all know at least the general outline of the story, of King Henry and his six wives, his insatiable search for a male heir which tore England asunder, seperated it from Rome and established it as a truly independent entity for the first time. The King is complemented by a cast of colorful characters - the dignified Catholic intellectual Sir Thomas More, the scheming Boleyns, the crooked Cardinal Wolsey, the bullying administrator Thomas Cromwell, the dithering eclesiastic Hamlet Thomas Cranmer, and the slippery, loathsome Richard Rich, and not even to mention his very distinct wives - which makes his reign even more interesting. And of course, we culminate with Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen, who ruled England for almost fifty years and cemented its place as a world power. In between are Edward VI, the boy king who died at 15, the tragic Lady Jane Grey, who ruled England for nine days, and Mary and her ferocious Catholic counter-revolution. All of these individuals are fascinating, and show why history doesn't have to be a boring succession of names and dates. Interest in the Tudors rarely wanes, and with good reason: There's enough politics, backstabbing, sex and violence in the Tudor dynasty to fill an encyclopedia - and I've no doubt it has.

It's no surprise then, that Tudors have been the subject of innumerable films, from Alexander Korda's The Private Life of Henry VIII and The Sea Hawk with Errol Flynn, to recent works such as The Other Boleyn Girl, Showtime's The Tudors, and the Elizabeth films.

Inspired by my viewing of several Tudor-related films in the past few weeks, here is an overview of some of the more notable Tudor films - i.e., ones that I've seen. You will notice this is far from a comprehensive list, but it should provide you with a good starting point.

The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933)

This is one of the first films to deal with the Tudors, and the one which set the precedent for an entire century of popular depictions of Henry and the Tudor era. It is here that we see the depiction of Henry as a larger-than-life (in more ways than one) monster, large, capricious, lascivious, gnawing messily on chicken legs and casually ordering the deaths of his wives. The film has undoubtedly dated, and as a work of history; but it still manages to be an entertaining film on the whole.

This movie is a mixture of period piece and bawdy comedy of manners. It's a satire of Tudor court mores, showing the hypocritical, capricious single-mindedness of Henry's reign. It does an excellent job of showing Henry's larger-than-life nature and how he personified and embodied England - best exemplified in a brilliant scene where Henry's laughter slowly spreads through his vast household, and out into the streets. It's often forgotten that Henry was loved by the English public. The film treats the main issue of Henry's reign is that he was a pig, rather than any sort of tyrant. And that's simply inexcusable.

Charles Laughton provides his dramatic weight (okay, enough fat jokes!) and propensity for boisterous comedy, and gives a memorable portrayal of Henry. While Katherine of Aragon is omitted from the story line for being a "respectable woman" and thus without interest, and Anne Boleyn (a pre-stardom Merle Oberon), Jane Seymour (Wendy Barrie) and Katherine Parr (Everly Gregg) are given only a brief grab of screen time, Binnie Barnes gives a fine performance as Katharine Howard, the naive young girl who finds herself the object of Henry's fatal attraction - and her relationship with the dashing Thomas Culpepper (a rather dull Robert Donat) proves her downfall. The best of the wives, however, is Elsa Lanchester (Laughton's real-life wife), who provides a few hilarious scenes as a wonderfully ditzy Anne of Cleves. It's not very good history, but as entertainment it works pretty well.

7/10

The Sea Hawk (1940)

Directed by Michael Curitz (Casablanca), The Sea Hawk is an entertaining swashbuckler with Erroll Flynn in top form as Captain Thorpe, a British privateer in the employ of Queen Elizabeth (Flora Robeson), who takes on the Spanish Navy in the lead-in to the attack of the Spanish Armada. Full of lots of adventure, action, and intrigue, it holds up reasonably well in spite of a rather slow pace (and an atrocious print I watched on TCM). The climactic sword fight between Flynn and Henry Daniell as the treacherous Lord Wolfingham is among the best of its kind. Flora Robeson gives a strong, dignified performance as Elizabeth - a strong ruler, the traditional portrait of "Old Queen Bess", who nonetheless has a soft-spot for the dashing Thorpe. Claude Rains and Henry Daniell are excellent villains, and the beautiful Brenda Marshall is a lovely love interest. The film's biggest flaw is the anti-climactic ending, though considering the movie was meant in no small part as an allegory for the then-current World War II (with Elizabeth's rousing speech in favor of freedom and self-determination), it was probably a deliberate choice by the film makers - the real fight is still ahead.

Rating: 7/10

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

Next is Fred Zinnemann's A Man for All Seasons, one of my all-time favorite movies. Based on Robert Bolt's brilliant play, it examines Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield)'s opposition to Henry's break with the Catholic Church, which ultimately led to his execution. Bolt's themes of integrity and self-hood come through with stark clarity, due to the amazing subtlety of Paul Scofield's performance. Rarely has an actor ever dominated a film so fully, but Scofield does it with subtle underplaying and dignity rather than ham-acting or stark emotion. This is, quite simply, acting at its finest, and he's helped immeasuribly by Bolt's thoughtful screenplay, which is witty and intelligent without being obnoxious about it (cf. The Lion in Winter, Amadeus).

Robert Shaw is Henry VIII, and although I'm missing Charles Laughton and Keith Michell's much-acclaimed interpretations, he is by far the best of the Henrys here-mentioned, even though he has only about ten minutes of screen time. He catches Henry's capricious nature perfectly as he attempts to persuade More to support the annulment of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon. One second a laughing, warm friend, the next a bellowing tower of rage, Shaw is a perfect encapsulation of the monster that was Henry. Vanessa Redgrave's cameo as Anne Boleyn is quite lovely; perhaps someone should have thought to cast Shaw and Redgrave as the pair in their own movie.

The movie is handsomely mounted, capturing the pomp and pageantry of Henry's reign. Zinnemann's handsome, straight-forward direction works wonders here, so we focus on the characters and to a lesser extent the scenery rather than fancy camera angles. The supporting cast is marvellous: a huge Orson Welles as the devious Wolsey, Leo McKern as the hateful Cromwell, a very young John Hurt as the easily corrupted Richard Rich, Nigel Davenport as the blustering Duke of Norfolk, Wendy Hiller as More's shrewish wife Alice, and the lovely Susannah York as More's devoted daughter. It's a brilliant film, and anyone who enjoys great drama should see it ASAP.

Rating: 9/10

Anne of the Thousand Days (1968)

Charles Jarrott's "Anne of the Thousand Days" (based on a play by Maxwell Anderson) is a solid re-telling of the love affair that shook the world, and gets points for portraying an extremely sympathetic Anne Boleyn (Genevieve Bujold). Anne is fiery, headstrong, dignified, and yet, unlike many Annes, capable of love and tenderness as well - her conflicted feelings towards Henry are extremely believable and make the character that much more endearing. Many future films would portray Anne as a scheming bitch from Hell, so it's refreshing to see another take on the character. Bujold is beautiful and perfectly captures the spirit of this Anne, making her a sympathetic character whether she's standing up to the King, manipulating him against his advisors, professing her love to Henry, becoming increasingly shrewish and paranoid as she falls out of favor, or telling him off as he demands to know if Cromwell's concoted charges against her are true. You go, girl.

On the other end of the spectrum, Richard Burton (an actor I'm not inordinately fond of) gives one of his better performances as Henry; besides a passable physical resemblance, he sinks his teeth into Bridget Boland and John Hale's muscular, witty script, and, like Shaw, is able to convincingly convey Henry as a man of extremes, with very little in-between. The scenes of these two great actors bantering provides endless entertainment.


Burton and Bujold are backed up by a fine supporting cast, particularly the perpetually underrated Anthony Quayle as an unusually sympathetic Wolsey, John Colicos as a devious fly-on-the-wall Cromwell, and William Squire as a dignified More. The only real flaw is Irene Papas, who is badly miscast as Katherine of Aragon (when will film makers learn Katherine was NOT a dark-haired Latin?). This plethora of generally well-fleshed out and interesting characters provide an appropriate historical context for the events going on the foreground; although the focus of the film is the fractious relationship between Henry and Anne, it maintains a context and never degenerates to the level of soap opera.


The film's only major flaw is its rushed second act; after Anne's marriage, things just seem to occur, one after another. Henry and Anne's falling out isn't a gradual occurrence, but rather seems to happen almost the moment they are wed. The movie redeems itself with an electricfying final confrontation between Henry and Anne in the Tower of London - but then it caps it off with a clunk by repeating Anne's big speech over a shot of baby Elizabeth toddling through the courtyard. Fail. But everything leading up to that point is lavish, well-made history for the masses, and as such it's extremely entertaining.

Rating: 8/10

Blackadder II (1986)

The second of the four Blackadder series, II completely re-invents the series by turning the idiotic Prince Edmund (Rowan Atkinson) into a witty, intelligent, and hopelessly arrogant and cynical nobleman who is struggling to climb the social ladder in Elizabethian England - aided and hampered by his subhuman servant Baldrick (Tony Robinson) and the marginally more intelligent Lord Percy (Tim McInnerny). Rowan Atkinson sheds the idiotic Mr. Bean persona and creates a wonderfully nasty yet sympathetic character who always has something clever and mean to say. The show is one of the greatest comedies in TV history, with its share of classic moments - from the dim-witted but unbelievably handsome adventurer Lord Flasheart (Rik Mayall), to Percy's ridiculous ruff, Edmund impersonating an executed nobleman, the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells (Ronald Lacey), and the infamous "Beer" party - and a lot of literary references (particularly Shakespeare in this series) for the more intelligent viewer to enjoy.

Miranda Richardson is hysterical as "Queenie", an extremely unique portrayal of the Virgin Queen. Instead of the regal, dignified ruler we're used to seeing, we get a hysterical, childish, capricious and naughty character who would rather play practical jokes than do anything remotely productive. Assisted by her arrogant Chancellor Melchett (Stephen Fry) and the insane Nursey (Patsy Byrne), she exists primarily to torment Blackadder, foil his ambitions, and occasionally flirt with him. Fortunately for England, in the series finale she (along with the rest of the cast) is murdered by the scheming Prince Ludwig (Hugh Laurie, who would become a regular in the last two seasons), putting a dignified, intelligent, and competent - if sexually ambiguous - ruler on the throne. At least we know now why Elizabeth was a virgin...

Rating: 10/10

Lady Jane (1986)

Directed by Trevor Nunn (who's made his fair share of Shakespeare adaptations), Lady Jane is a costume drama about one of the most tragic events in English history. Lady Jane Grey (Helena Bonham Carter) was a well-educated 15 year old girl, a distant relative of Henry's, who ascended to the throne through the scheming of her Protestant relatives after the death of Edward VI. She ruled for nine days before being ousted by Mary's Catholic forces, and along with her young husband Guillford Dudley (Cary Elwes), they were executed shortly thereafter.

The movie deals with an interesting subject, but for some reason it never takes off. It features a number of flaws, including a sluggish pace and an ugly, excessively dark and murky color palette. Damn the '80s. Bonham Carter, a teenager herself at the time, is excellent, lovely and charming as the naive, romantic girl in way over her head, and Elwes complements her well. The supporting cast is merely adequate, and most of the film's important events take place off-screen - something which is almost always fatal in a film like this. As appealing a couple as Carter and Elwes are, we never really get worked up about their plight. It's very "handsome" (I guess, but not really), historically accurate (although in and of itself that's not much of a virtue), and, sadly, a bit of a disappointment.

Rating: 6/10

Elizabeth (1998)

Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth is, first and foremost, a gorgeous film to behold. Kapur's directorial style is dazzling, with astonishing use of light, color and costume to create a foreboding atmosphere, building until the final scene where Elizabeth enters court, triumphantly remade as the Virgin Queen - and setting the stage for a bad sequel.

Cate Blanchett is a fabulous Elizabeth. Her character is a fascinating creation; very intelligent, knowledgable, and having lived with threat of execution by her sister Mary (Kathy Burke) for years, she knows the value of information and public image. But we get to see a young Elizabeth, enraptured by the handsome Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) and more than happy to indulge her base desires above all else. It's up to her advisors, William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) and Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) to show her where her true interests lie; and Elizabeth must learn quickly, through a trial-by-fire, as she is under siege from all corners.

The movie conveys the fascinating nature of Tudor politics; Elizabeth's claim to the throne is contested from pretty much all corner; the French Queen Mary of Guise (Fanny Ardant) has designs on the throne and establishes herself in Scotland; English Catholics, led by the Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plot against her; the Vatican, personified by John Gielgud's Pope and a pre-James Bond Daniel Craig as a demonic assassin, sanctions her assassination; and Spain, France, and other countries try to marry her in order to rule England by proxy. These various plot threads interweve perfectly, creating a mesmerizing tableau of intrigue and suspense; it's up to Walsingham, the slippery, seemingly omnipotent spy-master played brilliantly by Geoffrey Rush, to deal with these intrigues. In order to survive in this climate, one must be devious, strong, intelligent, clever, and wholly unscrupulous. And by the end, Elizabeth falls under all of those categories. Although a bit long and historically suspect, Elizabeth is a fine film and it gets my whole-hearted recommendation.

Rating: 8/10

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

It's perhaps a mite misleading to count this a "Tudor film", since it's not at all about the Tudors, but rather a heavily fictionalized account of William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes)'s efforts to write and perform "Romeo and Juliet" (or rather, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter") while wooing Viola de Lesseps (Gwenyth Paltrow), a lovely London lass who cross-dresses in order to become an actor. It's a very good romantic comedy that admittedly gets a lot of mileage out of its premise, with a lot of historical and Shakespearean inside jokes that will appeal to the more literary-minded. Judi Dench has a fun cameo as an older, presumably wiser Queen Elizabeth than Cate Blanchett's above model. Fiennes and Paltrow make a lovely couple, and the fun supporting cast includes Geoffrey Rush, Rupert Everett and Colin Firth.

Rating: 8/10

The Tudors (2007-)

The most precise description of Showtime's "The Tudors" is a classy guilty pleasure. The show is quite unapologetic about being a feverish melodrama, bordering on soap opera; the series features lots of sex, a fair amount of violence, and plays up the sensationalistic angles of history whenever it possibly can (if there's even a rumor that x-character was gay, committed adultery, or was responsible for some sort of intrigue or murder, then its here). Written by Michael Hirsch, who penned the Elizabeth films, The Tudors plays fast and loose with historical facts, while ramping up the sex and violence. The show's first few episodes, indeed, provide little more than awkward stage setting, with Henry screwing a seemingly never-ending line of mistresses and Gabriele Anwar's "Princess Margaret", Henry's sister (an amalgamation of Henry's sisters Mary and Margaret), who in the show's worst episode, is married off to the King of Portugal and kills him in his sleep - as well as a lot of superfluous side characters, like musician Thomas Tallis, whose connection to the main story is virtually non-existant. By the time the King becomes infatuated with Anne Boleyn, and the "Great Matter" gets under way, the show kicks into high gear, and the high drama of Anne's reign certainly upped the ante in Season 2, leading to some genuinely powerful and affective moments.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a truly bizarre choice as Henry. Very thin and rather short, he looks like pretty much no one's idea of Henry. The effect is quite bizarre; refusing to alter his appearance in any way, even as Henry gets older, Rhys-Meyers is hopeless on the physical count, and his portrayal of Henry as a whining, arrogant rock star is even more disconcerting. Even more egregious is Natalie Dormer, who plays Anne as the aforementioned bitch from Hell, as much sinner and sinned against, a sultry temptress who forces Henry to purge himself of his queen and trusted advisors. Since these are our two leads, their not being up to par is certainly a major flaw.

The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Arguably the standout performance is Jeremy Northam's layered and complex Thomas More. He's very much the man of dignity as in A Man for All Seasons, but here he's also a borderline fanatic in practicing his Catholicism, overseeing the execution of convicted Lutherans. Also stealing the show are Sam Neill as the devious Cardinal Wolsey, and Maria Doyle Kennedy, as a lovely, dignified and extremely sympathetic Katherine, stealing every scene she's in. Callum Blue and Henry Cavill are pretty bad as some of the show's tertiary characters. James Frain is good as a fairly sympathetic Cromwell, although Hans Matheson is unremarkable (and rather miscast, it would seem) as Archbishop Cranmer. And Peter O'Toole is a treat as the deviously corrupt Pope, who contributes a few scenes per episode in Season 2 and provides some wonderfully dry, dark humor as only he can.

And yet the show, by the virtue of its format, manages to transcend its tendency towards excess. The length and duration of the seasons allows issues to be explored; we are able to see the affects of Anne's reign in decent detail. Issues such as the Reformation and schism with Rome, the Act of Succession, and the aforementioned supporting characters are given enough screen time to convey the complexity, intrigues, and importance of the time period. If the show lingers a bit long on the sex and tortures and violence, we at least get a good sense as to why it's happening. Although historically inaccurate to the extreme, and with excess that frequently borders on camp, The Tudors is a reasonably enjoyable show for the none-too-discerning history buff.

Rating: 7/10

Elizabeth: the Golden Age (2007)

The follow-up to 1998 Elizabeth promises a brilliant film. With much of the same cast and the same director, we continue with the story of Elizabeth: the Spanish Armada is preparing to invade, the English Catholics are plotting again, Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) wants the throne, and Elizabeth is involved in a love triangle with dashing explorer Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) and one of her servants (Abbie Cornish). With such a combination, how could you possibly fail to make a good movie?

Well, try asking Shekhar Kapur, for that's exactly what happens here. Elizabeth: the Golden Age is a boring slog with only a few redeeming features, most notably Cate Blanchett's brilliant portrayal of Elizabeth, showing what affect suppressing her desires and previous nature has wrought. But a great performance does not alone make a great film, and in the case of this movie, it's the saving grace.

Whereas the multi-faceted plot of the original proved fascinating, here it just results on a convoluted, incomprehensible slog. Far too much time is spent in the historically improbable and soap opera-ish love triangle, which might not be so bad if the other aspects were well-done. We don't even get a good introduction to the Catholic conspiracy at all; and Mary Queen of Scots, although gamely played by Samantha Morton, is quite frankly uninteresting shut up in her prison, given no hint of her rivalry with Elizabeth. Most egregious is the hideous stereotyping of Spain's King Phillip II, whose dialogue consists almost entirely of decrying Elizabeth as evil - at one point he declares, "Elizabeth is the darkness - I am the light!" All that's missing are the Snidley Whiplash mustache twirl and the stock maniacal laughter.

The movie is admittedly visually splendid, culminating in an astonishing sequence where Elizabeth glows an immaculate white while being decried as a whore. But pretty pictures do not make for a good movie, and all of the fancy camera shots, brilliant lighting and sumptuous costumes do little to alleviate to the convoluted, boring plot. And after hours and hours of build-up to an epic climax, what do we get when the Spanish Armada finally shows up on England's shores? A few shots of CGI ships exploding, and a horse swimming through the wreckage of the fleet. Pathetic.

Rating: 5/10

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Based on Phillipe Gregory's novel, The Other Boleyn Girl is basically a feminist (or at least feminized) take on Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman), with her sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) thrown in for good measure. Like The Tudors, it is a lavishly made historical soap opera (with astonishing cinematography and ravishing costumes); but it lacks the context and depth that redeems most of The Tudors' sins, and as a result it's a seriously flawed film.

The approach the film takes is certainly worthwhile. Focusing as it does on Anne and Mary, the story gains interest by making the Boleyn girls the victims of their family's unscrupulous ambitions; in an age when women had no rights, how could it be otherwise? The film does a great job setting up this story, and the putative rivalry between Anne and Mary, but any conflict that might have developed fizzles out in the second half, which is ridiculously fast-paced and rushed - and this time, we lack much anything in the way of historical or political context, even as pertains to Anne. Did Anne play a part, or even have interest in Church reform and Lutheranism? You wouldn't know from watching this film. As in Anne of the Thousand Days, the film falls apart after the marriage - and here, it's exacerbating by frenetic pacing, lack of context and MTV-style editing. And as in the earlier film, we get a big blinking-light display that ELIZABETH IS ANNE'S DAUGHTER! YOU KNOW, *THE* ELIZABETH! WE GET IT!!!

Natalie Portman is an excellent Anne who ends up falling somewhere between the Bujold and Dormer portrayals. She has moments of arrogance and bitchiness but she still remains a sympathetic character through most of the film. And kudos on the English accent, much-improved over her weak try in V for Vendetta. Scarlett Johansson is good enough as Mary, but her part is written as a meek, extraordinarily noble and selfless girl and thus fails to interest the viewer as much as Portman. Of the supporting cast, Kristin Scott Thomas as the girls' sympathetic but helpless mother is the stand-out; she is forced to stand idly by as her daughters fall victim to her husband's ambition. Other actors, including Jim Sturges, Juno Temple, Benedict Cumberbach, and David Morrissey, do fine yeoman's work. However, the cast's weak spot is undoubtedly Eric Bana, who is a near-pathetic Henry; he's far too demure and understated to make Henry work on any level.

Rating: 7/10

Rated, in rough order of preference:

Blackadder II
A Man for All Seasons
Anne of the Thousand Days
Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth
The Tudors
The Sea Hawk
The Other Boleyn Girl
Lady Jane
Elizabeth: the Golden Age

Welcome!

This blog has been a long time coming. Due to my love of movies it's amazing that I haven't done this yet, but I decided that this would be diverting and perhaps even interesting. Most people I know I love talking about film more than much anything else (maybe politics and history come close), so this seems logical.

I'll try to post once a day as a general rule. This blog will be fairly eclectic, articles, essays, reviews, lists, profiles, links, and pretty much anything vaguely film related. I may institute regular features, or I may not. My articles will be primarily on classic movies, although if I feel I have enough to say about a newer release then I'll post something. What I post on is entirely up to me. I already have several essays planned and we'll get to them in due time.

I may invite contributors from other sites in the near-future, and I would welcome all comments. However, for the moment I'm going to try and deal with this myself.

Sorry about Quantum of Annoyance or Political Beaver, but quite frankly I've lost interest in those blogs and whether or not I'll pick them up again is a question without an answer.

Welcome, and watch your step!

Regards,
Chris Saunders