The probem I have with "A Lion in Winter" is similar to that of "Ben-Hur." In the case of the latter, writer Lew Wallace subtitled it, "A Tale of the Christ."
Well, it is not that. What Wallace did was to fashion a completely fictious, melodrmatic tale and superimpose it onto Biblical narrative. The result for me was a "neither fish, nor foul" piece of exploitation. I couldn't feel very emotional about this cloned product that was, at best, hybrid.
More recently, James Goldman came along, and wrote a play based on historical characters and events of 1183 AD. These people and actions generally did take place, to go by many historical records. But what did these people actually talk like? Were they as boisterous, catty, camp, and parody-like as Goldman's script?
Were Prince Richard and King Philip I youthful lovers, reviving their passions in more mature years? Was Princess Alais really a mistress to Henry II, clingingly obedient even though being constantly debased and belittled by Henry? Could almost every sentence between Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine have been as biting, acidic and cynical as Goldman's dialogue?
More vexing, though, is the eye-winking tone of the script. Even though most of the enactment under Anthony Harvey is played dead-seriously, every now and then a "modern," "hip" bit is tossed out. These "throw-aways" make one wonder about the integrity--or intention--of Goldman (and Anthony). Is the whole thing just one big put-on, after all? The puns get laughs, to be sure, but at what cost: just how sincere really is "A Lion in Winter"?
On the other hand, had late-60s audiences become so jaded as to somehow require some "mod" double entendres and "campy quips" in order to "connect" with the "dusty" medieval setting? Could they not have taken a piece played uniformly "straight?" Does this say something more about people of the 20th than 12th century?
Whatever the case, "A Lion in Winter" cannot be accused of being "creaky." On the contrary, it's a vibrant, explosive, energetic piece of work, acted to the hilt by an exception cast, and headed by Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn and Anthony Hopkins. The film did "connect" with most audience members, and continues to be well-regarded by the mass public--even those who wouldn't be caught dead reading "dry" medieval history.
Well, it is not that. What Wallace did was to fashion a completely fictious, melodrmatic tale and superimpose it onto Biblical narrative. The result for me was a "neither fish, nor foul" piece of exploitation. I couldn't feel very emotional about this cloned product that was, at best, hybrid.
More recently, James Goldman came along, and wrote a play based on historical characters and events of 1183 AD. These people and actions generally did take place, to go by many historical records. But what did these people actually talk like? Were they as boisterous, catty, camp, and parody-like as Goldman's script?
Were Prince Richard and King Philip I youthful lovers, reviving their passions in more mature years? Was Princess Alais really a mistress to Henry II, clingingly obedient even though being constantly debased and belittled by Henry? Could almost every sentence between Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine have been as biting, acidic and cynical as Goldman's dialogue?
More vexing, though, is the eye-winking tone of the script. Even though most of the enactment under Anthony Harvey is played dead-seriously, every now and then a "modern," "hip" bit is tossed out. These "throw-aways" make one wonder about the integrity--or intention--of Goldman (and Anthony). Is the whole thing just one big put-on, after all? The puns get laughs, to be sure, but at what cost: just how sincere really is "A Lion in Winter"?
On the other hand, had late-60s audiences become so jaded as to somehow require some "mod" double entendres and "campy quips" in order to "connect" with the "dusty" medieval setting? Could they not have taken a piece played uniformly "straight?" Does this say something more about people of the 20th than 12th century?
Whatever the case, "A Lion in Winter" cannot be accused of being "creaky." On the contrary, it's a vibrant, explosive, energetic piece of work, acted to the hilt by an exception cast, and headed by Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn and Anthony Hopkins. The film did "connect" with most audience members, and continues to be well-regarded by the mass public--even those who wouldn't be caught dead reading "dry" medieval history.