In "Cromwell" the English Civil War of the 17th century is seen as a confrontation between two larger than life personalities: Oliver Cromwell and King Charles I. In reality, of course, it was much more complicated than that, but the movie tries to give us a flavour of both (and, to a large extent, succeeds) focusing of course (as the title implies) on Cromwell.
Richard Harris offers a powerful performance in the title role. Cromwell is depicted here as a complex, sometimes contradictory character, very passionate about his Puritan religious beliefs, torn between his belief that England needs a King, and his desire to be rid of Charles, devoted to the idea of rule by Parliament, yet quite willing to defy Parliament when it goes against his wishes. This, from my understanding of the man, is a largely accurate portrait. Cromwell was a complex, torn personality - although perhaps not as strictly "Puritan" (or perhaps puritanical is a better way to put it) as the film suggests. My understanding, for example, is that Cromwell had no objection to a good party and a helping of ale, but there's really no hint of that side of the man here. On the other side of the equation, Alec Guinness was at least the equal of Harris in the role of Charles I - stubborn and egotistical, convinced that God had chosen him to be king, torn between his coronation oath to defend the Church of England and his loyalty to and love for his Roman Catholic Queen, and firmly standing up for what he believed to be true. I appreciated that the film avoided portraying this in a simplistic good guy/bad guy way. Both Cromwell and Charles are depicted as very sincere in their beliefs and totally convinced that they are doing their best for England, and in fact the portrayal of the two seemed to me to shift as the movie progressed. At the beginning, Cromwell was portrayed as the noble fighter for the people, while Charles was constantly involved in intrigues with Catholic powers to save his crown. By the end, Cromwell refuses to show mercy and denies his own admission that "England must have a king" and eventually seizes power away from parliament, while Charles begins to be seen as a good and faithful family man, loving father and husband, passionately believing that it is he, rather than Cromwell or Parliament, who is the real defender of the liberties of the people of England.
This is a colourful movie, featuring good battle scenes, although in some ways (strange for a movie almost two and a half hours long) it seems rather rushed at times. The early years of the revolution seem to be over in a matter of days in the story, and then great attention is paid to the aftermath of the Revolution, as first Cromwell tries to convince Charles to come to terms, then puts him on trial and finally executes him. It's this uneven pace (combined with some understandable degree of dramatic licence) that is perhaps responsible for some of the rather glaring historical inaccuracies of the movie. That fact alone is a warning: don't treat this as a history lesson. Having said that, of course, it's fair to acknowledge that the real purpose of the movie seems to be to give life to two personalities who have entered the history books, and in that it succeeds. Cromwell and Charles do come to life in this, and the portrayals of their complex personalities and their complex relationship with one another makes this a movie worth watching. The movie ends with Cromwell dismissing Parliament as a prelude to his elevation to the office of Lord Protector, and there's nothing here about his career as Lord Protector.
This is an enjoyable movie, which - yes - takes some liberties with history, but is still well worth watching. 7/10
Richard Harris offers a powerful performance in the title role. Cromwell is depicted here as a complex, sometimes contradictory character, very passionate about his Puritan religious beliefs, torn between his belief that England needs a King, and his desire to be rid of Charles, devoted to the idea of rule by Parliament, yet quite willing to defy Parliament when it goes against his wishes. This, from my understanding of the man, is a largely accurate portrait. Cromwell was a complex, torn personality - although perhaps not as strictly "Puritan" (or perhaps puritanical is a better way to put it) as the film suggests. My understanding, for example, is that Cromwell had no objection to a good party and a helping of ale, but there's really no hint of that side of the man here. On the other side of the equation, Alec Guinness was at least the equal of Harris in the role of Charles I - stubborn and egotistical, convinced that God had chosen him to be king, torn between his coronation oath to defend the Church of England and his loyalty to and love for his Roman Catholic Queen, and firmly standing up for what he believed to be true. I appreciated that the film avoided portraying this in a simplistic good guy/bad guy way. Both Cromwell and Charles are depicted as very sincere in their beliefs and totally convinced that they are doing their best for England, and in fact the portrayal of the two seemed to me to shift as the movie progressed. At the beginning, Cromwell was portrayed as the noble fighter for the people, while Charles was constantly involved in intrigues with Catholic powers to save his crown. By the end, Cromwell refuses to show mercy and denies his own admission that "England must have a king" and eventually seizes power away from parliament, while Charles begins to be seen as a good and faithful family man, loving father and husband, passionately believing that it is he, rather than Cromwell or Parliament, who is the real defender of the liberties of the people of England.
This is a colourful movie, featuring good battle scenes, although in some ways (strange for a movie almost two and a half hours long) it seems rather rushed at times. The early years of the revolution seem to be over in a matter of days in the story, and then great attention is paid to the aftermath of the Revolution, as first Cromwell tries to convince Charles to come to terms, then puts him on trial and finally executes him. It's this uneven pace (combined with some understandable degree of dramatic licence) that is perhaps responsible for some of the rather glaring historical inaccuracies of the movie. That fact alone is a warning: don't treat this as a history lesson. Having said that, of course, it's fair to acknowledge that the real purpose of the movie seems to be to give life to two personalities who have entered the history books, and in that it succeeds. Cromwell and Charles do come to life in this, and the portrayals of their complex personalities and their complex relationship with one another makes this a movie worth watching. The movie ends with Cromwell dismissing Parliament as a prelude to his elevation to the office of Lord Protector, and there's nothing here about his career as Lord Protector.
This is an enjoyable movie, which - yes - takes some liberties with history, but is still well worth watching. 7/10