It's the middle years of the 17th century. The English constitution lies in an uncertain state and a legal mess. Our then Stuart King Charles I has walked on a parliamentary-set tightrope for 10 years in abstinence of holding parliaments and by levying unpopular taxes on the people of England. Religious disputes lie in an undercurrent of power-shifting scenarios and Charles is unwavering in his belief of divine ordinance from God. And so emerges Cromwell, to heroically salvage the kingdom from Charles and endless civil war, in this film portrayed mostly as Cromwell the Glorious, Cromwell the brilliant and Cromwell the resolute. Richard Harris does a suitable job as each of these Cromwells. The script and film may have benefited from emphasising more on Cromwell's humbler background and strengthening his case by developing his unwilling character early on. Instead, the film's Cromwell is placed as a prominent MP in the Long Parliament and is one of the impeached during the royal retaliation to the Grand Remonstrance which we see in the relatively early stages of the film. I thought this was historically inaccurate and an error to champion Cromwell the politician before championing Cromwell the military leader, which is how he saw himself and how he probably should have ultimately been portrayed. This would have aided the film later on when we finally see him as the reluctant politician towards the end, waiving the opportunity to be King Oliver I and in one of Harris's finer moments showing Cromwell's humbler side and his yearning for a republic no longer roughshod by a tyrannical King.
The most engaging scene in the film, however, is Charles I's public execution. Many historians wax lyrical about Charles' finest hour being the preceding one before his death and thus his martyrdom in speech and performance was made exclusive from his somewhat arguably grander political failings. Alec Guinness is superb in portraying Charles the unwavering Martyr, showing courage and wonderfully saying 'I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown'. This scene is perhaps the most spookily accurate one of the film as you sense the paradox in allegiances that many people must have been feeling in the lead in to this scene.
All in all, a film worth seeing and engaging enough (wonderful battle scenes in the middle worth a mention). The ardent historian may fidget in their seat over Cromwell's script and image but the less concerned will enjoy Harris's Cromwell and Guiness's Charles to the extent that (by the end of the film) they will ponder as to whose side they would have joined if they lived in England in the 1640s. And in this sense, the film achieves the spirit of the times.
The most engaging scene in the film, however, is Charles I's public execution. Many historians wax lyrical about Charles' finest hour being the preceding one before his death and thus his martyrdom in speech and performance was made exclusive from his somewhat arguably grander political failings. Alec Guinness is superb in portraying Charles the unwavering Martyr, showing courage and wonderfully saying 'I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown'. This scene is perhaps the most spookily accurate one of the film as you sense the paradox in allegiances that many people must have been feeling in the lead in to this scene.
All in all, a film worth seeing and engaging enough (wonderful battle scenes in the middle worth a mention). The ardent historian may fidget in their seat over Cromwell's script and image but the less concerned will enjoy Harris's Cromwell and Guiness's Charles to the extent that (by the end of the film) they will ponder as to whose side they would have joined if they lived in England in the 1640s. And in this sense, the film achieves the spirit of the times.