The star wars line at Charles' execution had me dying because that's exactly what went through my head. Also cromwell's ending speech reminds me of something he would've said in his role as king Arthur in Camelot.
I really like the frantic depiction of Cromwell by Harris in this film. I think it might have been Harris subtly trying to highlight some of Cromwell’s darker personality, after all, if you were to change the background music of the final speech to something less triumphant it would sound like the raving speech of a modern dictator. To keep the Star Wars jokes coming, I could see Harris declaring a new Galactic, err I mean English, Empire.
Elliot Nolan Oliver Cromwell was described as having a fiery temper, but at the same time he was also described as being able to be as gentle and compassionate as a women.
I always felt that the movie unintentionally went with the villain protag (or tragic fall of hero and descend into villainy) route, with the final narration being a last moment of "oh shit this is suppose to be a happy ending not a depressing one and he's supposed to be the hero not the villain!"
It was closer to the truth rather than his whitewashing in mainstream British political history. The English Civil War was a hard coup, whose goals evolved as time went by, and thus lost focus. I think the English Civil War had more parallels with Brexit but with a more competent leader emerging to take power because it would be chaos otherwise. That's it. It wasn't a democratic war as is often represented today, because Britain was an oligarchy who had sought power and wealth, but needed the legitimacy of the Monarchy to access it, and used their wealth as leverage over it. Agriculture was the largest source of wealth in Britain, with England being key exporter of wool. The Tudor dynasty used land to buy the loyalty of the Aristocrats and Merchants firstly by expropriation of the wool production dominated by the Monasteries, eroding by stealth the Common Land grant, transferring it to the aristocracy and wealthy farmers in the name of increasing productivity, then offering colonial land grants in Ireland in return for loyalty and money from Parliament after it's conquest. Religion was another leverage used to get the masses to comply, and to divert their attention to the increase of poverty in rural areas due to the increasing number of enclosures, leading to an influx of aggrevied peasants into urban towns and cities. The process had spoeded up under the Stuart but Charles I was actively trying to slow that process down because of the negative effects on the peasants thrown out of their livelihoods. It was a much more banal, even more venal affair than is suggested. Yes, philosophers took sides in the debate, but it never was - or, arguably never could be - about extending democracy beyond the property owning classes to the people. As the Levellers and the like found out to their cost. As are the Brexiteers finding out now that the "Levelling Up" Agenda sold to them as a Brexit benefit by those promoting it, amounts to nothing more than word salad garnishing symbolic gestures and changing nothing about the status quo. I think Harris was a great actor working with what he had. We don't have much information about Cromwell the man, perhaps because of the need to delegitimise his memory during the Restoration. We have his speeches, but nothing of his personal correspondence AFAIK, so our insights into what really made Cromwell tick will always be fuzzy and acute. So Harris worked with what he had. Guinness was a character actor extraordinare, strategic and thoughtful, so his performance humanised Charles I and gave him depth.
Dear laughing cavalier thank you for this posting and allowing us to laugh along with you. Wonderfully detailed and informative. The short cuts in history films are inevitable and require just the right balance between making the subject matter comprehensible without making a mess of the subject matter; The making of composite characters, the timeline brevity, the general editing of just about everything and the delivery of those moments already familiar to the viewer as part of our shared historic lore. I imagine a form of historic perfection might be achieved if the film ran for six hours. Not an option. Imagine being trapped in the theatre for that long with Richard Harris and his blank stares and hoarse throated shouting waddling about in beer barrel breeches as Pauline Kael describes them. It strikes me that Cromwell would be a challenge for any actor to play as he is so unrelentingly one dimensional but at any event Sir Alec is almost sublime as our hapless King.
Excellent job, yet again. Thoroughly enjoyed this film. Yes, the film certainly white-washes the excesses committed by Cromwell- his campaign in Ireland, his ruthless suppression of the Levelers within his own ranks etc. I have read reviews that claim the film's portrayal of Charles I is too gentle and sympathetic but I think Alex Guinness' performance is the best of the film, especially the accent and mannerisms. Hold up a photo of Guinness in costume as Charles alongside Van Dyck's 1635 portrait of the King and the resemblance is uncanny. I think, as you also alluded to, that historical movies often reflect the times in which they were made, as much as the periods and events they depict. I read an essay about the 1970 WW2 movie 'Tora, Tora, Tora!' and the author argued that the film's respectful and sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese side of the story was largely possible because relations between Japan and the United States (at the time the film was produced in 1969-1970) were at their warmest and friendliest. Had the same film been made in a later time, say the late 1980s or early 90s, when economic & political tensions between the two countries had grown, the film's portrayal of the Japanese may have been quite different. It would be interesting if Cromwell was re-made in today's era and to see how the film portrayed Cromwell & Charles.
Not to come off all right-wing but you do realise if made today it would have at least half the cast as black, asian, middle-eastern or mixed-race and would include a lot more female characters who'd be directly involved in the fighting. Also no-one would wear a hat and everyone would have modern hairstyles
And even if it DIDN'T include all of that, even if it DID make some effort toward actual historical accuracy it just wouldn't be very good and I think we all know it
@@1IbramGaunt Can't be worse than having an Irish Catholic hellraiser playing an English puritan who was absolutely brutal towards the Irish, which is exactly what happened in this movie. It's actually kinda wild when you think about it.
On a positive note, that little edit was probably the most accurate use of the Hitler scene on TH-cam. At least it was about an order not being followed.
I know I'm late but I think this movie struck a great balance with historical accuracy and historical liberties. I think this as the liberties they took only served to help condense and extremely complex time period into an enjoyable film. Either way great review as always.
I had the same impression: Richard Harris's performance is just fine, but it winds up leaving the "hero" seem like a fanatic, not a hero. Meanwhile, I couldn't help but feel for Alec Guiness's Charles I, even though he is supposed to be the "villain"
To be fair, that's honestly how I see the historical account. Charles was authoritarian, yes, but he wasn't a tyrant. He simply had no patience for Parliament and their radical policies. Many of which when eventually implemented under Cromwell caused suffering for damn near everyone in the nation. Cromwell himself, on the other hand, was an incredibly ambitious, religiously fanatical, and brutal man that threw his weight around more than any Stewart monarch. He wanted the nation governed by someone other than the King, but only if it were on his terms. He was a tyrant and a dictator, nothing more. Personally, I feel they went easy on Cromwell in this movie. They omitted most of his more questionable acts, along with all of the atrocities committed in Ireland, all while giving him the rather shiny veneer of a man pushing for a democratic system. Which is not only NOT what he wanted to do whatsoever, but also pushing modern values onto a historical conflict in which it had no bearing. As to what they did to Charles, he's mostly accurate, but they also changed a few details around to make him seem more monstrous and added other things that never happened. The scene with the bishop, for example. As someone related to the man through one of his son's bastards, I hated watching those scenes. Alec Guinness was the perfect cast choice though and they got his temperament and general personality traits spot on, so I can't be too mad at the movie's portrayal of him.
I walked into this film knowing full well who the characters were, and let's just say that I have never been Team Cromwell, so I never saw him as the hero of the film. Is this a film about him? Yes. So then is he the main character? Yes. Is he at all likable or a sympathetic character? Not to me. I don't see how one could walk away from this film feeling like he was someone you were supposed to be rooting for. On the other hand, King Charles I's plotline and his end are tragic and easier to sympathize with, and I think you are right that this feeling is really helped by Alec Guinness' wonderful portrayal of the king. (And yes, Roger Ebert can sod off.)
I love this review of Cromwell, and I saw this as a kid and did not understand what was going on. Now that I am older it makes sense but worse that now you know the issues. Richard Harris was great and Alec Guinness was fantastic. I keep quoting this movie and you love the fact I am a Native American in a very backward area , no one knows what I am talking about lol. Especially about British history and culture. Love your Comedy on necromancy and I would love to be see” Cromwell 2 King Charles revengence! “ then Cromwell 3 Whoremasters!”
Excellent review, very much appreciated. Only thing, at 16:27, it wasn't an "f", it was a "long s" (ſ) and it was only used if an "s" was lowercased and wasn't at the end of a word. For example, "Sam ſaid he finds his Wife to be rather Inſufferable." So having a capital "S" at the end of the word written like that was perfectly historically accurate.
Very well done. Well researched and interesting. This is one of my favourite movies even though it's not accurate. How complex would the movie be if it was a true account of that period? My only criticism is that your captions need to be on screen for longer. I kept having to pause and interrupt the flow of your fine video! Excellent otherwise!
No bother! I had the same problem. I'm a slow reader so I used to read my captions twice and that would give me my timing. Another mate of mine reads his words backwards as he said that he knows what he's written, therefore he naturally reads it faster. Anyway, top stuff. You must have done loads of research. Either that or you used a time machine and got your facts first hand. Looking forward to your Henry VIII critique. Cheers
Hello laughing cavalier or, Colonel Neville if I'm not mistaken about the portrait. Just looked at this a second time, It's a very clever way to teach history. I laughed a lot.
Thanks! Although he is always welcome to review it! I saw on twitter that said he was meant to have another review out last month but none has appeared, hope he is alright.
Sat and watched all 80 minutes of the two reviews (feeling guilty afterwards). Great film, great review, and some decent humour in there too. Top-tier work. I don't subscribe to many channels, but by God have I subscribed to this one. Keep it up!
Superb video but please slow down the text notes. You literally have to be a speed reader to get through them or pause the video. Great work and a fascinating insight.
It's a shame Shakespeare didn't live to experience this period. It would take someone with his skills as a dramatic translator of major historical events and personages to do it justice. As it was, we got the same crew who half-bungled most of the films about important events and people in English history that came out in the 60's and early 70's.
"Wait a second, is that John Pimm?? What the hell are you still doing here, you died in December 1643, and now it's 1645!! O_o" This sums up the inaccuracies of the film nicely and with great humour lol XD
I have a love hate relationship to this film. Guinness was Charles. He channelled Charles Stuart and Harris was an excellent Lord Protector. The rest of the casting was questionable.
I too will repeat the minor criticism. These are excellent videos, but the captions need to be on the screen for a little bit longer. Otherwise an amazing job, hope to see more in the future. :)
I enjoyed your historical commentary on this old film. I am beginning to wonder as I try writing a play for a class I teach why so many people criticise movies for being inaccurate in details. I thought your historical notes were helpful, but you understated how necessary and appropriate these changes are to make a watchable production.
Regarding the schizophrenic portrayals of the "hero," Oliver Cromwell, and the "villain," King Charles, I am reminded of my reaction to the Netflix series "Marco Polo." In "Marco Polo," the cultured, shrewd, and self-made man Jia Sidao, who is trying to protect his city from getting conquered by the Mongols, is supposed to be the villain. I thought Jia Sidao was great and I didn't understand the creators' intent at all. By contrast, Jia Sidao's opposite number, Kublai Khan, is a crude and violent barbarian who's trying to take over the remainder of China. He has numerous sex slaves whereas Jia Sidao seems to be celibate.
I love this movie. I first watched it when I was about 8 years old with my now sadly late amateur historian grandad. I was off school sick so staying with him for the day and it helped kickstart my interest in the Civil Wars. The inaccuracies are forgivable I think as no one expects to go to a movie and be given chapter and verse on dates and events. What this movie does an excellent job of is explaining the central conflict of the civil war. Someone can watch this movie and understand the conflict, and then build up their knowledge from there.
Thank you for a thoughtful critique with a bit of cheek. One thing to point out is that Cromwell did not have the same temperament as Harris. He actually was known for taking time to make decisions not being impetuous. As Carlyle found, much real history of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate is lost to time.
Cromwell history i have found is odd, before 1660 you can find many favourable accountants about Cromwell but after 1660 most you found are negative towards the man. Likely because old Charles the 2nd decided to dirty up Cromwell's image along with desecrate his corpse.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Actually, he was more liberal than Parliament, for those days, but after he died and his son failed and General Monck, who was one of the strongest leaders of the Parliamentarian generals marched south, took over Parliament and welcomed Charles II back from the continent - in his words, to save the country from anarchy. After about two years, Charles got his confidence and purged the country of the Commonwealth with strong Tory support. Lord Clarendon and his group were so successful that much of the history of the 1650s is lost. Charles tends to be lauded, but the product of the French court and sought to be an absolute monarch, which the Whigs kept from happening. He was duplicitous from beginning to end. Over a century later, the wipe was so thorough, that even with the Glorious Revolution and the passing of the Stuarts, even the great biographer Thomas Carlyle had a hard time finding cultural remnants. The US Constitution was a child of the English Bill of Rights of 1688/89 and a grandchild of the Commonwealth. The story is very complex, but that is a little of what is missing.
@@davegibbs6423 very interesting, it is a same a lot of things about him are now lost to history, sucked that Charles the 2nd had him dug up and beheaded bit of a low move if you ask me.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD If you are interested in a fuller history, to start, I recommend: The Cromwell Association www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/ The Letters and speeches of Oliver Cromwell by Thomas Carlyle The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714 by Barry Coward and Peter Gaunt The Cromwellian Gazetteer: an illustrated guide to Britain in the Civil War and Commonwealth by Peter Gaunt Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution by S. R. Gardiner Oliver Cromwell by S. R. Gardiner The most contemporary book that I have read on Cromwell and this period is The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson (It actually studies John Cooke, the judge appointed to prosecute Charles I). It will give you a very different picture of the times.
For your own study, beyond Cromwell, study: John Pym Sir Thomas Fairfax Earl of Warrick Viscount Saye and Sele Earl of Manchester Colonel Thomas Pride General George Monck General Henry Ireton General John Lambert Admiral Robert Blake
Dear Laughing Cavalier, I've wanted to ask you, despite the abundance of the Tudor era productions, both good and bad, why there are so few about the English Civil War and the Commonwealth? For example I could remember only "To Kill a King" and "Cromwell" (which is one of my favourite films, as always you've made an enourmous work reviewing it). How do you think, why this critical episode of the British history, and in general the whole Anglophone world, is remains half-buried and forgotten?
I have had a few people asking me this. I think it boils down to the fact that it is a military conflict with a lot of battles and if there is one thing production companies hate doing, it is battles since they are very expensive due to the amount of extras you have to hire, the armour, weapons, health and safety etc. I think that was the main reason why Game of Thrones didn't really have any big set piece battles in the first season due to a lower budget back then. Tudor dramas meanwhile you can just hire out a castle or hall somewhere, get a few dozen extras and then just film it. Also, with the civil war, it is very much centred around politics, military matters and religion whereas, whilst those elements are in Tudor stuff, you have a lot of the romance stuff with Henry having six wives and mistresses, and of late, companies love showing that angle of things as opposed to politics.
The Laughing Cavalier I know this is a dumb question, but given your screen name would you support the the King . I mean I would too because without theater Peter Pan wouldn’t exist . Also I think if there was another movie made about the English Civil War it should be animated, you could spend a whole lot less money with the technology today and you wouldn’t have to deal with a bunch of pudgy old men pretending to be 17 or 16 year old soldiers . Definitely hire a couple as consultants but you could animated whatever you wanted .
I go back and forth on Harris’ performance. I understand he’s going for a “man of passion” kind of thing. A guy who has emotional highs and lows. But sometimes he’s really over the top and it almost becomes a little silly. For the most part I think he does very well. I still think his portrayal of Richard The Lionheart in Robin & Marion is his best kingly performance, if only because he’s freaking hilarious in that movie. He’s in it for maybe 10-15 minutes but he’s incredible and so good at the humorous aspect. It’s great.
I'd still rate Harris' performance as Richard the best one I've ever seen of Lionheart, with the possible exception of Anthony Hopkins' as young Richard in "The Lion in Winter."
Shadowman4710 I LOVE both movies. And yes, he’s especially good as Richard in Robin & Marion. Like I said, he’s in it for maybe 15 minutes and he makes the most of every second. Ffs he’s stealing scenes from Sean Connery! That’s no easy task. As for TLIW, I can’t think of a movie where the cast works so well together. It’s like a well oiled machine, when they’re on their own emoting, learning, reacting they’re fantastic. When they’re sharing scenes together and bouncing off each other they’re incredible. The writing is a BIG part of why that works but every actor in the movie bringing their a-game helps a lot too.
It's a good film, but the history is a mixed bag. And I think the film would have worked better if it changed how it portrayed Charles I and Oliver Cromwell a bit. The king could be shown to have been a more flawed ruler, trying to save his kingdom, but making matters worse all the same. Not a villain, not quite a tragic hero, but someone whom you could sympathise with in his situation. Cromwell would have benefitted from a change of story arc. Portray him as starting as a nobody, becoming a national hero by the end of the Civil Wars, and ending with him becoming the villain upon becoming Lord Protector, convinced in his Puritan zealotry that no one else but him is moral or trustworthy enough to run the country.
I'm so impressed with how you analyse the battles! From tactical maneuvers, weaponry and livery. I haven't watched this movie yet but it's next on my list. If this was made in 1970, that would make this the same year Dorothy Tutin played Anne Boleyn in the six wives series I believe? Very talented actress!
Many thanks! My main interest is in the military side of things as well so I have a fair few books about the particular battles of the Civil Wars! Yes, she was in the Six Wives Series around about the same time, although she obviously would have done one before the other (I think Cromwell released in July whilst the Six Wives series was February, so she would have shot the Six Wives one first I believe). I was actually going to do an unscripted video going through some of the 1970 reviews of this film, might do that at some point (particularly the Roger Ebert review, which made me a bit angry!)
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier you can tell that producers at least tried to be authentic to the time, even if some scenes are historically inaccurate or some characters magically reappear from the dead. I'd still watch a hundred of these older period shows than any of the mess produced today. They're simply telling a story they 'want' to tell, not what really happened. I look forward to the next video!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Is this Cromwell related to Thomas Cromwell from Henry VIII's time through his nephew Richard? I believe I read that somewhere. Given the surname and somewhat close time periods there must be a connection between the two? I remember in Wolf Hall Richard was named Richard Cromwell after his father died.
@@callytheist2414 Yes, if I am remembering it right, somebody married his niece I think it was but adopted the Cromwell surname since at the time, Thomas Cromwell was in favour. He was the grandfather or great grandfather of Oliver Cromwell. I can't quite remember off the top of my head how it went exactly, but it was something like that.
Even though I grew up in Worcester and was infatuated with the everything surrounding the Civil War (we have a museum on the outskirts of the town centre where I spent a lot of time and I was very much a Roundhead), I still loved this film, despite its inaccuracies. When talking about Cromwell being portrayed as a hero in the film when he was an incredibly flawed individual in reality with questionable morals, I’m surprised that you didn’t bring up the fact that when Charles II returned to England and was crowned King, Cromwells body was disinterred from Westminster Abbey, posthumously executed and then had his head put on a spike above Westminster Hall for 24 years.
I give up. Who is the man portrayed in the period portrait shown at 0:10 (and at every scene transition)? I'm guessing the artist was Anthony van Dyck.
It is a portrait of Richard Neville, painted by William Dobson (the King's 'Sergeant Painter'') in c.1643: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville_(soldier)
@@1IbramGaunt No, it's Richard Neville. Charles Lucas looked like this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lord_Charles_lucas.jpg Some sites have mistakenly claimed it is Lucas, but they are incorrect. The official source states it is Neville. www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?search=ap&npgno=5382&eDate=&lDate=
Armed with your caveats, I will watch this. I will supplement it with more factual material, but fine art direction and a couple of good performances can tempt me. --A Texan, wanting to learn more about That Other Civil War.
You are so right on the money . I picked out a few scenes that were incorrect . Like the scene with Henrietta Maria leaving England with her son , the future King Charles the Second . Didnt she flee much earlier ? I seem to remember that while she fled England , she was heavily pregnant , and then gave birth to Henriette Anne , the future Duchess d' Orleans . And nothing was mentioned about the Ireland , the sieges of Drogheda and Wexford . Another thing that would have been a side story line was Cromwell's long distance friendship with Menasseh ben Israel , and the Jewish community in Holland . It was Jewish financiers who provided the funds to the Parliamentary forces . That was why , Cromwell welcomed jews back into England .
7:15, me too. Reminds me of my old dad who, when angry, completely lost control of his Yorkshire accent (usually very carefully disguised and barely perceptible) which then came flying at me thick and fast. 😱
Maybe combine this film in a double feature with the contemporaneous "Witchfinder General" (with Vincent Price) to get a more balanced portrayal of the period. Cromwell is portrayed in that film as well.
Cavalier can you please recommend a good book or two to read up on the civil war? I remember my primary school history of the civil war being watching this movie and being told everything in it was true
Caliver Books has a load of ECW books including a lot of original primary sources. I haven't done an ECW video in ages so I can't remember many titles off the top of my head so I will have to look through my library for specific titles. I remember that the letters and speeches of Charles I (from the 1960's I think) has virtually all primary sources related to the King so that is a good one.
37:04 Hooray for stating "Sod Roger Ebert for criticizing Alec Guiness's performance". To put not too fine a point on it, f*ck whatever Ebert wrote, or any film critic for that matter. A film critic's opinion on a movie is merely that, an opinion and nothing more.
This is a great film, well acted by Richard Harris, and Alec Guinness played a believable King Charles, in all a fantastic film, and the sound track is fabulous as well.
Footnote to Cromwell. After the restoration of 1660, his dead body was disinturred, executed by hanging, then beheaded. His head was hung on a spike over Westminster hall, which remained for 20 years. His head is buried in Surrey college chapel, Cambridge University. His beheaded body is buried somewhere below hyde park corner.
Can you please do "To kill a king" with Rupert Everett as Charles I, Tim Roth as Oliver, Dougray Scott as Thomas Fairfax, and Olivia Williams as Anne Fairfax?
I’ve enjoyed the reviews and history comparison of the classic film..I have to admit I spent the first view of this film trying to work out how drunk Richard Harris probably was..Also your clip of downfall..If you’ve ever seen Alec Guinness play Hitler in ‘Hitler the last ten days’,,your see another powerful performance..Thank you for the upload..
Can you review the devil's mistress. I know it's a fictional story, but it takes place during the English civil war and some of the characters that frequently interact with the main fictional character are historical people, like Oliver Cromwell. It would interesting to get your thoughts on it.
Why so many references to Charles I playing obi wan, but absolutely no reference to Cromwell playing Dumbledore? And you expect me to take this review seriously??
Hollywood cares little about history as we all know. If they make money that is all they care about. Maybe that is why they have never made a movie about the Norman invasion. Which I would love to see, being an English History Buff. I have always been fascinated by English History from it's beginning up to the Victorian era. That's when it gets modern and I find that boring. Though I did enjoy the series Edward VII with Timothy West playing Bertie. Very well done indeed. I also liked the King's speech, Colin Firth did an excellent job in that. But of course these were not done by Hollywood, or at least not entirely (I'm thinking the King's Speech). Hollywood should not be allowed to make any Historical film EVER. Anything else fine but nothing to do with History. For they always flub it up.
Certainly not in the UK. I know the French and Spanish have a few that look interesting (in fact, they actually filmed a lot of the battle scenes for Cromwell in Spain from what I have heard).
Not always, he was known to be quite jovial and fun loving at times. During his time as Lord Protector, he had an organ (the instrument) installed in St James Palace I think it was so he could play to his hearts content.
The really annoying thing about these particular historical inaccuracies, is that they are to the most part, unnecessary. Getting the battle details perfectly correct is not particularly important, but the dates and essential historical facts could have just as easily been accurate, without changing the thrust of the movie in any particular direction. Would it not be nice for a change if young scholars could refer to so called historical movies, as a source of actual historical information? The movie Braveheart, could have been just as entertaining if it had kept to the known facts, with just the minimum amount of diversions, for language, and brevity purposes. It seriously makes me wonder, why script writers, and producers do what they do, almost without exception, when telling the essential truth, certainly could be just as entertaining, while also avoiding criticism such as this movie and virtually all of the rest, rightly receive. IMO, one of the most historically accurate movies was The Battle of Britain, however even this, has several pointless inaccuracies.
I too applaud Richard Harris for taking this role, bearing in mind how savage Cromwell was with the Irish. Cromwell, like many trailblazers was pretty ruthless, but an Antony Eden facsimile would NEVER have worked.
The funny thing about this movie is that it's hard not to make Star Wars or Harry Potter jokes, although I will say it's rather ironic for an Irish actor like Richard Harris to play someone like Oliver Cromwell, given how brutal he was to the Irish. It'd be like Jason David Frank (a man with Native American roots) playing Andrew Jackson. If you don't know who Jason David Frank is, his most memorable role was Tommy Oliver, the original Green Ranger from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.
Dam I guess he was Irish makes me like him more why did Cromwell hate the Irish when Ireland is not part of England where they not in charge of themselves
Do you mean the thing I said I would review next? If so that was the TV Series the Six Wives of Henry VIII. If you mean is there a sequel to Cromwell then as far as I am aware they didn't do one about the Restoration although there have been a few films and TV shows featuring that period.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier I do remember seeing what I remember as a film, but it might well be a TV series. It documents Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector until Charles II comes along and puts the kibosh on the whole thing. I can't tell you who was in it, who played Cromwell, or who played Charles II. I do remember Cromwell sitting for his painting. And at the end contemplating moving to America. I wish I could give you more information. I know it wasn't Charles II: The Last King. Nor was it the movie Restoration, And I do enjoy both those works. One film I didn't appreciate at all was Libertine. Although I did like John Malkovich as Charles II. If anything sparks your memory bank let me know. I really liked Longitude. About the discovery that longitude was calculated in time not astronomy, by John Harrison and his clock. Sir Isaac Newton was wrong on that one. Dave gum. Wait, I mean have fun.
I don't know if the intent was to make Charles I a villain. He is definitely an antagonist, but this feels more like a case where the film-makers are taking two historical figures and portraying them as compelled by forces beyond them (such as Charles acting on bad advice from his court despite voicing concerns, or Cromwell advocating moderation before some other action compels his famous temper to more radical positions). I think it was trying to go for a more complex story than the final result could effectively portray.
I think this movie could be seen as a Shakespearean interpretation of the English civil war if he had been alive to see it. Sprinklings of truth and mostly inaccurate like Shakespeare’s richard III
no drogheda or the irsh campaign, no battle worcester, no king charles ii on the run being hunted by the army, plus cromwell shutting down parliment was a lot more intense and he used musketeers not cavalry for the job. also missing is all the fun stuff with spain jamaica and the dutch. like the battle of the dunes.
It was quite a inaccurate film, but where else could you ever see such massive full battle scenes, with horsemen charging in lobstertail helmets, full buffcoats with front and back plate armor, curiassiers firing wheelock pistols, pikemen at the push of pike, and demi culverins and sakers blasting away?????👍👍👍👍👍
Also: As a historian growing up where Adolf grew up: Bruno Ganz's Hitler might have captioned the "essence" of Hitler, but he doesn't sound like him, nor does he remotely come off as Adolf. It's ridiculous, but people prefer the caricature over the real one.
At 15:00, apparently Cromwell and the King met as children. Local children were bought to the Court to play with the Prince. Cromwell and the Prince had a fight and Cromwell gave him a bloody nose. (Play theme from twilight zone)😊
An outstanding performance from Richard Harris, many incredible monologues. The scene where the King says goodbye to his children is very moving, in spite of his actions.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
The star wars line at Charles' execution had me dying because that's exactly what went through my head. Also cromwell's ending speech reminds me of something he would've said in his role as king Arthur in Camelot.
Many historical inaccuracies, but still an excellent film.
Especially with Richard Harris gloriously chewing the scenery the whole time.
I really like the frantic depiction of Cromwell by Harris in this film. I think it might have been Harris subtly trying to highlight some of Cromwell’s darker personality, after all, if you were to change the background music of the final speech to something less triumphant it would sound like the raving speech of a modern dictator. To keep the Star Wars jokes coming, I could see Harris declaring a new Galactic, err I mean English, Empire.
Elliot Nolan
Oliver Cromwell was described as having a fiery temper, but at the same time he was also described as being able to be as gentle and compassionate as a women.
Well that bit at the end is... Ambiguous, and considering he has a statue outside Westminster, not unsurprising.
I always felt that the movie unintentionally went with the villain protag (or tragic fall of hero and descend into villainy) route, with the final narration being a last moment of "oh shit this is suppose to be a happy ending not a depressing one and he's supposed to be the hero not the villain!"
It was closer to the truth rather than his whitewashing in mainstream British political history. The English Civil War was a hard coup, whose goals evolved as time went by, and thus lost focus. I think the English Civil War had more parallels with Brexit but with a more competent leader emerging to take power because it would be chaos otherwise. That's it. It wasn't a democratic war as is often represented today, because Britain was an oligarchy who had sought power and wealth, but needed the legitimacy of the Monarchy to access it, and used their wealth as leverage over it. Agriculture was the largest source of wealth in Britain, with England being key exporter of wool. The Tudor dynasty used land to buy the loyalty of the Aristocrats and Merchants firstly by expropriation of the wool production dominated by the Monasteries, eroding by stealth the Common Land grant, transferring it to the aristocracy and wealthy farmers in the name of increasing productivity, then offering colonial land grants in Ireland in return for loyalty and money from Parliament after it's conquest. Religion was another leverage used to get the masses to comply, and to divert their attention to the increase of poverty in rural areas due to the increasing number of enclosures, leading to an influx of aggrevied peasants into urban towns and cities. The process had spoeded up under the Stuart but Charles I was actively trying to slow that process down because of the negative effects on the peasants thrown out of their livelihoods. It was a much more banal, even more venal affair than is suggested. Yes, philosophers took sides in the debate, but it never was - or, arguably never could be - about extending democracy beyond the property owning classes to the people. As the Levellers and the like found out to their cost. As are the Brexiteers finding out now that the "Levelling Up" Agenda sold to them as a Brexit benefit by those promoting it, amounts to nothing more than word salad garnishing symbolic gestures and changing nothing about the status quo. I think Harris was a great actor working with what he had. We don't have much information about Cromwell the man, perhaps because of the need to delegitimise his memory during the Restoration. We have his speeches, but nothing of his personal correspondence AFAIK, so our insights into what really made Cromwell tick will always be fuzzy and acute. So Harris worked with what he had. Guinness was a character actor extraordinare, strategic and thoughtful, so his performance humanised Charles I and gave him depth.
Dear laughing cavalier thank you for this posting and allowing us to laugh along with you. Wonderfully detailed and informative. The short cuts in history films are inevitable and require just the right balance between making the subject matter comprehensible without making a mess of the subject matter; The making of composite characters, the timeline brevity, the general editing of
just about everything and the delivery of those moments already familiar to the viewer as part of our shared historic lore. I imagine a form of historic perfection might be achieved if the film ran for six hours. Not an option. Imagine being trapped in the theatre for that long with Richard Harris and his blank stares and hoarse throated shouting waddling about in beer barrel breeches as Pauline Kael describes them. It strikes me that Cromwell would be a challenge for any actor to play as he is so unrelentingly one dimensional but at any event Sir Alec is almost sublime as our hapless King.
Excellent job, yet again. Thoroughly enjoyed this film. Yes, the film certainly white-washes the excesses committed by Cromwell- his campaign in Ireland, his ruthless suppression of the Levelers within his own ranks etc. I have read reviews that claim the film's portrayal of Charles I is too gentle and sympathetic but I think Alex Guinness' performance is the best of the film, especially the accent and mannerisms. Hold up a photo of Guinness in costume as Charles alongside Van Dyck's 1635 portrait of the King and the resemblance is uncanny.
I think, as you also alluded to, that historical movies often reflect the times in which they were made, as much as the periods and events they depict. I read an essay about the 1970 WW2 movie 'Tora, Tora, Tora!' and the author argued that the film's respectful and sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese side of the story was largely possible because relations between Japan and the United States (at the time the film was produced in 1969-1970) were at their warmest and friendliest. Had the same film been made in a later time, say the late 1980s or early 90s, when economic & political tensions between the two countries had grown, the film's portrayal of the Japanese may have been quite different. It would be interesting if Cromwell was re-made in today's era and to see how the film portrayed Cromwell & Charles.
Not to come off all right-wing but you do realise if made today it would have at least half the cast as black, asian, middle-eastern or mixed-race and would include a lot more female characters who'd be directly involved in the fighting. Also no-one would wear a hat and everyone would have modern hairstyles
And even if it DIDN'T include all of that, even if it DID make some effort toward actual historical accuracy it just wouldn't be very good and I think we all know it
@@1IbramGaunt You do come off as All Right Wing 😎.
@@1IbramGaunt Can't be worse than having an Irish Catholic hellraiser playing an English puritan who was absolutely brutal towards the Irish, which is exactly what happened in this movie.
It's actually kinda wild when you think about it.
@@kmaher1424 what, because I'm right? 😁
Alec Guinness was a surprise to be sure.
But a welcome one.
On a positive note, that little edit was probably the most accurate use of the Hitler scene on TH-cam. At least it was about an order not being followed.
SO GLAD part 2 is ready
I know I'm late but I think this movie struck a great balance with historical accuracy and historical liberties. I think this as the liberties they took only served to help condense and extremely complex time period into an enjoyable film. Either way great review as always.
I had the same impression: Richard Harris's performance is just fine, but it winds up leaving the "hero" seem like a fanatic, not a hero. Meanwhile, I couldn't help but feel for Alec Guiness's Charles I, even though he is supposed to be the "villain"
That’s part of what makes the film work so well but also a fairly accurate depiction of the historical characters themselves
To be fair, that's honestly how I see the historical account. Charles was authoritarian, yes, but he wasn't a tyrant. He simply had no patience for Parliament and their radical policies. Many of which when eventually implemented under Cromwell caused suffering for damn near everyone in the nation.
Cromwell himself, on the other hand, was an incredibly ambitious, religiously fanatical, and brutal man that threw his weight around more than any Stewart monarch. He wanted the nation governed by someone other than the King, but only if it were on his terms. He was a tyrant and a dictator, nothing more.
Personally, I feel they went easy on Cromwell in this movie. They omitted most of his more questionable acts, along with all of the atrocities committed in Ireland, all while giving him the rather shiny veneer of a man pushing for a democratic system. Which is not only NOT what he wanted to do whatsoever, but also pushing modern values onto a historical conflict in which it had no bearing.
As to what they did to Charles, he's mostly accurate, but they also changed a few details around to make him seem more monstrous and added other things that never happened. The scene with the bishop, for example. As someone related to the man through one of his son's bastards, I hated watching those scenes. Alec Guinness was the perfect cast choice though and they got his temperament and general personality traits spot on, so I can't be too mad at the movie's portrayal of him.
this was more a history lesson, than a film critic. I appreciate this.
I walked into this film knowing full well who the characters were, and let's just say that I have never been Team Cromwell, so I never saw him as the hero of the film. Is this a film about him? Yes. So then is he the main character? Yes. Is he at all likable or a sympathetic character? Not to me. I don't see how one could walk away from this film feeling like he was someone you were supposed to be rooting for.
On the other hand, King Charles I's plotline and his end are tragic and easier to sympathize with, and I think you are right that this feeling is really helped by Alec Guinness' wonderful portrayal of the king. (And yes, Roger Ebert can sod off.)
I remember that the BBC did a Charles 2nd mini series of his reign a few years back. Would be great if you could cover that.
This channel is exactly what I've been wishing for. I am so glad to have found you good sir. Please keep up your good work!
I love this review of Cromwell, and I saw this as a kid and did not understand what was going on. Now that I am older it makes sense but worse that now you know the issues.
Richard Harris was great and Alec Guinness was fantastic. I keep quoting this movie and you love the fact I am a Native American in a very backward area , no one knows what I am talking about lol. Especially about British history and culture.
Love your Comedy on necromancy and I would love to be see” Cromwell 2 King Charles revengence! “ then Cromwell 3 Whoremasters!”
Never seen it but the actress who plays Charles wife is legit really spot on to her painting
Excellent review, very much appreciated.
Only thing, at 16:27, it wasn't an "f", it was a "long s" (ſ) and it was only used if an "s" was lowercased and wasn't at the end of a word.
For example, "Sam ſaid he finds his Wife to be rather Inſufferable."
So having a capital "S" at the end of the word written like that was perfectly historically accurate.
Very well done. Well researched and interesting. This is one of my favourite movies even though it's not accurate. How complex would the movie be if it was a true account of that period?
My only criticism is that your captions need to be on screen for longer. I kept having to pause and interrupt the flow of your fine video!
Excellent otherwise!
Thanks! Yeah I am a tad new to editing and am always trying to get the length of captions right.
No bother! I had the same problem. I'm a slow reader so I used to read my captions twice and that would give me my timing.
Another mate of mine reads his words backwards as he said that he knows what he's written, therefore he naturally reads it faster.
Anyway, top stuff. You must have done loads of research. Either that or you used a time machine and got your facts first hand.
Looking forward to your Henry VIII critique.
Cheers
same thing here
Hello laughing cavalier or, Colonel Neville if I'm not mistaken about the portrait. Just looked at this a second time, It's a very clever way to teach history. I laughed a lot.
this is a great review, now I don't have to worry about historybuffs reviewing this movie
Thanks! Although he is always welcome to review it! I saw on twitter that said he was meant to have another review out last month but none has appeared, hope he is alright.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier yeah I hope so too
Sat and watched all 80 minutes of the two reviews (feeling guilty afterwards). Great film, great review, and some decent humour in there too. Top-tier work. I don't subscribe to many channels, but by God have I subscribed to this one. Keep it up!
Superb video but please slow down the text notes. You literally have to be a speed reader to get through them or pause the video. Great work and a fascinating insight.
It's a shame Shakespeare didn't live to experience this period. It would take someone with his skills as a dramatic translator of major historical events and personages to do it justice. As it was, we got the same crew who half-bungled most of the films about important events and people in English history that came out in the 60's and early 70's.
"Wait a second, is that John Pimm?? What the hell are you still doing here, you died in December 1643, and now it's 1645!! O_o" This sums up the inaccuracies of the film nicely and with great humour lol XD
I have a love hate relationship to this film. Guinness was Charles. He channelled Charles Stuart and Harris was an excellent Lord Protector. The rest of the casting was questionable.
I enjoyed your review of this film. Its one of my favourites.
I hold great gratitude for you and your work, sir.
Thank you for your wonderful videos.
I too will repeat the minor criticism. These are excellent videos, but the captions need to be on the screen for a little bit longer. Otherwise an amazing job, hope to see more in the future. :)
I enjoyed your historical commentary on this old film. I am beginning to wonder as I try writing a play for a class I teach why so many people criticise movies for being inaccurate in details. I thought your historical notes were helpful, but you understated how necessary and appropriate these changes are to make a watchable production.
Regarding the schizophrenic portrayals of the "hero," Oliver Cromwell, and the "villain," King Charles, I am reminded of my reaction to the Netflix series "Marco Polo." In "Marco Polo," the cultured, shrewd, and self-made man Jia Sidao, who is trying to protect his city from getting conquered by the Mongols, is supposed to be the villain. I thought Jia Sidao was great and I didn't understand the creators' intent at all. By contrast, Jia Sidao's opposite number, Kublai Khan, is a crude and violent barbarian who's trying to take over the remainder of China. He has numerous sex slaves whereas Jia Sidao seems to be celibate.
I love this movie. I first watched it when I was about 8 years old with my now sadly late amateur historian grandad. I was off school sick so staying with him for the day and it helped kickstart my interest in the Civil Wars.
The inaccuracies are forgivable I think as no one expects to go to a movie and be given chapter and verse on dates and events. What this movie does an excellent job of is explaining the central conflict of the civil war. Someone can watch this movie and understand the conflict, and then build up their knowledge from there.
Thank you for a thoughtful critique with a bit of cheek. One thing to point out is that Cromwell did not have the same temperament as Harris. He actually was known for taking time to make decisions not being impetuous. As Carlyle found, much real history of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate is lost to time.
Cromwell history i have found is odd, before 1660 you can find many favourable accountants about Cromwell but after 1660 most you found are negative towards the man. Likely because old Charles the 2nd decided to dirty up Cromwell's image along with desecrate his corpse.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Actually, he was more liberal than Parliament, for those days, but after he died and his son failed and General Monck, who was one of the strongest leaders of the Parliamentarian generals marched south, took over Parliament and welcomed Charles II back from the continent - in his words, to save the country from anarchy.
After about two years, Charles got his confidence and purged the country of the Commonwealth with strong Tory support. Lord Clarendon and his group were so successful that much of the history of the 1650s is lost. Charles tends to be lauded, but the product of the French court and sought to be an absolute monarch, which the Whigs kept from happening. He was duplicitous from beginning to end.
Over a century later, the wipe was so thorough, that even with the Glorious Revolution and the passing of the Stuarts, even the great biographer Thomas Carlyle had a hard time finding cultural remnants.
The US Constitution was a child of the English Bill of Rights of 1688/89 and a grandchild of the Commonwealth.
The story is very complex, but that is a little of what is missing.
@@davegibbs6423 very interesting, it is a same a lot of things about him are now lost to history, sucked that Charles the 2nd had him dug up and beheaded bit of a low move if you ask me.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD If you are interested in a fuller history, to start, I recommend:
The Cromwell Association
www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/
The Letters and speeches of Oliver Cromwell by Thomas Carlyle
The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714 by Barry Coward and Peter Gaunt
The Cromwellian Gazetteer: an illustrated guide to Britain in the Civil War and Commonwealth by Peter Gaunt
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution by S. R. Gardiner
Oliver Cromwell by S. R. Gardiner
The most contemporary book that I have read on Cromwell and this period is
The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson (It actually studies John Cooke, the judge appointed to prosecute Charles I). It will give you a very different picture of the times.
For your own study, beyond Cromwell, study:
John Pym
Sir Thomas Fairfax
Earl of Warrick
Viscount Saye and Sele
Earl of Manchester
Colonel Thomas Pride
General George Monck
General Henry Ireton
General John Lambert
Admiral Robert Blake
@@davegibbs6423 Thanks i will have to look that up, i'm sure some other folks who come across this video might also use that link.
Dear Laughing Cavalier, I've wanted to ask you, despite the abundance of the Tudor era productions, both good and bad, why there are so few about the English Civil War and the Commonwealth? For example I could remember only "To Kill a King" and "Cromwell" (which is one of my favourite films, as always you've made an enourmous work reviewing it). How do you think, why this critical episode of the British history, and in general the whole Anglophone world, is remains half-buried and forgotten?
I have had a few people asking me this. I think it boils down to the fact that it is a military conflict with a lot of battles and if there is one thing production companies hate doing, it is battles since they are very expensive due to the amount of extras you have to hire, the armour, weapons, health and safety etc. I think that was the main reason why Game of Thrones didn't really have any big set piece battles in the first season due to a lower budget back then.
Tudor dramas meanwhile you can just hire out a castle or hall somewhere, get a few dozen extras and then just film it.
Also, with the civil war, it is very much centred around politics, military matters and religion whereas, whilst those elements are in Tudor stuff, you have a lot of the romance stuff with Henry having six wives and mistresses, and of late, companies love showing that angle of things as opposed to politics.
The Laughing Cavalier I know this is a dumb question, but given your screen name would you support the the King . I mean I would too because without theater Peter Pan wouldn’t exist . Also I think if there was another movie made about the English Civil War it should be animated, you could spend a whole lot less money with the technology today and you wouldn’t have to deal with a bunch of pudgy old men pretending to be 17 or 16 year old soldiers . Definitely hire a couple as consultants but you could animated whatever you wanted .
Perhaps sone aspects of the story remain controversial....
I go back and forth on Harris’ performance. I understand he’s going for a “man of passion” kind of thing. A guy who has emotional highs and lows. But sometimes he’s really over the top and it almost becomes a little silly. For the most part I think he does very well. I still think his portrayal of Richard The Lionheart in Robin & Marion is his best kingly performance, if only because he’s freaking hilarious in that movie. He’s in it for maybe 10-15 minutes but he’s incredible and so good at the humorous aspect. It’s great.
I'd still rate Harris' performance as Richard the best one I've ever seen of Lionheart, with the possible exception of Anthony Hopkins' as young Richard in "The Lion in Winter."
Shadowman4710 I LOVE both movies. And yes, he’s especially good as Richard in Robin & Marion. Like I said, he’s in it for maybe 15 minutes and he makes the most of every second. Ffs he’s stealing scenes from Sean Connery! That’s no easy task. As for TLIW, I can’t think of a movie where the cast works so well together. It’s like a well oiled machine, when they’re on their own emoting, learning, reacting they’re fantastic. When they’re sharing scenes together and bouncing off each other they’re incredible. The writing is a BIG part of why that works but every actor in the movie bringing their a-game helps a lot too.
The King walking in and wiping out a Lightsaber 🤣🤣🤣 just great
It's a good film, but the history is a mixed bag. And I think the film would have worked better if it changed how it portrayed Charles I and Oliver Cromwell a bit. The king could be shown to have been a more flawed ruler, trying to save his kingdom, but making matters worse all the same. Not a villain, not quite a tragic hero, but someone whom you could sympathise with in his situation. Cromwell would have benefitted from a change of story arc. Portray him as starting as a nobody, becoming a national hero by the end of the Civil Wars, and ending with him becoming the villain upon becoming Lord Protector, convinced in his Puritan zealotry that no one else but him is moral or trustworthy enough to run the country.
I'm so impressed with how you analyse the battles! From tactical maneuvers, weaponry and livery. I haven't watched this movie yet but it's next on my list. If this was made in 1970, that would make this the same year Dorothy Tutin played Anne Boleyn in the six wives series I believe? Very talented actress!
Many thanks! My main interest is in the military side of things as well so I have a fair few books about the particular battles of the Civil Wars! Yes, she was in the Six Wives Series around about the same time, although she obviously would have done one before the other (I think Cromwell released in July whilst the Six Wives series was February, so she would have shot the Six Wives one first I believe).
I was actually going to do an unscripted video going through some of the 1970 reviews of this film, might do that at some point (particularly the Roger Ebert review, which made me a bit angry!)
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier you can tell that producers at least tried to be authentic to the time, even if some scenes are historically inaccurate or some characters magically reappear from the dead. I'd still watch a hundred of these older period shows than any of the mess produced today. They're simply telling a story they 'want' to tell, not what really happened. I look forward to the next video!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Is this Cromwell related to Thomas Cromwell from Henry VIII's time through his nephew Richard? I believe I read that somewhere. Given the surname and somewhat close time periods there must be a connection between the two? I remember in Wolf Hall Richard was named Richard Cromwell after his father died.
@@callytheist2414 Yes, if I am remembering it right, somebody married his niece I think it was but adopted the Cromwell surname since at the time, Thomas Cromwell was in favour. He was the grandfather or great grandfather of Oliver Cromwell. I can't quite remember off the top of my head how it went exactly, but it was something like that.
Your very very good at reviewing! Keep up mate.
When Cromwell says "the army is the heart and conscience of the people" he sounds like every other dictator in history after a coup.
Agreed. Not a good argument for overthrowing a constitutional monarchy in favour of a Republic.
Wasn't Cromwell even more autocratic than the king himself?
He created a military dictatorship so yes, he was much worse than the king.
Nice work. Thanks so much
It was a good choice not to sign the warrant. The reinstatement of the monarch in 1660 had the survivors ending up the way Braveheart went.
In all seriousness great video 😁
Even though I grew up in Worcester and was infatuated with the everything surrounding the Civil War (we have a museum on the outskirts of the town centre where I spent a lot of time and I was very much a Roundhead), I still loved this film, despite its inaccuracies.
When talking about Cromwell being portrayed as a hero in the film when he was an incredibly flawed individual in reality with questionable morals, I’m surprised that you didn’t bring up the fact that when Charles II returned to England and was crowned King, Cromwells body was disinterred from Westminster Abbey, posthumously executed and then had his head put on a spike above Westminster Hall for 24 years.
An excellent and very enjoyable review, many thanks.
I give up. Who is the man portrayed in the period portrait shown at 0:10 (and at every scene transition)? I'm guessing the artist was Anthony van Dyck.
It is a portrait of Richard Neville, painted by William Dobson (the King's 'Sergeant Painter'') in c.1643: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville_(soldier)
I learn something new every day (thanks to people like you.)
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier ah but was it actually Charles Lucas lol...
@@1IbramGaunt No, it's Richard Neville. Charles Lucas looked like this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lord_Charles_lucas.jpg Some sites have mistakenly claimed it is Lucas, but they are incorrect. The official source states it is Neville. www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?search=ap&npgno=5382&eDate=&lDate=
Armed with your caveats, I will watch this. I will supplement it with more factual material, but fine art direction and a couple of good performances can tempt me.
--A Texan, wanting to learn more about That Other Civil War.
I know Charles' main mistake. He didn't use the Force!
What about doing a review of films like Fall of the Roman Empire, Spartacus, The Vikings, and El Cid?
I might do one day, but I have such a backlog at the moment, it will be a fair while before I get to the ones you mentioned.
Great movie carried by two great actors. SIGN IT. IS HE GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? SIGN IT.
I like your critique - you did your research! Minor quibble: it is outcries, not outcry's!
I chose to believe that if Charles I had half the charm and personality of Sir Alec Guinness he would have Won/Survived
You are so right on the money . I picked out a few scenes that were incorrect . Like the scene with Henrietta Maria leaving England with her son , the future King Charles the Second .
Didnt she flee much earlier ? I seem to remember that while she fled England , she was heavily pregnant , and then gave birth to Henriette Anne , the future Duchess d' Orleans .
And nothing was mentioned about the Ireland , the sieges of Drogheda and Wexford .
Another thing that would have been a side story line was Cromwell's long distance friendship with Menasseh ben Israel , and the Jewish community in Holland . It was Jewish financiers who provided the funds to the Parliamentary forces . That was why , Cromwell welcomed jews back into England .
7:15, me too. Reminds me of my old dad who, when angry, completely lost control of his Yorkshire accent (usually very carefully disguised and barely perceptible) which then came flying at me thick and fast. 😱
Maybe combine this film in a double feature with the contemporaneous "Witchfinder General" (with Vincent Price) to get a more balanced portrayal of the period. Cromwell is portrayed in that film as well.
Cavalier can you please recommend a good book or two to read up on the civil war? I remember my primary school history of the civil war being watching this movie and being told everything in it was true
Caliver Books has a load of ECW books including a lot of original primary sources. I haven't done an ECW video in ages so I can't remember many titles off the top of my head so I will have to look through my library for specific titles. I remember that the letters and speeches of Charles I (from the 1960's I think) has virtually all primary sources related to the King so that is a good one.
37:04 Hooray for stating "Sod Roger Ebert for criticizing Alec Guiness's performance". To put not too fine a point on it, f*ck whatever Ebert wrote, or any film critic for that matter. A film critic's opinion on a movie is merely that, an opinion and nothing more.
Especially when you take into consideration his review of Waterloo.
@@ThirdPositionMallow Exactly. I would not wish Ebert's death on anyone, but as a critic, more often than not he was a pompous ass.
I really enjoyed this.
This is a great film, well acted by Richard Harris, and Alec Guinness played a believable King Charles, in all a fantastic film, and the sound track is fabulous as well.
*The movie producers truly made a story as if William Shakespeare wrote it*
Footnote to Cromwell. After the restoration of 1660, his dead body was disinturred, executed by hanging, then beheaded. His head was hung on a spike over Westminster hall, which remained for 20 years. His head is buried in Surrey college chapel, Cambridge University. His beheaded body is buried somewhere below hyde park corner.
Please consider leaving your captions on screen longer. I had to keep pausing. We're not all speed readers.
great review
Can you please do "To kill a king" with Rupert Everett as Charles I, Tim Roth as Oliver, Dougray Scott as Thomas Fairfax, and Olivia Williams as Anne Fairfax?
thanks for that, have always loved this movie
I’ve enjoyed the reviews and history comparison of the classic film..I have to admit I spent the first view of this film trying to work out how drunk Richard Harris probably was..Also your clip of downfall..If you’ve ever seen Alec Guinness play Hitler in ‘Hitler the last ten days’,,your see another powerful performance..Thank you for the upload..
I love your work🥰
Can you review the devil's mistress. I know it's a fictional story, but it takes place during the English civil war and some of the characters that frequently interact with the main fictional character are historical people, like Oliver Cromwell. It would interesting to get your thoughts on it.
Visit the Church at Burford where the Levellers were shot for mutiny...
As a movie I would give it a B+. As a history I would give it a D
Just seen this it was very well done it was very well done hat off to you sir
I can't imagine how this film would have handled Cromwell's desolation of Ireland, probably would have given Gouldin more legitamacy.
25:53 - spat out my tea 😂
Why so many references to Charles I playing obi wan, but absolutely no reference to Cromwell playing Dumbledore? And you expect me to take this review seriously??
Hollywood cares little about history as we all know. If they make money that is all they care about. Maybe that is why they have never made a movie about the Norman invasion. Which I would love to see, being an English History Buff. I have always been fascinated by English History from it's beginning up to the Victorian era. That's when it gets modern and I find that boring. Though I did enjoy the series Edward VII with Timothy West playing Bertie. Very well done indeed. I also liked the King's speech, Colin Firth did an excellent job in that. But of course these were not done by Hollywood, or at least not entirely (I'm thinking the King's Speech). Hollywood should not be allowed to make any Historical film EVER. Anything else fine but nothing to do with History. For they always flub it up.
Great reviw and excellent historical analisis. I don't think there are many 'pike and shoot' movies out there.
Certainly not in the UK. I know the French and Spanish have a few that look interesting (in fact, they actually filmed a lot of the battle scenes for Cromwell in Spain from what I have heard).
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Certainly and actually in the trilogy of 'Jan Žižka' (1955) about the Hussite Wars shows the Wagon Forts type of combat
Was Oliver Cromwell always angry as portrayed in the film?
Not always, he was known to be quite jovial and fun loving at times. During his time as Lord Protector, he had an organ (the instrument) installed in St James Palace I think it was so he could play to his hearts content.
Very Interesting however I wish the narrator would speak clearly as I had to keep rewinding it to try to understand what was said.
The really annoying thing about these particular historical inaccuracies, is that they are to the most part, unnecessary. Getting the battle details perfectly correct is not particularly important, but the dates and essential historical facts could have just as easily been accurate, without changing the thrust of the movie in any particular direction. Would it not be nice for a change if young scholars could refer to so called historical movies, as a source of actual historical information? The movie Braveheart, could have been just as entertaining if it had kept to the known facts, with just the minimum amount of diversions, for language, and brevity purposes. It seriously makes me wonder, why script writers, and producers do what they do, almost without exception, when telling the essential truth, certainly could be just as entertaining, while also avoiding criticism such as this movie and virtually all of the rest, rightly receive. IMO, one of the most historically accurate movies was The Battle of Britain, however even this, has several pointless inaccuracies.
Michael Goodliffe was also in “Sink the Bismarck” with Kenneth More a few years later, another film I believe you reviewed?
I too applaud Richard Harris for taking this role, bearing in mind how savage Cromwell was with the Irish. Cromwell, like many trailblazers was pretty ruthless, but an Antony Eden facsimile would NEVER have worked.
The funny thing about this movie is that it's hard not to make Star Wars or Harry Potter jokes, although I will say it's rather ironic for an Irish actor like Richard Harris to play someone like Oliver Cromwell, given how brutal he was to the Irish. It'd be like Jason David Frank (a man with Native American roots) playing Andrew Jackson. If you don't know who Jason David Frank is, his most memorable role was Tommy Oliver, the original Green Ranger from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.
Dam I guess he was Irish makes me like him more why did Cromwell hate the Irish when Ireland is not part of England where they not in charge of themselves
@@kkandsims4612 It says in the movie, because native Irish massacred Protestant settlers, which is true.
What is the name of the movie that picks up where this one leaves off?
Do you mean the thing I said I would review next? If so that was the TV Series the Six Wives of Henry VIII. If you mean is there a sequel to Cromwell then as far as I am aware they didn't do one about the Restoration although there have been a few films and TV shows featuring that period.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier I do remember seeing what I remember as a film, but it might well be a TV series.
It documents Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector until Charles II comes along and puts the kibosh on the whole thing.
I can't tell you who was in it, who played Cromwell, or who played Charles II.
I do remember Cromwell sitting for his painting. And at the end contemplating moving to America. I wish I could give you more information.
I know it wasn't Charles II: The Last King.
Nor was it the movie Restoration, And I do enjoy both those works.
One film I didn't appreciate at all was Libertine. Although I did like John Malkovich as Charles II.
If anything sparks your memory bank let me know.
I really liked Longitude. About the discovery that longitude was calculated in time not astronomy, by John Harrison and his clock. Sir Isaac Newton was wrong on that one.
Dave gum.
Wait, I mean have fun.
@@nellgwenn Huh, I haven't come across that film/tv series, I will have to have a look for it!
It may be the 1983 BBC show, By the Sword Divided.
I find this commentary amusing...the film was directed by my late husband and I worked on it ...actually the commentary is snide
cherry hughes
Truth be snide but falsity be far treacherous still! Inaccuacy your own petard!
9:47 - 10:50 THAT PART MADE ME CRY OMGG
I don't know if the intent was to make Charles I a villain. He is definitely an antagonist, but this feels more like a case where the film-makers are taking two historical figures and portraying them as compelled by forces beyond them (such as Charles acting on bad advice from his court despite voicing concerns, or Cromwell advocating moderation before some other action compels his famous temper to more radical positions). I think it was trying to go for a more complex story than the final result could effectively portray.
The Patrick Moore of historical reenactment critisim
I think this movie could be seen as a Shakespearean interpretation of the English civil war if he had been alive to see it. Sprinklings of truth and mostly inaccurate like Shakespeare’s richard III
Cromwell turning into Lenin would have been bretty cool xP
no drogheda or the irsh campaign, no battle worcester, no king charles ii on the run being hunted by the army, plus cromwell shutting down parliment was a lot more intense and he used musketeers not cavalry for the job.
also missing is all the fun stuff with spain jamaica and the dutch. like the battle of the dunes.
And Harris was from Limerick, where Ireton died in 1651 due to plague!
It was quite a inaccurate film, but where else could you ever see such massive full battle scenes, with horsemen charging in lobstertail helmets, full buffcoats with front and back plate armor, curiassiers firing wheelock pistols, pikemen at the push of pike, and demi culverins and sakers blasting away?????👍👍👍👍👍
Also: As a historian growing up where Adolf grew up: Bruno Ganz's Hitler might have captioned the "essence" of Hitler, but he doesn't sound like him, nor does he remotely come off as Adolf.
It's ridiculous, but people prefer the caricature over the real one.
At 15:00, apparently Cromwell and the King met as children. Local children were bought to the Court to play with the Prince. Cromwell and the Prince had a fight and Cromwell gave him a bloody nose. (Play theme from twilight zone)😊
Nah, there is no evidence that ever happened aside from local legend and myth.
As a cavalier then how can you judge Cromwell?
A bit of bias I fear.
Damn, Dumbledore was angry in his youth!
Couldn't Charles 1 use the force?
He could have said I am not the king you're looking for.
Why is Fairfax taking orders from Cromwell???
An outstanding performance from Richard Harris, many incredible monologues.
The scene where the King says goodbye to his children is very moving, in spite of his actions.