Cromwell (1970) - film review

England, 1640.  King Charles I needs to raise money so that he can re-quip his army and see off a possible invasion from the Scots.  To do so, he has no choice but to recall Parliament for the first time in a decade.  Certain Parliamentarians, including the staunchly Puritan landowner Oliver Cromwell, see this as an opportunity to force the king to relinquish his authority over Parliament, laying the foundation for a true democracy.  Convinced of the Divine Right of Kings, Charles cannot accede to Cromwell’s terms, and in no time the country is caught up in a bloody civil war.  The victors of this conflict are the Parliamentarians, who defeat the Loyalists largely through Cromwell’s creation of a New Model Army.  When he discovers that the King has sought help from the Irish and other foreign powers to prolong the war, Cromwell has no option but to condemn him as a traitor.  But with Charles executed, who will rule in his place?

With its lavish production values and superlative cast, Ken Hughes’ account of Oliver Cromwell’s part in the English Civil War and the creation of British democracy is visually stunning, albeit rife with historical inaccuracies.  The film’s main selling point is its gloriously overblown re-enactment of the main battles of the Civil War, which show an almost unprecedented scale and attention to detail for a British film of this era.   Whilst their performances generally veer towards the theatrical, Richard Harris and Alec Guinness each has a commanding presence, bringing power and conviction to their respective portrayals of Cromwell and Charles I.

The film’s one weakness is its sub-standard screenplay, which falls short in both its characterisation and its exposition.  The narrative lacks structure and dramatic thrust and is weakened by poorly developed secondary characters.  The dialogue is also pretty dull and hackneyed, noticeably inferior to what you will find in other prestige historical dramas made in Britain over the previous decade.  

Despite Harris’s creditable performance, the film sheds very little light on Cromwell’s psychology and motivation.  Cromwell’s importance in the events depicted is slightly exaggerated and the film paints a somewhat rosy picture of the man, not the "warts and all" characterisation that we find in well-researched history books.  Cromwell is undeniably impressive as a visual spectacular, but its production team were clearly far more concerned with pageantry than politics.  As an intelligent piece of drama, the film is a let down, and it is a great shame that Ken Hughes passed up the opportunity to deliver a serious character study in favour of what is merely a simplistic and generally biased interpretation of historical fact.

© Chris Alderton 2010

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?