@thens Film Club

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Jeff said...

what a disaster things were shaping up to be....especially with my unfounded fear that the movie is three hours long (it isn't). i'm glad we pressed on and watched it. truly a good movie and one i think most people would enjoy.

in response to some things katie already mentioned - yeah, this picture plays like a family drama rather than a historical piece. this approach lent it a fresh feeling, despite it being made in 1967 about 12th century royalty. and with such great performances to boot, there's a compelling, almost uncomfortable, intimacy throbbing in every scene.

another thing i noticed was how strong anthony hopkins was in his feature debut. o'toole and hepburn are obviously giants...but if you think about the rest of the very talented cast, the one who held his own against the fierce talents of those two was hopkins as a young richard. this was a very important detail, as he comes across as the most kingly of the three sons, despite henry's preference for john. although we never see richard take the throne in the lion in winter, we know what happens after the credits roll, and so did hopkins. he rises to the challenge brilliantly.

does anyone know much about freud? i don't, but i like to throw his name around like i do. i therefore posit that this film is highly freudian in its examination of familial tensions. everyone's secretly (and not so secretly) lusting after each other, and the struggle for governmental power might be a metaphor for sexual control. i read a description somewhere of the play as a "Freudian-Pinteresque nursery farce," which makes sense to me now having seen it.

seeing this was a real treat. i confess i'd never heard of it, but i do dig some peter o'toole and was was definitely up for giving it a shot. i had no idea it was going to be so darkly funny - definitely a too often overlooked gem of cinematic history.

 

ps - are you saying prince is gay?? he's more like the straightest man ever.

 

Yeah, good movie. I felt comfortable watching a historical film that makes a real attempt to come to terms with its subject(s), while providing some really phenomenal entertainment. I was reminded a lot of G.B. Shaw's play Joan of Ark--particularly during the scene in Eleanor's bedroom, when she suddenly turns into a 20th century intellectual throwing in "her take" on the meaning of the Dark Ages. I thought that scene was a drop in quality--suddenly lots of interesting subtones being carried perfectly well by the action were being reduced to positive dogma.

Read on wikipedia last night: the real Henry was in fact defeated by his son Richard (with the assistance of Philip II of France) on July 4, 1189. His last words, according to Gerald of Wales, were "Shame, shame on a conquered king." This, to me, puts the pieces of the drama together--especially the climax of the movie, when Henry is unable to punish his sons for their intrigues, and allows them to escape unharmed. It seems that we are sitting in on something akin to Greek drama, in which familiarity with the narrative frame is assumed. I think it's the right approach to take. In retrospect, I find the final image of the film, Peter o'Toole with arms outstretched, to be a haunting memory. For its ending, the film gives us a vision of the good king at the very height of his power, a touching stroke, even while evoking a rich anticipation of his impending decline.

Hollywood can deliver sometimes. Peter o'Toole was amazing, as was Katherine Hepburn. Apparently this was a reprise role for o'Toole, who had already played Henry before, in 1964's _Becket_ (movie night fare?)--he must have a special place in his heart for Henry ii of England.

 

yeah, i still don't like the ending. that last very scene, you know? it's a betrayal of everything we'd been through, and feels like hollywood's attempt to restore the film to the lighthearted hepburn/o'toole banter of the beginning (which also bothered me, incidentally). specifically, i have some major problems with eleanor's sense of humor about being locked in prison for ten years by her husband. and "oh you!" is her basic reaction to going back there at the end. i don't buy it, even in the context of a work which taps into dark humor so frequently.

 

Wait...

Prince isn't Gay?!?!

 

yeah, she (eleanor) was an interesting character though. i see your point, there seems to be something wrong, and there's definitely something creepy about the end, as you said.

hmm...maybe she's one of those characters that's too complex to get across in 120 minutes.

 

maybe so. one has to be pretty complex internally after spending a decade alone in a cell.

 

Wow, I just watched this for the first time in a long time, and it still grabs me as much as it first did. I first found out about this film while watching the Oscars one year and they did a typical montage tribute sequence which featured a short clip of O'Toole and Hepburn going at each other. I had to find out more about the movie, and now we are watching it here. I'm so glad everyone seemed to enjoy it.

Jeff, you are so right about Anthony Hopkins. He had long been a favorite of mine before I saw this, and I was astounded to see him so young in his debut role give such a demanding performance. It's a bummer for him that he had to stand in the shadow of O'Toole and Kate the Great, because otherwise I'm sure he would get more recognition here. He really does hold his own among the giants of his time.

A lot has been said about the ending. No one seems to like it, but I rather enjoy it. Sure Eleanor is going back to house arrest, but what is she going to do: pout about it or beg sobbingly that Henry sets her free? That simply would not be her character from what we've seen. Sure she may seem a little cheery, but I think you guys seem to forget how easily Henry and Eleanor fall in and out of affection and bitterness. I like that they are able to end on a note that is not happy, but somewhat eager to be away from each other before they start at it again. From what it seems about her Easter comment, she gets out for the major holidays and state occasions (let's say 3-5 times a year) so this is an endless cycle of infighting that we are only seeing a small part of.

I don't know much about the art of acting; maybe shouting real loud and acting angry is a no-brainer. But I have to say that Peter O'Toole is the best angry shouter actor ever. Arguably, his best scene in movies is the angry "cross my heart" speech after he crosses the desert in 'Lawrence of Arabia'. And in this movie his multitude of loud rages seem incredibly natural and never seem like over-acting or that they need to be dialed down. I wish more actors of today exhibited the power and emotion that O'Toole does; these days it seems to be more about restraint.

In conclusion, this is one movie I would love to go and see a theater production of. I typically can't stand plays, but if the acting could somehow be duplicated this would be one hell of a show.

 

Good words.