Skip to main content

No one else is carolling. It might as well be Lent.

The Lion in Winter
(1968)

(SPOILERS) Depraved royals’ festivities. Of course, depraved royalty aren’t just for Christmas, and certainly not confined to the twelfth century. If you’re a fan of Succession, The Lion in Winter has basically the same plot, only with no central heating, an added matriarch and a penchant for sub-Shakespearian dialogue. It is also conspicuously unable to open out a theatre piece for the filmic realm. Naturally, The Lion in Winter was nominated for all the Oscars, but it rarely justifies itself as a piece of cinema in its own right.

The internecine scheming, feuding and machinations of this Christmas 1183 – official timeline, natch – gathering at the Chinon château of King Henry II (Peter O’Toole, playing older) include, variously, attempts by sons Richard (Anthony Hopkins), John (Nigel Terry) and Geoffrey (John Castle) to usurp their old man’s position on the throne, some of them in collusion with King Phillip II of France (Timothy Dalton), whose half-sister Alais (Jane Merrow) is Henry’s mistress but is supposed to become the wife of the future king; Philip wants the deal sealed or return her dowry. And then, there’s Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn), Henry’s missus and ex-wife of Phillip’s father (these royals, eh?), whom Henry barely sees all year. And now, when he does, he wants the marriage annulled so he can make with his floozy. She, meanwhile, wants to put Richard on the throne.

What this amounts to is a troop of thesps “delivering commercial near-poetry as if it were Shakespeare”, as Pauline Kael put it. And often, with James Goldman’s dialogue (adapting his own 1966 play), it’s grandly colloquial and or rudely on the nose; “It’s 1183, and we’re barbarians”; “There’ll be pork in the treetops come morning!

As one might expect, the cast respond to this challenge with a welter of ACTING! O’Toole, Hepburn, Hopkins and Terry are all really going for it. Which means Castle (who played Number 12 in The Prisoner episode The General the year before) probably comes off best; it helps that Geoffrey’s the most interesting of the sons, shrewd and calculating, thus requiring more reserve and less grandstanding on the actor’s part. Also very good is a very young Dalton (a mere 22 and very dashing), since he largely resists attempting to out-shouting everyone else. This was the feature debut for Terry, Dalton and Hopkins.

Kael’s review largely focussed on Hepburn and how her performance played off the perception of her legacy as an actress. I don’t really know about that. I mean, she won another Oscar for it, and she comes off better than most here simply by dint of avoiding one of the abominable fake beards afflicting nigh-on all her co-stars (at least, I don’t think she had a beard). It’s a very respectable performance, but neither she nor O’Toole are served terribly interesting character beats, something that embeds itself the longer we spend time with Henry and Eleanor, and as the plot moves from encounter to encounter and argument to argument, all variations on the same and gradually growing rather wearisome.

Hopkins is playing a stocky rage machine, and good with it, but this isn’t a role that uses him to his best effect (he’s always better suited to intelligence). Terry’s John is an object of grim ridicule, a “walking pustule” with “pimples and he smells of compost”. Accordingly, Terry’s doing his best Liam Gallagher impression throughout. Terry would trot this act out again as young Arthur in Excalibur more than a decade later.

A couple of scenes do stand out. When Henry locks his sons in the cellar, set on having away to see the Pope to get his marriage annulled, they are released by Eleanor, and they duly plot to stab him with the daggers she has brought. Earlier, a visit to Phillip’s room by first John and Geoff, then Richard, and then Henry, leads to bedroom farce played straight as the various parties hide out while the kings hold court (the absurdity is never really acknowledged, but it’s much dafter than when Hamlet did something similar).

This scene hones in on another aspect of note regarding Goldman’s take on royalty: that they’re a thoroughly depraved lot. This will come as no surprise to anyone currently regarding the worst conspirasphere accusations against the Windsors as entirely plausible, but it’s curious to see such behaviour addressed to so matter-of-factly in a mainstream production.

Early on, Henry reels off a list of his sexual endeavours, ones that include “contessas, milkmaids, courtesans and novices, whores Gypsies, jades…” And “little boys”. Joking or not, Eleanor also recounts her husband taking a sheep to bed. Richard sounds like he’d pretty much have had his way with Phillip regardless of his acquiescence (“Do you know why I told him ‘Yes’? So one day I could tell you all about it” Phillip advises Henry). None of this bunch are very nice people in any respect, though (Kael suggested that, on stage, they were the “jolliest collection of bad seeds since The Little Foxes”).

Unsurprisingly, then, there’s little time for Christmas cheer in this Yule mix. “What should I like for Christmas? I should like to see you suffer” ray of sunshine Alais tells Eleanor. “How, from where we started, did we ever reach this Christmas?” the latter opines to Henry.

If nothing else, The Lion in Winter seems to have fuelled many an anecdote. Hepburn was willing to take no nonsense from O’Toole, in his peak carousing period, and he seems to have behaved himself with her when he realised her mettle. Still, he was clearly regularly late on set, such that Hopkins, also in his boozy phase, would regularly mimic him before he arrived.

In terms of production, Anthony Harvey was helming his second feature. He was the first winner of the Directors Guild who failed to take home the Best Director Oscar also. I can’t say learning this was a stunner. There’s nothing very notable about his work here, although the photography is often exceedingly good, from Douglas Slocombe (a crime that he never won; either the previous year’s The Fearless Vampire Killers or later Raiders of the Lost Ark should have made him a shoe-in). They’re shooting “authentic” castle surrounds (ie, they’re the supreme forces in the land but feckin’ freezing at Crimbo). Harvey’s career was more noteworthy as an editor – for the Boulting Brothers, on Dr. Strangelove – than as a director (They Might Be Giants is his only other picture that would create a murmur of recognition now).

The ’60s was a good – or bad, depending on your view – period for feted, award-winning costume pieces with a medieval bent, pushing aside the Biblical epics of yore for (relatively) modern moralising. The Lion in Winter was thus very popular, which seems increasingly hard to fathom now (it was the year’s fourteenth most successful film at the US box office). Nominated for seven Oscars, it won three, the most deserved of which is undoubtedly John Barry’s rousing, pre-Omen choral score (it also took a BAFTA). Not very Christmassy, but then, that suits The Lion in Winter to a tee.


Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was