Hey folks, Harry here with the wondrous Lorelei Lee... She's gotten a preview look at TO KILL A KING, a new film from the land of Tony Blair that's about the English Civil War. Sounds groovy? Well not too fast, it is a helluvalot more complicated than that, and she's here to map it all out for us. Beware of spoilers, she's got a few in here, but it has quite a captivating cast with Dougray Scott, Tim Roth and Rupert Everett... But... sigh... pant pant... Olivia Williams is in it too, which makes it required viewing. Here ya go...
Dear Harry and Moriarty,
I went last night to a surprise preview here in London. It turned out to be "To Kill a King", a new British film due out here sometime next month. It stars Dougray Scott, Tim Roth, Olivia Williams and Rupert Everett.
The story is set in the midst of the English Civil War. That's not really my period of history, so all I can tell you about accuracy is that it doesn't contradict anything I know about the period (er, there was a civil war, and then they cut off some guy's head). It starts with a quick voice over from Dougray, about how a crown corrupts anyone who wears it, as he looks at a very mangled corpse blowing in the breeze. We then flashback, and are told that it is 1645 and that England has just seen three years of civil war between Roundheads (rebel reformers, associated with but not exclusively puritans) and Cavaliers (those who supported King Charles and his claim to rule "by divine appointment").
We begin with the scene of a battlefield - the dead being stripped and caked with lime to be burnt or buried - one soldier is pulled from the wreckage - others are queuing (for pay? are they prisoners?) and being inspected by Tim Roth's Cromwell, a bigwig among the rebels. There's an assassination attempt, foiled by our hero, General Lord Fairfax (Scott). He's a nobleman, and has lead the fight against the King's rule for the rights of the people - but it becomes clear that he's a moderate. He keeps his "luxuriant mane" (yes, someone actually calls it that) long and curly in the (now politically questionable) court style because his wife prefers it, and really just wants everyone to get along. He and Cromwell are bestest bestest mates though, and have saved each other's lives countless times, so you can see that something is going to go horribly wrong.
His wife (Olivia Williams) turns up in the middle of this battlefield, having done without for three years while her hubby was off fighting for God and England or whatever. Her name is Anne, she's got the silk dresses and curly hair to show that she's a bit posh really, and a low enough decolletage to show that she's not a Puritan. She wants ole Dougray to give up this soldier's life and come back to sunny Yorkshire to live in peace.
They all return to London to sign the peace treaty with the now imprisoned King (Everett) and end the war - but of course things start to go wrong. Hardliners develop among the rebels, Cromwell starts to go a bit psycho, Fairfax develops torn loyalties, the King bribes Parliament not to ratify the treaty, Anne gets pregnant and starts to worry that whatever side ends up on top, her baby and husband will be targets, and everything gets more than a little complicated.
I won't say any more than that, because I don't want to give away any spoilers, but suffice to say that there's quite a lot packed in to a slim running time of under two hours. It did feel like a lot longer, but I am not sure that is a good thing. It was very hard to keep track of time once things got underway - like I said, my knowledge of the period is not great, but at least nine years pass over the course of the film and it's not really clear how long it's taking between events.
The characters are a mixed bunch. Lord and Lady Fairfax have the meat of the plot between them, and generally both do really well. Really all that Scott has to do is looked torn all the time and frown occasionally, while remembering that he is meant to be English not Scottish (there are a few slips in his accent), and he does all that quite well. Olivia comes across as a slightly Lady Macbeth character at first, but is given less to do as the film goes on, which is a shame as it unbalances the structure.
Rupert Everett as the King was excellent. He pouted, he threatened, he looked slightly deranged in his final scene, and gave every good impression of not understanding what all the fuss was about. Charles did, after all, believe he was God's representative on earth, and couldn't believe that anyone questioned that. Accordingly, there was lots of offended dignity and arrogance on display as well.
Tim Roth was the weak point in the piece, not through any fault of his own. Basically, the script called for him to be best mates with our hero, but also be a cold blooded ruthless slightly psychotic despot. The two do not sit well, and didn't really balance. The story should have been a triangular thing, supported by the hints that Cromwell had a crush on Lady Fairfax - the three should have had equal screen time and development. Cromwell just didn't, so the two sides to his character didn't gel for me, and the whole film was unbalanced as a result.
As for the rest, the locations looked beautiful and all dated from the right time. There was the usual problem that one encounters in this sort of film if you know the locations - people are clearly inside one building but when leaving emerge from somewhere 20 miles away - but in the context of the film they look fantastic. Some of the sets though were a bit dodgier - one scene in a street market in particular looked like they had scavenged some leftovers from A Knight's Tale.
There is also some intensely irritating and completely unnecessary shaky camera work at the beginning, and occasionally throughout, which adds nothing except nausea to the experience. Some CGI work for an overview of London was nicely done, but other than that the direction was unremarkable.
So overall, and I realise this has been rather longer than I intended, I thought it was interesting but didn't love it. I think the filmmakers tried to tell too large a story on too small a canvas, and in doing so lost the interesting three person structure which was (I'm guessing here)originally the heart of the piece. While wider political manoevering is all very well, it just wasn't well enough handled here to justify the lack of attention to the characters.
Having said that, the ending did manage to surprise me, because all the signs pointed in another direction. I can't help thinking that the ending I expected might have been rather punchier, but at least it wasn't totally predictable. I hope that isn't a spoiler for anyone...
Anyway, that's my ten pence. Keep up the good work,
Lorelei Lee
|
