MovieChat Forums > The Lion in Winter (1968) Discussion > Somewhat turgid...

Somewhat turgid...

posted 9 years ago by michaeldecker
15 replies | jump to latest

Hasn't aged well - yes, great performances, but all very over-dramatic for our tastes these days.

I think the real trouble with it is the fact that it was written and staged as a play not a movie, so that makes it very, very dialogue-heavy. And it really creaks as a play - this probably shows best in the 'farce' scene, where the King of France lets various people into his room, each of whom have to hide behind tapestry when the next one turns up. This takes away any gravity the film may have had (and Frasier et al did it SO much better in that ski lodge episode).

And, yes, it would have been nice to have had it wrapped up by telling us of the succession - it all seemed to finish very quickly after such a long, long film...

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

If "our" tastes were what you imagined, "we" wouldn't have given TLIW an 8.2 rating.

After putting the same post on another thread, did you really think it needed its own?

[–] michaeldecker 9 years ago

I'd give it a high rating too for the performances, but its obvious flaw as a movie is that the screenplay wasn't adapted enough for the big screen.

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

LOL! You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. It was expertly adapted. Its opening up of the action for the screen was so brilliantly done, it seems to have been written originally for the screen. Think of the early episodes that set Richard’s and Geoffrey’s characters; the gorgeous scene of Eleanor barging to Chinon, savoring her moments of freedom; the dining hall scene; etc., etc. Did they really all elude you? Have you even read the stage play?

You don’t even comment on the brilliance of the dialogue, one of the film’s most renowned features. I guess that went right over your head.

That, and the fact that this “obviously flawed” adaptation took 3 of the most prestigious screenwriting awards: the Oscar, and the Writers Guild Awards of both America and the UK.

Or maybe you think you know better than the professional screenwriters in those organizations.

[–] michaeldecker 9 years ago

Clearly you love it to bits, but it doesn't even make Amazon's Top 1000 Movie/TV titles.

Why do you think that is? Could it be that others don't think the (historically incorrect) 'gorgeous scene of Eleanor barging to Chinon' was quite as fabulous as you think?

I repeat - TURGID!

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

The adaptation won an Academy Award and 2 Writers Guild Awards, and you’re talking about Amazon? ROTFLMAO!!!

[–] michaeldecker 9 years ago

I think you're missing the point - the first words of my original comment are 'hasn't aged well'. Whether you like it or not, it's turgid and is not a popular film today.

And, again, why do YOU think it's not even in the top 1000?

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Because there's no sex, hardly any violence, and no big set pieces?

[–] bookstore451 9 years ago

The dialogue is very clever. Too clever by half, I think. It seems more suited to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? It never lets you forget that you are watching a performance. The anachronistic turns of phrase also had this effect, and the self-referential joke about it being 1183, so of course they're barbarians.

I enjoyed the movie despite these flaws, but they are there.

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

The dialogue is very clever. Too clever by half, I think. It seems more suited to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Do you find this a "problem" with Va. Woolf? All About Eve? Noel Coward?

The anachronistic turns of phrase

LOL! And just how do you propose they speak? In 12th century French?

the self-referential joke about it being 1183, so of course they're barbarians

You missed the point here totally. Do you think the nobility of France and England, that the royal Eleanor of Aquitaine and family, saw themselves as barbarians? It's an ironic comment, like "It's 2015 and we're cavemen."

I guess that, like other aspects of the film, was too subtle for you.

[–] Naomi222 8 years ago

"Subtle?" There is much that can be said about the play/film, but 'subtle' isn't one of them.

I think the script is excellent. Yes, it's clever and witty.

But I too am bothered by the lack of a meaningful ending. After all is said and done, Eleanor sails off again with joyful smiles and, presumably, the boys are let out of jail. (And what happened to Philip? He vanishes halfway through the story.)

And the acting ... with a few exceptions (Tim Dalton, Jane Merrow, Kate Hepburn) the cast either spends the whole film flailing around chewing up the scenery (and Nigel Terry evidently thought he was auditioning for Richard III -- what was with John's humpback?) or looking/sounding completely emotionless. (Yes, we get that Geoffrey is scheming -- but he's not a Cyberman. His facial muscles CAN move. His voice can have an inflection from time to time.

And Anthony Hopkins goes the entire play with an expression on his face that looks like the castle reeks of rotten mutton and he's trying not to throw up.

These are all fine actors, so I can only assume that the director told them to play their roles that way.

The other thing that bothers me is one of the most basic parts of the plot -- the idea that Henry would be screwing a woman who is not only his son's fiance, but the daughter, and then the sister of the KING OF FRANCE is beyond belief, even in fiction. This wasn't some Country Maid on which to father enough sons to people a country village. Royal women were valuable -- and they were expected to be virgins until married. If word had gotten out to Philip (and it's hard to believe that the affair could have been kept a secret) he wouldn't have needed any additional excuse to start a war.

(I'd also like to know where they got the contraceptives to keep her from getting pregnant until Henry was able to actually marry her.)

[–] ronfirv 8 years ago

Lack of meaningful ending? It was based on our joint(British/French)history ;go read the book of the film period, as they say.

Your final sentence was either tongue-in-cheek or incredibly naive.

[–] Naomi222 8 years ago

The scene of Eleanor joyously sailing down the Loire after the two of the them had spent the film hatefully tearing each other to pieces was not, I think, directly based on any specific moment of history. (Her imprisonment was historic, this particular 'Christmas Court' and all that happened there was 99% a figment of Goldman's imagination.)

My last sentence was naive or tongue in cheek? More the latter, I suppose. But if the film is supposed to based on the idea that Henry and Alias had been sleeping together for years, it IS a bit mysterious (within the context of the film) that he has managed to NOT impregnate her, yet expects to be able to do so promptly as soon as the Pope gives them leave to marry.

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

The other thing that bothers me is one of the most basic parts of the plot -- the idea that Henry would be screwing a woman who is not only his son's fiance, but the daughter, and then the sister of the KING OF FRANCE is beyond belief, even in fiction.

The story may have been an invention of Richard's: he used it to justify (both morally and in canon law) his jilting of Alais - to whom he had formally been betrothed, so he needed a cast-iron excuse - in favour of Berengaria, the daughter of his ally Sancho of Navarre. Several of his pet chroniclers mention it. We don't actually have any sources proving that it was current during Henry's lifetime, but it may very well have been. Certainly Henry's persistent refusal to celebrate the marriage, years after the bride had come of marriageable age, was a diplomatic scandal; at one point in 1177 the Pope threatened his continental possessions with an Interdict if he didn't get on with it. It would be very natural for nasty-minded people to start gossiping that it was a sexual scandal as well. (Maybe it was the existence of such gossip that gave Richard the idea of using the story as an excuse to weasel out of the marriage, which was no longer profitable to him.)

Henry may well have been unwilling to finalise the marriage only because it would cement the alliance between Richard and Philip that was giving him so much bother - a motive that tLiW also highlights - but I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of a sexual/emotional motive as well. You only have to consider the wild impropriety and political unwisdom of John's later marriage, to see that Angevins were quite capable of that kind of behaviour.

I'd also like to know where they got the contraceptives to keep her from getting pregnant until Henry was able to actually marry her.

Wild carrot seeds? Pennyroyal? Rue? Lemon juice pessaries? Medieval medical writers were full of advice on the subject.

So while that aspect of the plot may seem unlikely, it's very far from being impossible, and certainly wasn't a script invention.

[–] tpupkin 8 years ago

I think the main problem is that nothing that happens matters. It's a lot of speeches and debate -- all of which seems utterly pointless; they're all too stubborn -- and scheming, which leads nowhere. It ends just as it begins. The plot is a macguffin, so the appeal rests simply in how much you'll tolerate a group of great actors showing off. It's fun for a while, but ultimately the lack of purpose deflates it.

[–] ronfirv 8 years ago

Transparently, you lack an incisive mind. You aren't considering the Bar as a career, are you? Hope not. I'd stay away from politics too.