MovieChat Forums > To Kill a King Discussion > Fact and fiction - Hollywood movies!

Fact and fiction - Hollywood movies!


I find it so very frustrating watching Hollywood movies! Whenever I watch a movie based on real life events, I always keep in mind that the truth may be exaggerated greatly, and/or the "truth" may be seen through the movie director/producer's "perceptions". (One very awful example of this is Oliver Stone's "JFK", IMHO! I am such a fan of Kevin Costner, but his decision to portray Jim Garrison in that movie really disappointed me. I realize some really liked the movie, and I respect that though I think it was way too far from the truth.)

"To Kill A King" is a story I am only a bit familiar with. I read the user's comment and review, and I believe the author of those comment's is correct when he/she advises to read the book. But I do wonder, what research is Antonia Fraser's book based on? Is the book considered an accurate writing and portrayal of historical events? 300+ years is a long time ago, but those events that took place at that time shape the world we live in today, still.

I found all of the performances in this movie well done. Though I do not know to what certain degree of accuracy they portray their real life characters, I think the movie is dramatic, the costumes and sets are magnificent, and the music is wonderful! Rupert as King Charles was above and beyond!

I have to wonder, while admiring Oliver Cromwell's ideas that each man should be master of his own destiny, and that he should not have to bow to any other man, how much of his ambitions might have caused him to be overzealous and rule with a heavy hand? I firmly believe in the old saying (and I wonder where this originated?) - something to the effect of 'while absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' (my apologies if this quote is not exact).

I wonder what became of Oliver's son after he died? It is also interesting that the only family significantly shown in the movie is Oliver's son - did he lose a wife earlier in life? What of his other family?

reply

Antonia Fraser's biography is not the best work on Cromwell, but certainly thorough, in most respects pretty accurate (although obviously influenced - as in so much of history - by her own views) and easier reading than a lot of more academic works! There are vast resources of primary sources to go to - not least the formidable collected writings and speeches of Cromwell himself, running to many hundreds of items.

The movie is well done as a movie, but contains many innaccuracies - for example, portraying Cromwell as some sort of working-class, republican hero. Cromwell was, as he said himself, "by birth a gentleman", and proud of it - for example, he was opposed to certain reforms which he felt would undermine the gentry, and was a leading opponent to the abolition of the House of Lords. The evidence also suggests that Cromwell was a monarchist at heart - he fought hard to save the monarchy and indeed Charles himself, but ultimately felt that Charles had left Parliament with no choice but to depose him (the decision to execute was possibly not taken until during the trial), and the political situation afterwards meant that a monarchy was not a workable solution. The pseudo-monarchical style of the Protectorate can be explained as Cromwell's belief that monarchy was the divinely-ordained system of government conflicting with a reluctance to take the Crown.

The most dramatic failure is probably the trial of Charles I - in reality it lasted three days and was held in public before hundreds of people, and involved the taking of witness statements, arguments by lawyers and a lengthy battle between Charles and John Bradshaw, the president of the court, over its legality and Charles' refusal to answer the charges. The Commissioners (jurors) did not give their verdict until they had discussed matters for some time in private.

There is a certain irony that some of Protector Cromwell's 'tyranical' acts were done in the name of freedom. His abrupt dismissal of his Parliaments had much to do with their refusal to implement reforms that would have extended 'liberty of concience' (what we would call freedom of religion) to most Christian denominations and sects.

Cromwell married Elizabeth Bourchier in 1620. She survived him, living until 1665. They had nine children, five of which were still alive at the time of his death. Henry (1628-1674) was allowed to retire peacefully to his etates in Ireland after the Restoration, and was even visited by Charles II on occasion. Richard (1626-1712), meanwhile, succeeded his father as Lord Protector but proved inneffective and was forced to step down, leading directly to the Restoration. He then spent a couple of decades in Europe in self-imposed exile, before returning to England c. 1680 and living out a peaceful life.

reply

+davidwoodall Thank you for that very concise and excellent summary. You are correct about Cromwell's view of the monarch and I totally agree about his conflict afterwards and the need to keep some 'ceremonial' aspects around the Protectorate to afford some kind of continuation.

Indeed Cromwell tried in Vain to get Charles to agree to a constitutional monarchy - which is what his son and heir, Charles II, finally agreed to in the Restoration. It was the basis for the Bill of Rights.

reply