MovieChat Forums > To Kill a King Discussion > to kill a virtual king

to kill a virtual king


whats the point of making a film based on historical facts and at the same time distorcing those facts? forget about performances, even great actor could not make this film worth.

reply

Watching this I am not surprised it virtually bypassed cinemas in the UK, it was basically a TV movie with an above average cast delivering unfortunatly below average performances.

reply

[deleted]

I agree. Hollywood doesn't care much about faces. A couple other examples are: Braveheard and U-571.


Jess:

There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch. - Nigel Powers :)

reply

Well this far people have managed to whine about historical inaccurancies and yet failed to submit any proof or arguments as to why it is so. From what I have red the movie is not at all inaccurant as some people say. The movie makers have just choosen to play down the roll of Oliver Cromwell and focus on Fairfax, which is ok by me since Cromwell is the man directly associated with this incident in history.

I am still puzzled as to where the GREAT and MORONIC inaccurancies of the movie where...

reply

Where to begin? I'll just concentrate upon Cromwell for the time being. We happen to know a great deal about him. We even have a minute description of what he wore when addressing parliament. So we know that he didn't dress in black and impersonate the chap on the Quaker Oats box. We also know that he deeply loved his wife and family, liked music, was fond of practical jokes (including putting sticky sweets on chairs), and much preferred the life of a country gentleman to the rough and tumble of political life.

More to the point, he was a political moderate and a constitutionalist, who would have been perfectly content to have a constitutional monarchy if Charles would only agree to it. In religious matters, he was an Independent, not a fanatic. He tolerated a variety of religious groups (he prevented the dismissal of Captain Margery, the Anabaptist, from the army), and, after the embassy of Manassah Ben Israel, readmitted jews to England for the first time since the middle ages. His observation to a group of religious nutters...."I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think that you may be mistaken"....is often quoted.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. As the reality is infinitely more interesting than that depicted in the film, the fact that the script was lousy is unforgivable. Anyway, it's my country's history that is being debased. Would you play fast and loose with George Washington? Please remember that.

Dr. Barry Worthington

reply

Though I agree they have made several severe mistakes, I do not think you should analyse this picture as if it was a true account of history. Movies are made too entertain people and this is certainly not the first time they have altered history to add entertainment value.
Moreover, I didn't think the movie lousy at all. I thought Rupert Everett as the king was outstanding!! in fact the only character I didn't like was Olivia Williams, she did the same thing over and over again.
Anyway...
I am not English nor American, but I still think it is (with all do respect) a bit over the top to take this as serious as Dr. Worthington did.
Than again, maybe it is just me...after all I am Dutch :-)

Jess

Villainy wears many masks, none so dangerous as the mask of virtue...
-Ichabod Crane

reply

Sorry Jess, but Rupert Everett's performance was terrible. Get a video of 'Cromwell' and compare it to the superb tour de force that Alec Guiness made of the role.

'Cromwell' wasn't historically accurate either - but it had a sense of time and place and more or less told the story of the period.

I don't suppose that there are many films where people take liberties with Dutch history, but if this were the case, I would imagine that a good many Dutch people would get under the collar. Imagine what 'Soldier of Orange' or 'Rembrandt' could have been like if scripted by morons....

Regards,
Dr. Barry Worthington

reply

Trust me, American filmmakers play fast and loose with our own history, too.

It's a shame; the movie has a fascinating subject, and the historical facts are more interesting and complex than made-up movie stuff.

"The truth 24 times a second."

reply

Alot of speculation here on your part, as there are many different Cromwells portrayed in the history books, not just on the silver screen.

To Kill a King is about the dramatic events of the time - not about a clownish gentleman in the countryside.

The film does not portray him as a religious fanatic, just simply as religious. He may have preferred country life, but when fighting a civil war and deposing a king, its quite realistic for someone of his historical stature to show another side - the side we get to see in this movie.

"Your history" is not being debased. Its being explored and examined.

reply

This was the most farcical and ludicrous portrayal of Cromwell outside of a Python sketch. They basically turned him into a Bond villain. All he was missing was a cat to stroke on his lap. Pathetic.

"Kunta Kinte... yabba dabba dabba doo"

reply

Couldn't have put it better myself!



Trust in God and keep your powder dry!

reply

I think people getting caught up on the historical inaccuracies are missing the point that this is movie is a love story between Cromwell and Fairfax. Not necessarily in the same vein as Brokeback Mountain, but as former brothers-in-arms these men are shown to share a deep bond. You can see it in the way they look at each other, the words they use when talking to each other, and the way they touch each other. I'm serious, this is not a troll or fakepost. I really think this is a relationship movie, not a history movie or a politics movie or a war movie.

reply

Its still an absolutely dire film. It shows a complete lack of respect for history. This load of fiction is the worst fim I have ever seen that purports to be about the Civil War. Come back Richard Harris!


reply

History is however one interprete's it. There are many views, many different versions written down of one event. As others have said, you will never get all the facts to say the exact same thing.
We have been watching this in our As History lessons, and so far the 3 of us in the class think that is a pretty good film.

reply

when watching this movie or ANY other, which is based on historical events, you should ALWAYS remember, that it is a movie. just like somebody else mentioned here, it is meant to entertain, not to present only facts. this is NOT a documentary, and i don't think you will ever see this movie on Discovery channel. and the fact, that the king is not presented in the movie like he was in reality...well, if somebody should form an opinion about an english king or any king only by watching an entertaining movie, that person will not have a clear vision about history EVER.
i think one should find a line between watching some historical facts and being entertained.
an example: i've read somewhere, that in the movie Gladiator, one of the MANY mistakes was that in that time, the roman architecture was different than presented in the movie. now i wonder: WHO in the name of GOD sat down to watch that movie, to learn about roman architecture? if someone wants to learn about it, rents a book or watches a docuamntary about it! got the point?

reply

'Gladiator' was largely a fictional story that was set in the Roman era. Any historical personages that may have crept in were historical wallpaper. You are comparing apples and oranges.

A better comparison would be 'Armistad', 'Glory', 'El Cid' or 'Downfall'. No doubt there were historical innacuracies in these films, but they had literate scripts, a sense of time and place, and were full of inspiring performances.

Besides which, if the historical facts about Cromwell that survive are far more interesting than the script, what does that tell you?

Dr. Barry Worthington

reply

I agree. Films are about entertainment, but part of the entertainment in a historical film is learning about the story/period it attempts to describe, particularly when the period is one of the most exciting of all time. I would have found the film "To kill a king" far more enjoyable and interesting if it actually told what happened, rather than making up yet another irritating, spoonfed drama, which does not do credit to any of the characters at all. Particularly King Charles I. He was not seductive!! He was short, stammering, and shy, but when on trial heroically proved the court to be what it was, a mockery of justice, before going to his death. Why couldn't the producers have made more out of that? And another thing, he did not make war on his people for money, or promoting himself in anyway. He did not agree to the Heads of the Proposals because he was trying to protect the country from tyranny under the sword, which was what agreeing to them would amount to, and because he believed monarchy was the only way in which the people would be free and it was ordained by God. And the "11 years tyranny" was no tyranny at all because King Charles did not have an army at the time.

reply

May I say that the depiction of Cromwell is (although not much like the popular image) close to the truth....even if his costume isn't always.

He did like practical jokes but did also ban most forms of fun. He was not moderate either and became King in all but name....How can murdering the King be moderate?
And the King is not the demon he is protrayed as usually.

"The face of evil is ugly to look upon. And as the pleasures increase, the face becomes uglier."

reply

>May I say that the depiction of Cromwell is (although not much like the >popular image) close to the truth....even if his costume isn't always.

I think that you've got that the wrong way round. The popular image of Cromwell is more like the stereotype that you seem to believe in. That's the trouble. The portayal of Cromwell by Richard Harris, even though not entirely accurate, is nearer to the mark.

>He did like practical jokes but did also ban most forms of fun.

He personally did not. The presbyterian group in parliament (many of whom he later dismissed) did.

>He was not moderate either

But he was! He originally wanted a constitutional monarchy.


>and became King in all but name....

He was offered the position but refused. He became Lord Protector because he thought it was the only way to preserve the gains of the revolution.

>How can murdering the King be moderate?

He murdered no-one, "for this thing was not done in a corner." Charles was tried and executed for "levying war against his own people." He was guilty of further conflict after the First Civil War, and a waste of good men's lives. That's how Cromwell and the Army Council saw it.

>And the King is not the demon he is protrayed as usually.

Not a demon, but a fool and a public danger. He was offered a constitution settlement similar to that of 1688 but turned it down. He preferred to put the country through years of further conflict and upheaval.

>"The face of evil is ugly to look upon. And as the pleasures increase, the face becomes uglier."

What is that meant to imply?

Dr. Barry Worthington

reply

Cromwell was a tyrant who was agianst the King, he had no right to rule england, the House of Lords was not ment to rule the nation but to advise the King. Divine Right and all that jazz. The monarchy in England is a joke, they have no real power

reply