Christmas meeting in the good old 1183 high Middle Ages. In not yet old England, the 50-year-old King Henry (Peter O’Toole), gathers three ungrateful sons near him – brutal and straightforward Richard (Anthony Hopkins), calculating and cunning Jeffrey (John Castle), as well as the younger moron and coward John (Nigel Terry). Also from prison on holiday, Henry discharged his legal wife Elianore (Katherine Hepburn), which is still an intrigue. Finally, to the not the most tidy English court arrives a young, but bitch dimensionlessly arrogant King of France Philip (Timothy Dalton), whose sister Alice (Jane Murrow) became a coveted mistress of Henry. And now all this squabbling company is going to find out who will inherit the English throne. And each of the arrivals intrigues, eavesdrops and betrays, pursuing exclusively their own vested interests.
The case when a particularly unknown playwright James Goldman wrote a successful play, as well as the same missing stars from the sky director Anthony Harvey shot his best production in his career. But to revive this interesting idea was able to a very powerful cast, half of which generally opened this film glorious pages of their film biography. But more on that below.
For historical productions covering the period of the Middle Ages, the external entourage is extremely important - majestic castles, battle scenes, costumed extras and in general, the romantic areole of a long past era. However, the specificity of Goldman's play excludes almost all of this. All events unfold in the castle, and the battles here are exclusively verbal, divided into seven participants - two kings, three princes, the queen and her rival. And yet, Harvey managed to go beyond the stage room alone, creating a very lush picture of the palace antiglamour of the twelfth century. Here, next to discussions about the fate of England, France and Aquitaine, roosters will crow, and pigs will grunt under their feet. Messivo in the royal castle and collective sleeping houses for servants will coexist with not the most pretentious bedrooms of princes and kings. Harvey didn't show the bathrooms, but they would look organic. But in general, this naturalism very well laid on the historical soil of the era, allowing you to focus not on external embellishments, but on what the main performers said.
And the performers, I must admit, were on top. Catherine Hepburn, who played the insidious queen “always on her mind” Elianore Aquitanskaya for the second year in a row, receives an Oscar, and this time finally quite deservedly. Interestingly, in 1969, the Academy simultaneously wrote out two statuettes for the best actress – Hepburn and Nosatian-Jewish discovery Barbra Streisand. But 36-year-old Peter O’Toole, who played very well torn in search of the “right” heir to King Henry II, received only the nomination. Interestingly, four years earlier, Peter had already played Henry II in Becket alongside Richard Burton, for whom he was also nominated for an Oscar. An amazing case.
The film made two major discoveries. First, “The Lion in Winter” was the first notable work for 31-year-old Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins here played the straightforward and brutal Richard (the future King of England, known under the chase Lionheart). I won’t say that Hopkins and Richard the Lionheart somehow speculatively fit into the same historical series, but the fact that the actor at the level of “talk” felt very confident in the company of eminent Hepburn and O’Toole is a fact. And secondly, this film debuted 22-year-old Timothy Dalton, who played brilliantly French King Philip II. Dalton had an excellent character of a young and calculating strategist, who, indeed, is able to unite under his crown a torn France (the historical character in many ways managed to do this). And it is very surprising that for such a performance the young actor did not receive even an Oscar nomination. Not fair.
The remaining three actors looked paler in the background. Although Jane Murrow for the performance of “the favorite girl of the king” even received the only in her notable career nomination for the Golden Globe. And a certain Nigel Terry very colorfully played the moronic prince, who became the future King of England John Landless. But the main “light of the sapphires” came from another acting quartet.
Verdict: Yes, in the twelfth century this was not spoken. But the interpretation of the verbal battle performed by a group of wonderful actors still causes a very lively interest.
7 out of 10
I would like to compare this film with Lumet's "Long Day Goes to Midnight" - an ordinary plot develops into a collection of portraits, where each character is revealed in a special way, just talking and talking about themselves. This creates two hours of Game of Thrones, intrigue about the transfer of power based on real events. Theatrically, polished, pathetic and tearful actors perform their parts.
The interiors and stylistics fully reproduce the successful solutions from Zinneman’s Man for All Time. They are simple, unpretentious, but, importantly, instead of the expected dusk, the play of light and shadows inherent in a medieval castle (where most of the action takes place), the film is dominated by light, sandy, beige tones. This creates a special warmth that contrasts sharply with the alienation that reigns here. We are shown a world where everyone is for himself, but also against everyone else. And this contrast is perhaps the most entertaining in this tape.
One of the main lines of the film is the complex relationship of the spouses. His wife was cut off from all affairs for many years, in fact in prison. Her appearance is an attempt to revise and change everything. But there's so much pretense, pathogenic aggression and destructiveness. However, the way she played Katherine Hepburn too limited her character. Her grimaces, facial expressions, tricks - all in a strange way echoes other roles. It is enough to remember her role in the movie “Long day goes to midnight”. Subtract the plot moves and get a very similar person. And most importantly, Catherine plays the role identically. And, by the way, not so inspired. It's Peter O'Toole. He plays a man much older than himself, a man endowed with power and ambition. He is a true lion, powerful, eager to choose the most just solution and enjoying his power. It is on his shoulders, experience and talent that the ribbon is “stretched”, constituting a more less interesting variation for viewing. Thanks to O’Toole’s personal acting achievements, a bright, tense and spectacular finale is obtained.
In summary, I would like to point out that the film itself does not look like a masterpiece. And if you remove the attention of critics, “Oscars” and other momentary moments can only repeat the words about the heavyness of the picture. It was necessary to make efforts to achieve such an uneven pace, excessive theatricality, mannerism. Yes, and the text of the play - it is obvious that it was completely unsuitable for the film, weighting it and making the characters unnatural, synthetic.
5 out of 10
XII century. The aging King of England Henry II Plantagenet at Christmas gathers his entire family in the castle: for many years, his wife, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, and his three surviving sons: Richard the Lionheart, Jeffrey II and his favorite John the Landless. Also in the castle at a special invitation is the young King of France Philip II Augustus and the young mistress of Henry Alice. The old king understands that he must make a painful choice and decide which of his three sons will become the new king of England. Each of them harbors hopes for the throne and is in some conspiracy. The political benefits of the situation are trying to extract and Eleanor, Philip, and even Alice. In this cycle of mutual grievances, claims and intrigues, Henry will have to meet another Christmas.
The film “The Lion in Winter” is based on the play of the same name by American writer James Goldman, which was written two years before the appearance of this picture. Apparently, Goldman in his play tried to convey the purely Shakespearean spirit of medieval, monarchical England with all its undercover intrigues, conspiracies and fratricidal wars. This story was soon followed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The director was Anthony Harvey, in the past a good editor, who worked with Kubrick on Doctor Strangelove, who decided to start a career as a director. As the author of the script was invited directly James Goldman, and the role of Henry II was decided to take Peter O'Toole, and this choice was not accidental. The fact is that just 4 years before the release of the film “The Lion in Winter”, O’Toole already played the role of Henry, in the film “Becket”, dedicated to the confrontation of the king with his once best friend Archbishop Thomas Beckett. It is noteworthy that in that picture Peter O'Toole played a young monarch, and in "The Lion in Winter" he had to play the role of an aged Henry. An interesting acting challenge, which this actor was quite capable of.
Perhaps the greatest flaws of the picture lie in its script. Trying to twist around the family of Henry II truly Shakespearean passions, Goldman, in my purely amateurish view, still somewhat carried away. The number of intrigues for one minute of narration exceeds all reasonable limits, as well as the number of unconfirmed historical facts and conjectures, such as the unconventional orientation of Richard the Lionheart and his relationship with Philip II Augustus. Yes, the sources claim that they were such friends that they even shared a bed, but still should not approach this phrase in such a literal sense. I’m not a historian, I could be wrong. In any case, I thought the story was overloaded with events. Where it was possible to devote a little more time to the psychological portraits of the actors, necessarily lurks some new intrigue.
However, the film is very strong for its acting work. Peter O'Toole is absolutely beautiful as Henry. He feels both the former power and the current overwork, as well as a clear underestimation of the amount of hatred generated in his direction by his own sons. Katherine Hepburn was great. Her Eleanor of Aquitaine appeared before us as a desperate, unbroken, strong woman, as befits “the grandmother of medieval Europe.” I also really liked Timothy Dalton. I am very fond of a historical figure like Philip II Augustus, and in my opinion, this actor brilliantly coped with his task: to show a cunning, strong and very, very farsighted monarch. Anthony Hopkins, surprisingly, did not strike - a strong role, but nothing more.
Thus, despite the flaws of the script, which I boldly allowed myself to note, “The Lion in Winter” still remains a very interesting, qualitatively shot, historically curious film, which I personally can recommend to any film lover. He won three Oscars, including Best Screenplay. So, don’t listen to me, I’m a groove, just look.
8 out of 10
P.S. For those who are suddenly wondering how the lives of the characters of this film ended: Jeffrey died three years later in a knightly duel. Three years later, Henry II Plantagenet actually died of grief, learning that his beloved son John the Landless took part in another powerful conspiracy against him. Alice left the royal circle, marrying a simple count. Richard the Lionheart became king, returned his mother Alienora from prison, took part in the Crusade with Philip II Augustus, but was unscrupulously loyal to them, returned to England through Austrian captivity, where he soon died in battles against his former friend. Eleanor died five years after Richard, spending the last years of her life in a monastery. John the Landless, who became king, was also unscrupulously betrayed by Philip II Augustus, was forced to accept the Magna Carta and died in battle. Philip II himself lived a long life, going down in history as a great king, who more than doubled the size of the royal domain of France, mainly due to the possessions taken from the Plantagenets.
Power can give a person authority, control over something, unlimited opportunities, but with all these gifts, power can intoxicate and even poison a person. Unable to control his thoughts, feelings and emotions, a person can sow confusion in the heart, suspect everyone and everything in a conspiracy against himself. This has a negative impact on his personal life, including family relationships. A similar situation occurred with the English King Henry II, whose history was reflected in the historical drama based on the play “The Lion in Winter”.
Synopsis England, 1183. King Henry II on Christmas Eve decides to announce the future heir to the throne. Everyone comes to this meeting, including his unloved wife, Alianore Aquitanskaya, as well as sons Richard, Jeffrey and John. Each of the sons longs to become king, so they are already plotting against the king. This conflict inadvertently involves Alianore, who tries to reason with the king and heirs.
The film is distinguished by a bright and diverse play of actors, each of whom has created its own specific image. Of course, the male roles most remembered Peter O’Toole, who played the role of Henry II. In the film, he embodied the image of an impulsive man, to whom many years of rule have overshadowed his view of many things, and from now on he sees only enemies around him, and therefore does not know which of his sons will need to transfer the throne. Of the female roles, without a doubt, the brightest and, in my opinion, the best in her career, Catherine Hepburn, who played Alianore, stands out the most. It is known that Alianore entered the history as a very beautiful woman with a deep mind and a sharp tongue. Hepburn with all her sincerity brought the Queen back to life. Of the secondary roles, it was nice to see the still very young Anthony Hopkins as Richard “The Lionheart” and Timothy Dalton as the French King Philip II.
Directorship Director Anthony Harvey tried to convey the atmosphere of England of the High Middle Ages, when she actively participated in international relations, concluding dynastic marriages and unions. I really liked how the director created the historical plot of the film. The viewer seems to be transferred to another era and gets acquainted with its mores, values. But most of all, I want to point out how Harvey managed to connect the conflict over the transfer of the throne to family relations. The director emphasizes the value of family and family relations. On the one hand, the heroes are representatives of the royal dynasty, they are well aware of this. But the intoxicating aroma of power invades their personal relationships, forcing them to go on vile acts.
Scenario Of course, I have never read a play in my life and have never seen a production on stage. But I want to note the depth and wisdom that was laid in the basis of the plot. The film has a huge number of dialogues, but these conversations are not devoted to everyday problems or problems of the state, although, of course, the characters touch on them, but here it is the problem of family relations, the theme of love, the theme of fathers and children. A movie might remind you of Hamlet. It is difficult to judge the proximity of the film content to history, since there are no historical sources that could illuminate the family quarrels of these historical personalities. However, just like a historical drama, the picture has a really fascinating plot.
Soundtrack Of the artistic features, I would like to say a few words about the musical accompaniment. Firstly, I really liked the main musical theme, which was sounded at the very beginning of the film, literally fascinated. Here you have the royal military march, and church music, and the devil's choir. That is, the viewer already feels that something unusual and bright is coming. Secondly, I really liked the choral motif, because thanks to which the viewer is better immersed in the historical atmosphere of the film.
Result No matter how pathetic it may sound, personally I was delighted with the film, the depth of its meaning, plot, historical plot. Excellent acting was complemented by magnificent musical accompaniment and bright decoration. Without further ado, I will recommend the picture for viewing.
There is such a category of films that are staged according to a filigree honed script. And it worked out so, because it has already been repeatedly polished on stage and tested by numerous productions. I don’t know how many times Shakespeare has been filmed. Because classics can be played forever. Playwright James Golden’s The Lion in Winter is no exception to this list. Its main character, King Henry II of England, is a very interesting historical character. Golden chose one of the most poignant moments of his life: the agonizing decision to leave behind him on the throne in order to preserve what he created all his life - his kingdom.
The concept of clearly spelled characters of the participants of this drama comes at the very beginning of the film. Dialogues are verified and polished, the viewer seems to sit in the theater hall and look at the relationship developing in front of him. To the tragedy of an elderly king who cannot trust anyone and who is betrayed at every turn by his own children. On his wife - Eleanor, experimentally intriguing one against one, then against another, then immediately against all. On their children: impulsive Richard (the future King Richard the Lionheart), cunning and mean Jeffrey, stupid and influenced by John (the future King John (John the Landless)). Henry loves John, Eleanor has a weakness for Richard, Jeffrey is not loved by anyone because everyone sees his treacherous nature. Here is added the French King Philip with his interests in Aquitaine, who came to negotiate with Henry over his possessions in France. Eleanor, Henry's wife was the heir to this vast kingdom. So there's a real tangle of relationships. And it's quite interesting to watch.
Indeed, natural shooting in the frame is quite a bit. “The Lion in Winter” still comes from the theater, essentially remaining a stage production. Most of the time is spent in the interiors of the ancient castle, serving as the main scenery for the film. No big activity. The course of the film is measured, but at the same time full of an ocean of raging passions.
Peter O'Toole (King Henry) is a venerable actor. And the mastito also played its part. Katherine Hepburn is very colorful. Another Eleanor with an equally determined and sometimes violent character, with a face that suddenly clears up in dialogue with Richard, her favorite, is hard to imagine. Also here you can see very young Anthony Hopkins (Prince Richard) and Timothy Dalton (King Philip). Hopkins is persuasive in his role as a man with honor and dignity, bordering on pride, but suddenly realizing that both need to give up in order to achieve the goal of becoming king. Timothy Dalton plays a slightly unbridled, young but wise beyond his years monarch, skillfully seeking to benefit from the complex family relationships that have created.
John Castle also coped well with the role of unclean Prince Jeffrey. Notice the hypocritical smile he makes with Prince John, urging him to go against his father. Nigel Terry gives us the image of the near and power-hungry Prince John, but in my opinion, his role is the easiest. Another character in this drama is Elias, Henry's mistress, played by Jane Murrow. I don’t remember her very much, and her character is not central. Peter O'Toole simply eclipsed her with his figure.
To sum up, “The Lion in Winter” is a film that will always have an audience, because it is a lump against which any wave of criticism breaks. It was shot at a time when classical works were in great fashion. And now it has not lost its relevance. The classics are always popular.
He's got a knife!
- Of course he has a knife! We all have knives, in the yard one hundred and eighty-three, and we are all barbarians.
Disturbing, explosive singing, stunned but coordinated elements met from the beginning, and constantly breaking through later through the fabric of the narrative. A stone figurine of a plump lion, wide, eerie, flattened muzzles of unknown creatures, open, slackened, rocking, whispered, chipped. And bizarrely, the light dancing on them, as if sculpting statues in relief right in front of the viewer ...
A film from a galaxy of those who at that time presented not so familiar to such things to the spectator's gaze may not always be historically correct, but emphasized unglamorous, deliberately everyday depiction of the Middle Ages, its personalities and legends. Take at least such an original interpretation of the legends about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table as Lancelot the Lake. So in this film they tried to catch up with Angsta - King Henry in order to wash, because you even need to break the ice into a basin with water. And the study of the deep psychological motivations of the characters here is clearly more intricate than, for example, in the novels of Walter Scott, their adaptations, or in old ballads about Robin Hood. Let this, of course, and not in reproach neither Scott nor ballads.
The local Prince Richard is unlikely to grow into the eccentric and generous King Richard the Lionheart from Ivanhoe, but you do not even feel very sad about this, because to see the young Anthony Hopkins as an uncouth rude and soldier is not the most ordinary experience in the world. However, the sense of measure of the creators did not leave. And now Richard, a minute ago reproaching his mother, trying to hold her alienated, is ready to cry on her chest. And Prince John here is not at all such a sneaky and pragmatic caver, as he is usually painted, but rather a restless, impulsive boy. And episode after episode, phrase after phrase drags more and more, to childhood injuries, to the very origins of characters, to the most intimate.
Peter O’Toole the opportunity to get used to the hypostasis of the tough and unbridled Henry II gave another “Becket”. It is no problem that in two films the image of the king is revealed from different angles. In Beckett, this is a man who is grieving a disagreement with his best friend, but in the end, destroys him. In The Lion in Winter, Henry appears as his wife’s jailer and as an obstacle for his sons on their way to the throne. But both of these films are imbued with an amazing, chamber atmosphere, and in both of them you can sympathize with Henry, no matter what.
But the inflexible core of the whole work is Catherine Hepburn, and with Oscar she was lucky at that time (unlike O'Toole, who received only a nomination). Queen Eleanor was indeed a remarkable figure, having married both the King of France and the King of England, and outlived eight of her ten children. And in the unforgettable performance of Catherine in the heroine, every word is weighed, every gesture is filigree, every decision indicates extreme sophistication. A barely noticeable turn of the head - and you understand why Eleanor is considered so dangerous, the slightest wavering of her fingers, threading through the needle - and you feel that no one has figured out a hundredth of either her insidiousness or her vulnerability. She can hardly understand it herself, for nothing that she sees through others. And it seems that only because everyone else insists that she is driven only by greed and does not need anything in life except Aquitaine, and you guess that this is not quite so. Eleanor herself encourages Henry to kiss her young lover in front of her - only her lips are tighter, her eyes even closer. And she should know that her charisma is not able to overcome all the young beauty of the rival!
Who won the battle between King and Queen? Rather, they both lost, not to each other or to anyone in particular, but to the frameworks and prejudices, to the rules and prejudices, to the unwritten rules dictated to them by those around them and the era. They were trapped in the intricacies of their previous actions, became prisoners of their own vices. Henry cannot let his wife out of prison, and Eleanor cannot stop intriguing. But even for a moment, they managed to get beyond all conventions and roles, or even laugh at them. And this was a stunning challenge to the winter that settled in the hearts of men.
Royal family: Henry II, Eleanor and three royal sons
“The Lion in Winter” is an interesting and atmospheric historical drama, which I watched almost half a century later and didn’t even think I would like it so much. This British film was made in 1968 by director Anthony Harvey, and many years later, for me personally, it has not lost its relevance and meaning, and I watched this historical drama with pleasure. “The Lion in Winter” has no doubt cinematic value and undoubtedly still deserves attention, because the film turned out to be high-quality and interesting. It reflects historical and biographical facts, and we were shown what is happening in personal relations in the family of the king.
We see England in 1183 and the reign of King Henry II. He is already old, and he needs to pass his crown to some son, but it is not so simple, and we see that all three of his sons are ambitious and each has his own secrets from his father, and each is ready at any moment to put a knife in the back of his own father to become king, moreover, Queen Eleanor adds fuel to the fire and weaves intrigues, and we see behind the scenes life of the royal family and the shocking secrets of this royal history.
The cast was successful in this historical drama, and all the actors played well and looked believable in their challenging roles. Peter O’Toole is a strong and good actor who has acted in many good films, and in this drama he played convincingly, and as a king he looked dignified and interesting. Katherine Hepburn is a strong actress that I love and always enjoy watching movies with her, and in this historic shocking film, she played the Queen in a very emotional and sensual way, and this role is one of my favorites. Anthony Hopkins played an unexpected and controversial role in this movie and he coped with it well, and I was surprised to see him in this role, but he is a real actor and can play absolutely any role, so for me he will always remain as one of the favorite and mysterious actors in world cinema. Timothy Dalton is a good actor, and in this movie he was so young and hot, and I was also pleased to see him in such a young role.
If you like strong and high-quality American historical dramas, then this movie is just right for this. From the first to the last shot, everything is saturated with history and a pleasant atmosphere, and I was impressed and loved this film. “The Lion in Winter” is a film about what secrets the royal family hid and what everyone had in mind, and this film has significant cinematic value, and is a golden collection of the best historical films in world cinema, and not seeing this historical drama, I believe, means really losing a lot. I am sure that this film still deserves the attention of the audience and a positive assessment. I watched this drama because of Katherine Hepburn and didn’t regret it, I didn’t love this film.
8 out of 10
The real King Henry II was dirty, formidable and fighting. Like his later French namesake, he loved to fight and get drunk. Drinking, falling asleep. He slept in the barn and in the palace, on straw and in bed, which, if found in his camping life, was immediately populated with all kinds of creatures of God, from women to sheep. And when he did not sleep, he created one of the largest medieval kingdoms - the Anjou Empire, shrugged off the new English dynasty - the Plantagenets, juggled crowns, quarreled with dads, endlessly fought with his wife and sons, killed priests and fought with rebellious vassals. He also wrote poetry in Provençal and Old French. In short, a man lived a rich medieval life. This, undeservedly forgotten, medieval ruler is now known to the public only as the father of the glorious Richard - the Lionheart and the inglorious John of the Landless, and it is a pity - he was a good ruler, only with heirs unlucky. A few days of Henry’s life is dedicated to the play by James Goldman “The Lion in Winter”, filmed by the British.
The plot of the drama - Shannon Castle, Christmas 1183, chess pieces on the board of the upcoming game fly a vast and turbulent family. Henry himself with his mistress and, in parallel, the bride of Prince John - Alice, the princes - Richard, Jeffrey and John. Somewhere on the horizon looms the young French King Philip. And in the first shots, the central character of the film is immediately highlighted - Queen Eleanor, whom her loving husband, after another uprising she lost, put under lockdown, but for the sake of a holiday, he decided to release from prison for a couple of days. Eleanor arrives with fanfare, well aware that in a few days she will again go to her royally furnished dungeon, so that precious time of freedom should be spent in full. A couple of Christmas days are an occasion for everyone to avenge their previous grievances, try to play back what they lost in past troubles, redistribute once again provinces and crowns, and just dot numerous family “i”.
The most useless thing is to try to criticize and look for flaws in this, almost standard, film. They're just not here. Perfectly structured composition and dialogue. Realistic, sometimes too much for the sixties, directing. Seven of the main actors, of which five are still unknown at the time, competing among themselves in the game. Perhaps the director Anthony Harvey tried to play on the dissonance - the great already Hepburn and O'Toole and the crowned youth crawling at their feet, but it did not work out. Fortunately, Richard is a young Hopkins, Philip is Dalton, and the ugly, bastard John was brilliantly played by Nigel, the future King Arthur in Excalibur.
Peter O'Toole, a couple of years before that already played the role of young Henry in "Beckett" - a handsome rogue, a brilliant young man capable of recapturing his wife from the French king, here, thanks to the art of makeup artists and a false belly, appears as a huge, bloated, bloated, aged, but not lost strength and grip of the ruler. His zenith has already passed, but the strength is still enough to kick the ears of the young French king-Dalton and roar to suppress family machinations. Katherine Hepburn frankly enjoys the role of Eleanor, by the way, his distant relative on the line of the bad John. The eyes shine like lamps, the body is relaxed, but the mind is honed and lightning as a razor. Just a few days to try to settle scores with the past and gain hope for the future. Neither the neurotic pederast Richard, of whose exploits there is only the desecration of the French king with his uncircumcised zeb, nor the pimply evil dwarf-idler John, vainly trying to get out of under his father's wing, nor the predatory Jeffrey, whose spider mind is in vain looking for a cherished way to sell everyone, and to buy out his father's crown, well, or finally get parental attention, can compete with her either individually or together. Especially pass Philip and Alice, whose delicate French natures seething family instantly grinded and thrown aside to the second half of the film. Balancing the demonic Hepburn can only serve O'Toole - in his shaggy beard and powerful figure, the most angry Filipinos Katherine get stuck and crumble. The game is frantic, soaked in monstrous energy that sometimes you have to look away from the screen. It was for this role that Hepburn received her third Oscar, and an unprecedented case in Hollywood, the next year after the second - for "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."
Modern drama in the medieval entourage does not become done and contrived. The inhabitants of the moist twelfth century generously sprinkle with wit, anachronisms and aphorisms, scooped up at the tables of New York intellectual cafes. The air is saturated to the limit with dives and insults, mutual hatred and betrayal. To cheat, to change sides in the evening, and then to cheat and betray again, and so on indefinitely. Henry, beginning with a laurel wreath triumphant, and la Lear in the first act of Shakespeare’s play, watches how in a couple of days everything, so carefully erected plans and hopes, tries to snap back and feverishly counteract it. But there is nothing to be done – against him the history, time, family and sharp pen of one of the best American writers of the second half of the twentieth century, which out of intellectual interest leads the character further and further along the curved spiral of Dante’s hell. The play is a family portrait in the interior, only the crowned relatives do not swear in a whisper in the kitchen, but start wars against each other. The old story - for broken pots always have to pay the common people.
The English legend of King Lear was already well known in the Middle Ages. I wonder if Henry remembered him in his later years, when sons sitting in their estates distributed by the generous hand of their father, amicably sharpened their teeth and blades on the inheritance of an undead parent? The finale of the film is marked by a confused and optimistic ellipsis, but the story itself ends simply. Henry died of grief during another war with the children, learning of the betrayal of his beloved son John, the last who still held his father's side. Machiavellian Jeffrey died in some small Breton crumpled, never reaching the coveted throne. Richard fought in Jerusalem, was in prison, mortgaged half of England and remained a legend. John, foolishly and weakly, signed the landmark Magna Carta, which was his most outstanding act. The powerful kingdom, riveted and assembled with hamster tenacity by Henry, lasted another three centuries, although it did not benefit either the French or the British, only by drawing both nations into endless slaughter. And Eleanor lived for a long time, wandering between her children, which she managed to seat on half a dozen European thrones, became the ancestor of many royal dynasties, for which she received the nickname from modern historians – “the grandmother of medieval Europe”.
It was quite by chance that I passed by the theater when I noticed the schedule of performances. The familiar name shot me in the eye. It's a lion in winter. About King Henry II of England. You see, quite recently I watched another performance about the king in the same theater. So when I bought a ticket to the theater, I enjoyed waiting for the play. This time there wasn’t a big crowd like before. It started on time. So... The curtain goes up...
Henry II is again on stage, played by Peter O'Toole. I loved Henry in the last show. Here he plays an old king who must appoint his heir. One cold Christmas evening, the king decides to gather his sons, his "former" wife and the king of France to announce his successor. Throughout the show, he will fight the Cold War in his family. But he should not underestimate his family. A retaliatory war is being waged against him: it is moral and like a time bomb, ready to explode at any minute.
There's something wrong with this play. It's cold. In fact, James Goldman is very good. As the author of the play, he wrote great dialogues on which all scenes are built. There is a minimum of locations, maximum of improvisation.
The king’s wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, is brought to the fore. With her charm, charm and radiant smile, she can poison anyone who comes in her way. It will bring doubt or victory to everyone. She's playing her Game of Thrones and she's not ready to just give up the English throne.
On the other hand, Henry II, who knows the people around him. He knows that anyone is ready to stab him in the back. He does not trust his youngest son, Richard (whom the throne is prophesied). However, Henry himself was not the best father in his time. He spent his youth between the legs of various prostitutes, and is distinguished by extreme cruelty, but not in the play. Here he is the image of a just father, a husband, a strong spirit man. His childishness disappeared (after the last play from the French author Jacques Anouille), and the feeling that he is really just a king disappeared.
And suddenly, Henry's own children. Cold Richard played by the great and terrible Anthony Hopkins. He does not accept his mother, he does not love his father (though he would like with all his heart), but ultimately he takes his mother’s side. And the other kids keep up. All of them fall under the charm of Elionora, although they do not really know her, because she was in prison for 15 years. Everyone wants to play Game of Thrones and everyone will eventually stumble over the intrigues and plots of the kingdom.
All that remains is to watch everyone fool each other, spit in each other’s faces, and at the same time confess their love to each other. It makes everyone a little crazy. In the end, it will not lead to anything good. They will slowly die morally and be left with nothing.
Great soundtrack and ambitious production.
I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know.
Henry knows and Henry knows we know. Very knowledgeable family.
Madness, betrayal and again intrigue, intrigue and intrigue. After Becket's genius, I expected more. But! I learned a very instructive life lesson - kings family sucks. Appreciate your family, especially if it is big.
The curtain is coming down. The actors take the stage. The audience applauds, and I leave silently.