3.5 stars out of 4
Added 1/20/2009
The Bottom Line:
It's not a movie that gets referenced much these days, but Scandal functions well both as a history lesson on the "British Politician Sex" that Billy Joel mentions and as a movie; with sterling performances by John Hurt and Joanne Whalley, it's a film that's worth seeking out.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Scandal: reporting what people want to be true
Added 6/7/2008
Scandal was released in 1989. It was directed by Michael Caton-Jones, written by Michael Thomas and stars John Hurt as Stephen Ward, Joanne Whalley as Christine Keeler, Bridget Fonda as Mandy Rice-Davies and Ian McKellen as John Profumo, four characters who embarrassed a British government into resigning in the early 1960s.
There are many things this film could have been: a study of the last period when British aristocracy arrogantly maintained its privileged position; exploration of post WWII British politics, rise of the Cold War and the fall of Macmillan's successful Conservative Party government; investigation of social changes that bought the 'Swinging Sixties', made London the pop capital of the world and stirred a fearful reaction in older generations. These elements are present in the film but they are in the background. In the foreground are a subtle study of personal relationships in a particular milieu and a condemnation of the destructive power of the press in creating and feeding 'scandal' to boost circulation.
The film spends much of its time exploring the relationship between Christine Keeler and Stephen Ward, and can be presumed to be freely inventing much of what transpires: quite legitimate for something that's drama not documentary.
The film gets our attention immediately by showing a love affair between an attractive man and a beautiful young girl which is not sexually based. This is pretty rare in the movies where getting the girl/guy is really all that happens (aside from serial killers, monsters, natural disasters, war and so on of course). So what's going on? Is Ward just a gay guy using girls as pawns in his game? The film doesn't suggest this, and forces us to think a little harder. Behind the love that holds these two together is recognition: both are members of the lower classes who have crossed social boundaries and are on the defensive in 'swinging' society.
This was a time, we are reminded, when the most admired four people in Britain were the Beatles, who couldn't even speak proper, and the most feared were probably the five Rolling Stones, butterflies broken on the wheel (said the Times) by an unfairly severe punishment for a drug offense not long after this period.
Illegal drugs were being used recreationally by many people under 20. Pop music and fashion was developing a market of its own. People were talking of 'free love'. The fabric of society was breaking down and conservative people were very unhappy. Looking back on this one can see a heartbreaking innocence, both in those who experimented and those who disapproved.
The film switches back and forth between events and reportage so we can see the difference between what happens and how it is reported.
At a review a showgirl loses her top and (gasp!) you can see her breasts. White people consort with people from Jamaica who have shady skins! Both take marijuana and other drugs and have fun! There's an orgy and people have sex where other people can see them! People sleep around, and one of them has sex with both a Russian diplomat and a British politician!
This is the first trendy generation we're looking at, and they aren't too sure of themselves. In the film nobody is a degenerate. In the newspapers there were lurid accounts of SM/BD practices. In the film there is no suggestion that the diplomat and the politician were spies passing on information to rival governments, just people who saw each other at parties and shared girlfriends. In the newspapers there was a security leak that forced a minister and then a government to resign. In the film there is a teenage girl taking drugs and practising free love because it's the thing to do. In the newspapers she's a sordid and mercenary prostitute. What's more important than reporting the news? Protecting the Establishment. What's more important than protecting the Establishment? Selling newspapers. Gone are the crusading reporters of films of the forties: these guys are schmucks looking for bucks.
So the scandal turns out to be not so much what happened but what could have happened. It's a Caesar's wife situation.
And that brings us around to the relationship between Ward and Keeler, because scandal is Ward's social currency. Arranging things that are just a bit naughty gets him into all the right places, and the game proves just a little too addictive for him. Forced to choose, he thinks, between the game of scandal and Keeler, he casts her off and brings about his own downfall. Without making a big thing of it there is the suggestion that that bit of shallowness was his only wrong doing.
Once the naive Keeler was paid to say what the reporters thought would sell papers Ward found himself in the same position as Oscar Wilde when he laid charges against the Marquess of Queensberry in 1895. Again the Establishment closed ranks and suddenly it was all Ward's fault.
The film offers a superbly acted tragedy of people meeting at the wrong time and place who could have made each other happy but who just as surely could only have met at that wrong time and place. And for the curious there's the vista of 50 years in which the times have changed so much (not least in the effect the media now has on us all) and yet the same human nature causes the same tragedies over and over again.
Scandal. As someone once said, let those without faults throw the first stone.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not so Uncut !
Added 3/23/2008
I do take umbrage when the cover sleeve makes an issue to specifically state that the movie is uncensored and uncut, when in truth the opposite is realised when viewed.
The Peter Rackman( Johnny Shannon ) and Mandy Rice-Davies ( Bridget Fonda ) "no kissing" hotel bedroom scene which should have been in chapter 15, between the scene of the two girls ( Fonda & Whalley-Kilmer ) walking along the river to the scene with ( Hurt & Whalley-Kilmer ) in Wards flat, checking the post, has been completely omitted.
The hotel bedroom scene approx 1 minute 40 secs, which does show a naked frontal view of Fonda, albeit through a negligee, and ever so briefly between the on off light flashes of what seems to be a neon sign outside the bedroom window, does seem to be rather tame to have fallen foul of the censor.
This scene also does seem to be out of place at this point of the movie, and 'maybe' should have been after the initial party meeting between Rackman and Rice-Davies.
In fairness this DVD version removing the scene at this point does improve the continuity. Should we adding this to the list of movies that are crying out to be re-edited and re-released.
We did wait how many years for Blade Runner to be released in a package with 'all' versions and extras, hopefully someone / studio would take this gem under their wing for the same treatment. Or even a re-release with the deleted scene(s) on the bonus or extras menu, I could live with that. Maybe the when the Region 2 UK PAL version is released it will have just that, but until then the VHS tape remains in the collection.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A sadistically wonderful movie
Added 1/7/2008
This is Bridget Fonda at her most beautiful and Mr. Hurt at this most sadastic. It is a exquisite psychodrama based in absolute truth. It is a "must own" if you like House of Games, The Night Potter, or any Robert Altman.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This movie is about a British political scandal -Profumo affair- of the 1960's. It sucks you in at the beginning and holds you until the end. After seeing the movie, I read materials about the Profumo affair and found the movie to mirror the information quite well.
Highly recommend this flick!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
