This is a period epic, which is comparable in many ways to "Gone With the Wind", and might even, in other circumstances, have been the greater film. Unfortunately a number of factors contributed to the final film showing too many minor flaws for this, and the principal reason for re-watching it today is probably the magnificent performance by George Sanders who perfectly depicts the amoral cynicism and jaded sensuality that is correctly or incorrectly always associated with the seventeenth century British monarch King Charles the Second. Although not nominated, this was certainly an Oscar worthy role.
The film-script is based on the lengthy, florid, and sometimes almost turgid, 1,000 page novel by Kathleen Windsor - a book that had been roundly condemned by the Catholic Church. Twentieth Century Fox's decision to film it was highly controversial. This led to a long running battle with zealots from the Catholic League of Decency which ultimately emasculated the film to the point where it became no more than marginally commercially viable and where the final product was unable to stand the test of time in the way that many other great films from this era have done. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to have the chance of seeing how a re-mastered DVD version would fare if released today, and overall I am firmly of the opinion that this film would warrant such treatment. Unfortunately it appears that the first ending which was more in keeping with the original book, but was changed under pressure from the Church, may now be lost. (Twentieth Century Fox accepted pressure to create the revised ending, and to introduce a number of other changes designed to stress the immorality inherent in the story, just two weeks after the film was first released). -SPOILER AHEAD - This new ending shows Amber's out of wedlock son being surrendered to his father who is about to sail back to America to resume running the Plantation he owns there, whilst a heartbroken Amber looks on. However Fox seem to have deliberately tweaked the tail of the Church even when making the change. The dialogue now ambiguously refers to how much better it will be for this young boy to be brought up in America learning to operate a slave plantation, rather than to stay in England as part of the "immoral" seventeenth century London Society! The acting was very good but (apart from George Sanders) not superb. Maureen O'Hara, who was considered for the part of Amber, might have been more successful in adding some of the fire which was so badly needed in Amber's passionate but unrequited love affair, as well perhaps as in her other more career orientated liaisons.
The original lighting and cinematography are not easily assessed by watching surviving home video recordings of this film, but those who saw it in the cinema largely agree that long sequences (particularly in the early part) were under-lit. Presumably a re-mastered DVD release could correct this problem. The three strip Technicolor used to create this film was fully satisfactory The costumes have been criticised as being not totally authentic, but except for those viewers who are students of costume, they were probably perfectly adequate. And if you believe that period costumes should always be accurate, remember the really authentic costumes used in the film "The Wicked Lady" (1945) were rejected by U.S. censors as showing excessive décolletage so that many scenes had to be re-filmed for the American release.
The presentation of this story is hard to fault. The London scenario and the sequences involving both the Plague and the Great Fire of London were created excellently. The film also featured a great score which was nominated for an Oscar.
Conclusion.
For me the film rather dragged, it was slow and a little ponderous. Originally this would have best been corrected by shortening a number of overlong scenes, so enabling some of the many others from the book which were not filmed to have been incorporated; but today a few judicious cuts to shorten the running time a little would serve much the same purpose. Unfortunately (and less easily corrected) watching this film today gives the impression that its Director, Otto Preminger, was continuously and nervously looking over his shoulder to assess what openings every sequence he filmed would provide for the Church to attack. Had he been able to concentrate more completely on how these scenes would be received by a modern audience unfamiliar with the atmosphere of the seventeenth century Royal Court he was depicting, he might have been able to create a memorable and great film despite the fact that the original book could never have been described in these terms
The film-script is based on the lengthy, florid, and sometimes almost turgid, 1,000 page novel by Kathleen Windsor - a book that had been roundly condemned by the Catholic Church. Twentieth Century Fox's decision to film it was highly controversial. This led to a long running battle with zealots from the Catholic League of Decency which ultimately emasculated the film to the point where it became no more than marginally commercially viable and where the final product was unable to stand the test of time in the way that many other great films from this era have done. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to have the chance of seeing how a re-mastered DVD version would fare if released today, and overall I am firmly of the opinion that this film would warrant such treatment. Unfortunately it appears that the first ending which was more in keeping with the original book, but was changed under pressure from the Church, may now be lost. (Twentieth Century Fox accepted pressure to create the revised ending, and to introduce a number of other changes designed to stress the immorality inherent in the story, just two weeks after the film was first released). -SPOILER AHEAD - This new ending shows Amber's out of wedlock son being surrendered to his father who is about to sail back to America to resume running the Plantation he owns there, whilst a heartbroken Amber looks on. However Fox seem to have deliberately tweaked the tail of the Church even when making the change. The dialogue now ambiguously refers to how much better it will be for this young boy to be brought up in America learning to operate a slave plantation, rather than to stay in England as part of the "immoral" seventeenth century London Society! The acting was very good but (apart from George Sanders) not superb. Maureen O'Hara, who was considered for the part of Amber, might have been more successful in adding some of the fire which was so badly needed in Amber's passionate but unrequited love affair, as well perhaps as in her other more career orientated liaisons.
The original lighting and cinematography are not easily assessed by watching surviving home video recordings of this film, but those who saw it in the cinema largely agree that long sequences (particularly in the early part) were under-lit. Presumably a re-mastered DVD release could correct this problem. The three strip Technicolor used to create this film was fully satisfactory The costumes have been criticised as being not totally authentic, but except for those viewers who are students of costume, they were probably perfectly adequate. And if you believe that period costumes should always be accurate, remember the really authentic costumes used in the film "The Wicked Lady" (1945) were rejected by U.S. censors as showing excessive décolletage so that many scenes had to be re-filmed for the American release.
The presentation of this story is hard to fault. The London scenario and the sequences involving both the Plague and the Great Fire of London were created excellently. The film also featured a great score which was nominated for an Oscar.
Conclusion.
For me the film rather dragged, it was slow and a little ponderous. Originally this would have best been corrected by shortening a number of overlong scenes, so enabling some of the many others from the book which were not filmed to have been incorporated; but today a few judicious cuts to shorten the running time a little would serve much the same purpose. Unfortunately (and less easily corrected) watching this film today gives the impression that its Director, Otto Preminger, was continuously and nervously looking over his shoulder to assess what openings every sequence he filmed would provide for the Church to attack. Had he been able to concentrate more completely on how these scenes would be received by a modern audience unfamiliar with the atmosphere of the seventeenth century Royal Court he was depicting, he might have been able to create a memorable and great film despite the fact that the original book could never have been described in these terms