The Prime Minister (1941) Poster

(1941)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Disraeli's life in brief
dkncd10 October 2007
"The Prime Minister" is loosely based on the life and career of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The film first portrays his earlier life and career and then rapidly transitions to his time as Prime Minister.

The performances in this film were respectable. John Gielgud delivers a fine performance as Disraeli himself. Diana Wynyard is convincing as Disraeli's wife and Fay Compton was also notable as Queen Victoria.

This film is watchable and has a decent storyline. It is apparent that the story emphasizes certain points because this film was made as British propaganda for World War II, but that didn't bother me. Overall the film somewhat touched on the wit and energy of Disraeli, though not as much as it could have. I found "Disraeli" (1929) to be a much more engaging portrayal of Disraeli, and Arliss' performance as Disraeli is more charismatic and makes more of an impression.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Half of a decent movie
dafrieze6 September 2008
"The Prime Minister" is Benjamin Disraeli, one of the most determinedly interesting figures of nineteenth-century England. This film is very obviously a piece of wartime propaganda, with a few bits of Socialist speechmaking tossed in as well. Many of Disraeli's famous witty quotes are included (to add authenticity, of course), the costumes and sets are reasonably lavish for a moderately-budgeted film, and the performances are more than adequate. The biggest problem is that the first half of the film is pretty bad, and it's Gielgud's fault. A great actor with a great voice, he had absolutely no idea how to play an ardently romantic young man in love and, given no help from the dialogue, comes off as stiff as a board. About halfway through the film, though, about 25 years in Disraeli's (and England's) life are passed over in a few explanatory titles, and Gielgud suddenly appears as a much older Disraeli, sporting a kind of inverted grin and made up to look remarkably like Raymond Massey as Abraham Lincoln. From this point on, Gielgud is in his glory - he's exciting to listen to, and his facial expressions are pricelessly funny. From this point on, the film picks up steam and doesn't lose impetus until the final frames.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disraeli And His Queen
bkoganbing17 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I certainly hope no one is using this propagandistic biographical film about Benjamin Disraeli as a short cut for a term paper. So much of his interesting story is left out. Still John Gielgud as Disraeli and Diana Wynyard as the widow Maryanne Wyndham-Lewis do very well with the somewhat skimpy material they're given.

The life of Benjamin Disraeli was better covered in the BBC series about Disraeli that starred Ian McShane than in The Prime Minister. The film begins with the entrance of young dandy Disraeli to Parliament as a Tory where his foppish attire draws a whole lot of ridicule. Had you told the members of Parliament from both sides that Disraeli would be Prime Minister one day, they'd have had you committed. But he did buckle down and learn the parliamentary trade.

Completely fictitious is the kindly interest Lord Melbourne took in Disraeli. Melbourne was as dubious as to Disraeli's political future as any of the rest of his colleagues were. Disraeli was also not present at the time young Princess Victoria learned that her uncle, King William IV had died in 1837 from Lord Melbourne. In 1837 Victoria didn't know Disraeli except as an author of some novels, which by the way he never completely stopped doing even after his political career was in high gear.

Disraeli moves from young political hopeful circa 1845 to Prime Minister in 1874, even skipping over the fact he had a brief, but very important short time in the office in 1868 where he reversed Conservative Party policy and backed the Reform bill extending the franchise. The newly enfranchised voters turned out the Tories that year, but remembered them well in 1874. Essentially Disraeli created the Conservative Party as it exists today with that bit of farsighted statesmanship. His role in acquiring the Suez Canal for the United Kingdom also does not get a mention.

But this was a wartime propaganda film and we then move to Disraeli's greatest political triumph at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. What we have here is Disraeli facing down the Three Emperors League which was put together by German Chancellor Bismarck, portrayed here as rapacious as the current German leader whom the UK was at war with. Actually at the Berlin Conference was a management summit where the big European Powers decided to peacefully run the continent and their colonial possessions without any war. Disraeli and Bismarck both had the measure of each other and had either of them been in charge in 1914 World War I would never have happened.

The Prime Minister was accurate as to the love match between the Disraelis. Young Disraeli was quite the rake in his youth, but when he met and married the widow Maryanne Wyndham-Lewis he was devoted to her the rest of his life. Diana Wynyard has a touching death scene which happens right after Disraeli becomes Prime Minister again in 1874.

Taking into account it was a propaganda piece the two leads and the rest of the cast do a fine job in their performances. But I would recommend the Ian McShane series as a serious study of Disraeli's whole rich and complex life.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Film omits fact that Disraeli was Jewish
iragrossma20 August 2000
This film had one serious flaw. It did not mention even once that Disraeli was Jewish. Almost the whole history of Disraeli's personal and political life was a history of struggling to overcome Anti-Semitism and struggling to be accepted into mainstream British society.Just describing the history of a dandy young man and novelist who becomes one of the rising stars of a young group of politicians during the earlyVictorian period doesn't give us the complete story of the real Disraeli
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
interesting to fans of history and of geilgud
ksf-228 December 2022
Such an abscure film, which finally came to TCM. There have been several films made about disreali, from his humble beginnings as writer to prime minister in the late 1800s, and trusted friend of the royals. The mighty geilgud had already been doing stage for twenty years when this role came along, although most of us know him from the films "arthur" and "becket". To some, the specific details of british political history can be pretty dry. The writers must have thought so also, as they frequently use written cards to move the story along, showing disreali, as he climbs the steps of offices. It's okay. The 1929 version with george arliss focuses more on trying to purchase the suez canal and keeping the russians in check. That one is a little more fun to watch. This 1941 version is directed by thorold dickinson, who was nominated for "oeuverture". Released in 1941, geilgud made this very early in his film career, possibly to influence england's actions during world war II.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Real politics is more fun than this!
diceman4 April 2000
A stodgy love story, loosely tied in to the life of Disraeli. One of those films where it starts out with the main stars as young lovers, and then you get a few paragraphs of text that fill in 30 years or so, and then they are old and dying. Perhaps there is a good film to be made from the political battles of the Victorian 'giants', Disraeli and Gladstone, but this is not it.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Dismal Disraeli
LCShackley6 December 2007
Obviously, this film was designed to bolster the morale of the Brits at the time of the Blitz, but couldn't Warner Brothers have been more careful with the flow of the picture? It begins, as many biopics do, by reducing a great person's life to a flimsy love story. Only later, when his wife leaves the picture, does this truly become a political film. John Gielgud, looking wispy and vaguely Disraelite, turns in one of his least believable performances, especially in the scenes where he plays the elderly Disraeli. The poor make-up job, and his ridiculously stereotyped "old man" facial features make some of those scenes almost unwatchable.

This is the second film from this era that I have recently seen (the other being "The Life of Emile Zola") where a studio can make a picture about a Jewish person without ever mentioning the "J" word. When a person's Jewishness is so central to the plot, pussyfooting around it is unforgivable.

From a historical perspective, my favorite parts of this film were the Disraeli harangues in which he is obviously rubbing salt in Chamberlain-the-appeaser's wounds. I'm sure Churchill would have loved watching those scenes.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
World war II propaganda flick
Caj-38 October 2002
This film was produced in 1941, and the feeling one gets when watching it that you are being educated in how to be loyal to England. A loose portrayal of the life and career of Benjamin Disraeli, culminating in him making military moves, with the consent of queen Victoria behind the cabinets back.

Very ham-fisted in its message, you almost want to start arguing with the screen, not because its particularly inaccurate in its portrayal of Disraeli, just that its essentially a war-time propaganda film, and nothing can be that cut and dried.

Gielgud is fascinating to watch as always, but even he seems to begin to grate towards the end.

*1/2 out of ****
8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bejamin Disraeli, his wife and Queen Victoria.
clanciai5 August 2020
John Gielgud makes a great performance as the formidable statesman Benjamin Disraeli, emerging from nothing to a successful novelist, and then embarking on politics for good and for worse, in constant clinch with the equally great statesman William Gladstone, whose part in this is rather secondary; while Diana Wynyard as Mrs. Disraeli always is a treat and has a superior qualitty and knack of dominating every film she is in by simply outshining everyone else, apparently by her beauty, but there is a very special magic about her. The film was one-sidedly patriotic, it was made in the worst time of the war, when anything was needed to bolster the British resistance fighting spirit, and so the film is hopelessly tendentious, keeping dead quiet about the fact that Disraeli was a Jew, importing a complex which is a driving force for so many of that ancestry, often leading them to extremely high and responsible positions, which they usually carry with honour, of which Disraeli is a perfect example. The film is a feast for the eyes from beginning to end, the costumes are consistently sumptuous, there are overwhelming ball scenes and the fascinating love story between Diana Wynyard and John Gielgud; and then there is Fay Compton as Queen Victoria, almost vying with Wynyard for charm and adorability - she makes a fascinating portrait of the Queen, which must be true. In brief, for all lovers of historical costume films, this is a major treat, and if you also are capable of appreciating great acting, that adds to the treat.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Three cheers for Colonialism!
planktonrules9 December 2022
"The Prime Minister" is a film of its times. As Britain had its back up against the wall against the German war machine, most of the films made in the UK were intended to bolster the war effort...either directly or indirectly. So, while the film is set in the 19th century, its aim clearly is to harken back to a bygone era...when Britain was the strongest colonial power on the planet. It also has the theme of unity and draws obvious parallels to Churchill and his seemingly lone campaign against the Axis. The film also was designed to turn American sentiment towards the cause of this underdog. As a result, the film seems a bit overly schmaltzy and overly dramatic at times. Realism was being sacrificed for propaganda reasons.

Unlike the earlier Warner Brothers film, "Disraeli" (1929), this film from the same studio tries to do an overview of Benjamin Disraeli's entire career. It follows him as a rich dandy to joining Parliament to becoming Prime Minister (several times...off and on). All the while, his wife is by his side...encouraging and pushing him toward greatness.

So is it any good? Yes, but I was surprised that occasionally John Gielgud (Disraeli) overacted a bit. He also struggled with showing emotion...any emotion. He was a great actor, but you can't see a lot of this greatness here. But as I said above, realism was sacrificed a bit in order to make the film rousing and a propaganda piece...and that had to effect his acting. The film also, at least in 2022, a bit stodgy and slow. Not a bad film...but you might learn a better lesson about the man by reading the Wikipedia article on him. Also, I agree with the reviewer, as it seems odd that the movie never once mentions that Disraeli was Jewish (though he later converted to the Church of England)...odd considering the state of Jewry in 1941.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A reasoned view
SJBUSHELL5 March 2004
Ok, so the acting was rather theatrical and the message rather patriotic. But, like Henry VI, it was a propaganda war film to stir the spirit of the English people in the height of the second world war. It didn't have the writing credits of Shakespeare but this must also be taken into consideration. To critise a film written for the sole purpose of bolstering the battered and bombed people of the British Isles in WWII and comparing it with what we are used to now as historical films (although Braveheart, The Patriot and U571 may be more deserving of criticism than The Prime Minister) is being blindsighted.

This film should be considered for what it's purpose is and what film has ever portrayed any historical figure in his or her real light. We have documentaries for that.

Just watch the film for what it is.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Clear your history

Recently Viewed