User Reviews

To be frank, I was surprised to learn that this was an American production (althought it might explain the somewhat strident note of the patriotic slant); I find it hard to picture the Hays Office ever passing a script in which the heroine is revealed, in the opening scene, to have already been the mistress of not just one man but many, and who then, once finally legally espoused, launches into an adulterous liaison with a married man resulting in an illegitimate child. Surely (however historically well-founded) this was scarcely the high moral tone that notoriously wanted to strip the merest occurrences of "God" from the screenplay of Shakespeare's "Henry V" -- the play of "God for Harry, England & St George"?

But then Emma Hamilton really did have the grace to die in alcoholic poverty, so perhaps history's moral was deemed adequate to the task. At any rate, for whatever reason, "Lady Hamilton" made it to the screen and remains in many ways a success. It is beautifully shot and lavishly produced, with a bravura performance from a truly lovely Vivien Leigh, and in its opening scenes boasts in addition a subtle and ironically intelligent script. Alan Mowbray shines as Sir William Hamilton, and Sara Allgood is gloriously vulgar as Emma's mother.

It is the character of Nelson that comes near to sinking the script, and it really isn't Laurence Olivier's fault. Arguably he doesn't convey Nelson's charisma -- there is little here of the 'Nelson Touch' that won him the devotion of captains and seamen alike, and it's hard to see what Emma sees in him other than the reflected glory of his achievements -- but in any case the part is a thankless and all but impossible one. It is not so much that Olivier is essentially playing trophy male in the leading lady's star vehicle, for this was his accustomed studio function at the period: he'd already adorned the screen opposite the dominance of Elisabeth Bergner, Flora Robson, Merle Oberon (twice), Joan Fontaine and Greer Garson. The trouble is the anachronistic political luggage hung on the part in an ill-fitting attempt to equate the Napoleonic Wars with the British Empire's battle against Hitler -- the speeches are at best clunky, at worst gratingly inappropriate when applied to the Corsican emperor's policies in place of those of the Nazis.

It's a pity, because the script and production are otherwise good and frequently excellent, and the special effects are also noteworthy. The layers of makeup that Olivier (enamoured as ever of prosthetics) uses to represent Nelson's increasing disfigurement are, while somewhat distracting, undeniably disturbing; Olivier's 'blind' eye is all too convincing in its unseeing lack of life. And his death scene in the bowels of the "Victory" is a remarkably accurate recreation in tableau of Arthur Devis' famous painting "The Death of Nelson" -- perhaps not Great Cinema, but instantly recognisable.

Meanwhile, the depiction of the Battle of Trafalgar itself, given the constraints of the era, is actually pretty well done. The use of models (and the occasional back-projection) is apparent, but the ships look as if they're actually moving under sail rather than just motoring along in the studio tank, the gun-flashes are in the right place (bow-chasers in reply to broadsides), and the drama of Nelson's head-on approach is genuinely tense. Ships loom abruptly out of rolling clouds of smoke as the French line is broken and all is thundering chaos; this is a far more lifelike representation of seaborne action than the vast majority of films of the time and a good many more recent productions manage, for all its unapologetic limitations.

But chiefly this is Vivien Leigh's picture as the title character. While her interactions with her husband as Nelson are somewhat turgid, when she is acting opposite Alan Mowbray or Sara Allgood she sparkles, and in the prologue she is convincingly raddled and worn. This is a one-woman show in which the rest of the cast are merely supporting players, and she rises entirely to the occasion, not only gloriously beautiful -- the Romney portrait in whose guise we first see her is simply dazzling, but the woman in the flesh is its match -- but compelling our attention as generous, frivolous, warm-hearted, adulatory Emma. She takes the character and makes her both human and sympathetic, and the film has laughter as well as genuine pathos.

Not perhaps in the first rank of 'weepies', but it's a fine piece of entertainment. It's just a shame the contemporary propaganda angle is so unsubtly done.

Nations need their heroes, sometimes with great desperation. Such was the case in the series of wars from 1792 to 1815 which were fought between Great Britain and first Revolutionary France and then the First French Empire. Britain had to finance this series of wars, because the various major continental powers it tried to ally itself with again and again against the French (and later against Napoleon I) were financially unable to support the war efforts (especially after the French would defeat the armies of these countries, march in, and change their government).

The British also fought the French army and navy face to face. But here was the problem: Up until the second period of the wars (1802 - 1815) Britain produced no field commander of real stature. The General-in-Chief of the Army was George III's favorite son, Frederick, Duke of York, who was (apparently) able but little else. He is the one in the old nursery rhyme song, "The good old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men...." Frederick never showed more than moderate abilities as a field commander, but it was smashed when his mistress, Mary Ann Clarke, was caught selling commissions in the army for a "commissions fee". Fred resigned. Mary did not go to prison (her grandson was the author of PETER IBBETSON and TRILBY, George du Maurier; her great grandson was the stage star Gerald du Maurier; her great granddaughter and biographer the author of REBECCA and JAMAICA INN and FRENCHMAN'S CREEK Daphne du Maurier - not bad for a so-called "fallen woman".).

It would not be until the appearance of those two stunningly good generals, Sir John Moore (who built up British field performance before his death at Corunna in 1809) and Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) {who learned military technique in India, took it to Europe, drove the French out of Spain, and defeated Napoleon at Waterloo) that the army finally got good commanders. Notably after their arrival Napoleon and the French were defeated. But for the first part of the wars 1792 - 1802 it was the Navy that really gave England her heroes. And the hero it gave was Horatio Nelson, who even today is considered England's greatest naval tactician.

When he came on the scene there were others: Richard, Lord Howe, who won the "Glorious First of June" in 1794, and Adam Duncan, who won the battle Camperdown in 1798 (following the Great Fleet Mutiny of that year - see DAMN THE DEFIANT). But Nelson had a string of them, from Cape St. Vincent (in 1797), to the stunning battle of the Nile (1798) to Copenhagen (1800) to his greatest victory Trafalgar (1805) where he was shot down in battle. In these battles he repeatedly bent or threw away the textbook regulations that had fossilized most naval officers. He also built up a group of fellow officers who continued his innovations (Cuthbert Collingwood, Thomas Hardy, Troubridge, Lord Cochrane) and pursued the French until the end of the war. These men stiffened that impregnable wooden wall that kept the French from taking Britain and ruling the world.

THAT HAMILTON WOMAN deals with the one flaw in his record as a man - an understandable one. In command of the Meditteranean Fleet in 1797 - 98, Nelson frequently docked in the allied Kingdom of Naples. The royal family was advised closely by Sir William Hamilton, the British Ambassador there. Sir William and his wife Emma held a miniature court, advising the locals and meeting celebrities. Emma Hamilton was a very beautiful woman, and Sir William married her because of that - her background was not great (one of her best jobs was working for a quack doctor in London). Emma met Nelson, and the two fell in love. Hamilton was aware of this, but as it was England's greatest hero he winked at his wife's new lover.

Eventually it became known. As Nelson was married (to a clergyman's daughter) and had a child it did not sit very well...as far as Emma went. Horatio was allowed to do whatever he wanted - he was saving the country. In fact, in 1803 he actually gave testimony for the defense of Colonel Marcus Despard, a friend who went mad and tried to overthrow the government and assassinate King George III (Despard was still found guilty and executed). Up to his heroic death, Nelson could do no wrong. But Emma was left after 1805 to go into poverty and exile in Calais, France, where she died in 1818.

This film is a rare one. It is one of the few made by Olivier and his wife Vivien Leigh, and only FIRE OVER ENGLAND merits comparison. Both give good account of themselves as the lovers, although their relationship was a bit more boisterous and noisy than this account makes it. Gladys Cooper is splendid in her one scene as Nelson's wronged wife confronting Leigh. Alan Mowbray has a rarity - a moving dying scene. Sir William was one of England's great art collectors, but the ship with his wonderful collection was wrecked when he returned home. He suffered a stroke that killed him, and that also affected his mind. Watch him request his servant shift a now non-existent painting on the wall because it's crooked. Quite unforgettable.

This is one of my favorite historic epic/romantic films. It stars Lawrence Olivier as Lord Nelson and Vivien Leigh as Emma Hart Hamilton, with Vivien Leigh fresh from her triumph in "Gone with the Wind" and at a time when the real-life romance and marriage between the two stars (Leigh and Olivier) was new.

The film is largely accurate, which is unusual for an historical drama of its time since these usually took great license with the truth. The departures from the truth that the film took were largely to satisfy the censors of the time. The truth is that William Hamilton, Emma's older husband, accepted and even encouraged the affair between his wife and Lord Nelson. When Emma set up housekeeping with Lord Nelson in England, William Hamilton lived there with them in a menage a trois relationship that fascinated the public of the time. In 1941 this would have been unacceptable on the screen.

The implication of the film is that Emma's daughter by Lord Nelson died. In fact their daughter married a man of the cloth, had ten children, and died at the age of 80. Emma's end as it is portrayed in the film is sadly accurate. Women of Emma's time were largely dependent upon their station in life and upon the whims of the men in their lives. If those men died, even if the man was great, women often found themselves in desperate poverty.

This is an extremely frustrating movie, not because of the acting. Not even because of the script, especially considering the historical significance of the backstory (Winston commenting on Hitler in the form of Lord Nelson fighting Napoleon). But the camera work and, even worse, the directing is abominable.

The frustration comes from Olivier and Leigh literally not being in the same shot until halfway through the movie. Whenever you see the face of one, you are seeing the back of the other (if it is the other, it may even have been a stand-in). And so it's impossible to see the chemistry between them. Even in one hopeful scene where Leigh is running, running, running to him...Rather than getting the payoff of the two of them embracing and seeing the magic between them, you get only the back of Olivier's (or a stand-in's) head.

But finally, finally, literally in the middle of the movie, they come together in a kiss, a magnetic kiss that shows the power of the pull between them as well as the power of their acting.

The reason for the frustration is that this is the proving ground to show that Wuthering Heights, as wonderful as it was, wold have been immeasurably better with Leigh in the role of Catherine Earnshaw rather than Merle ("I chew furniture and call it acting") Oberon. Vivien Leigh IS Cathy, just as she is Scarlett O'Hara (who is, after all, just a shadow of Cathy). They are the same role, really, and Leigh would have bought all the power of her performance in Gone with the Wind to Wuthering Heights, and then some, stirred on by Olivier.

So, do see this movie. But not for the movie's sake. Treat yourself to another movie as you see this one. Realize how they would have been as Heathcliffe and Cathy, together, as they should have been.