Cromwell, a warning from history

Or at least a warning from the movie version of history (I'm not going to consider its inaccuracies here). With Parliament suffering abuses that are unprecedented in centuries, and even the Daily Mail recognising the problems of the executive going against Parliament, this movie from 1970 is ultra topical.

For some reason this movie was panned by critics, though I can only assume due to idiocy. One review on Rotten Tomatoes seems to be especially confused as to why Cromwell is here portrayed as a fanatic instead of a hero : because he was, and because reality is rarely about heroes and villains. Charles I acted with villainous tyranny, but he wasn't opposed by a hero but just a different sort of lunatic. Sure, Cromwell had ideals which, it must be said, ultimately brought about the end of absolute monarchy - and he is to be applauded for that. But his methods were flawed, even allowing that the civil war was instigated by the king, and his principles confused. He acts both with ruthlessness, compassion, naivety and determination. He is a complex character who occasionally achieves heroic things but is ultimately a deeply flawed human being.

Charles I is always going to be portrayed as a villain, and rightly so (he started the problems and deserves the bulk of the blame), but this movie comes as close as possible to rehabilitating him. But what is it that Cromwell actually wants ? We never really find out, because he himself doesn't actually know. Supposedly it's a more democratic form of government. Yet Parliament itself is clearly shown to be no more or less competent than Cromwell or the King. All three protagonists - Parliament itself being an entity of sorts - are capable of moments of greatness, yet all are equally capable of squandering opportunities, of squabbling, of catastrophic misjudgements and naked greed. In short, while it's not perfectly historically accurate, it's astonishingly realistic.

I've been reading the Penguin Classics selection of Cicero's speeches entitled "On Government" recently (more on that in a future post). Cromwell is a lot like the tragic fall of the Roman Republic in reverse : Caesar rose to dictatorship through military struggle, whereas Cromwell instigated democracy through a civil war. Both struggles feature eloquent, impassioned speeches from their main protagonists : history indeed doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes.

Except, of course, ultimately, Cromwell doesn't end well. It doesn't end with England becoming democratic and free. Instead, a devoted democrat turns tyrant when he discovers that the Parliament he fought for doesn't function as he thinks it should (I imagine the stage directions to Richard Harris consisted solely of, "Look expasterated. No no, more exasperated"). The situation is an omnishambles with no good clear choices; the three main entities are all, to an extent, a victim of circumstance. None of them really fully understand the problems of the system well enough to implement sensible reforms. Consequently, we don't get a happy ending - we get a tragic failure, brief enough in the grand scheme of things but protracted enough for those living through it. In the end, yes, the country did pull itself back together, but that interlude between monarchies was something it endured more than enjoyed. The mere progration of Parliament doesn't even begin to describe just how damn topical this film is right now.