January 3, 2013
Scandal – Britain,
1989
I don’t believe that Stephen Ward was a pimp, at least not
in the traditional way. A pimp uses women as a source of financial income and
is not known for being respectful toward them. This description hardly seems appropriate
for Ward. However, I find myself at a loss to adequately describe his
impressions of women. As depicted in Michael Canton-Jones’s film Scandal, Ward is a man who relishes the
prestige that comes with having the personal connections that he has. After
all, not all osteopaths rent homes from and hang out with members of
parliament, and not all osteopaths are given the chance to assist MI:5 in their
investigation of a potential Russian spy. Ward seems to bask in the thrill of
associating with these powerful men, and he allows himself to believe that he
is leading the kind of life that James Bond would envy. Does it matter that one
of the ways he preserves his lifestyle is by introducing his friends to
beautiful women?
Scandal is the
true story of the “Profumo Affair,” a scandal that rocked the British
government in 1963 and eventually culminated in both the resignation of the
Minister of War and the eventual downfall of the Conservative government. The
first half of the film details the beginnings of the scandal. It introduces
audiences to the seedier side of London – the Burlesque acts, the philandering
politicians and their accommodating, powerful friends, and the women who get
involved with them. It is in this part of the film that we are introduced to
Christine Keeler (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer), an eighteen-year-old showgirl who’s
the star attraction of a very popular Burlesque show. During one performance,
she catches the attention of Dr. Ward (John Hurt). The good doctor begins his
pursuit of her immediately, and eventually she is posing for him on his couch
while he woos her with promises of liberation and opportunity. I imagine these
promises are similar to the ones a pimp uses in a sales pitch. Soon the two of
them are attending sex parties together (never as a couple), and she’s being
pursued by a number of Ward’s well-connected friends, one of which just happens
to be the Minister of War, John Profumo (Ian McKellen). Another is Eugene
Ivanov (Jeroen Krabbe), who may or may not be a Russian spy. You can see how
this could lead to problems.
Despite its fascinating subject matter, the film never quite
finds the right pace. Too much screen time is devoted to sex parties and rendezvous
and too little time to seemingly important events. One of these events involves
an encounter between Christine and a man known as Lucky. In the film, they
spend one night together, and apparently, that it all it takes for Lucky to
become so obsessed with her that he barges into her apartment one night and
gets into a physical altercation with her then boyfriend Johnny (Roland Gift
from The Fine Young Cannibals). I just didn’t buy it, yet the events of that
evening have long-term ramifications for all of the participants involved, and to
be believable, they deserved more screen time.
On the plus side, the film is well acted, and it has a few
rather fascinating characters. One of the difficulties in playing a character
like Ward is that he is destined to remain somewhat of an enigma regardless of
the caliber of the actor playing him. His appeal to women is a bit of a
mystery. He’s not excessively handsome, nor does he speak in particularly
mesmerizing tones. What he does do is approach everything with an air of both
confidence and ease, as if his actions and the society in which he belongs were
perfectly natural. In fact, he makes casual sex out to be as natural as apple
pie. He also has a level of confidence in himself which is very seductive. Hurt’s
performance shows that he understands this. Whalley-Kilmer is equally convincing
as Christine. There’s a particular moment in the film when she looks into Hurt’s
eyes and it’s clear that she is in love with him. Her next expression perfectly
captures the look of a woman who has just realized that her feelings are not reciprocated.
Films like this can often get stuck between a rock and a
hard place. Should they focus on the tantalizing, salacious parts of the story
or the political and legal side? Should they try to get to the bottom of the
main character’s actions or just report what happened faithfully? Scandal elects to devote most of its
time to the salacious, and as a result, the second half of the film feels extremely
rushed. Therefore, I suspect viewers will have many unanswered questions by the
time the credits roll. Director Canton-Jones does try to make up for this by
inserting short explanations of what happened to the film’s key characters. However,
they are simply not enough. Scandal
is fascinating at times, frustrating at others, and by the end of the film, we’re
no closer to the truth than we were at the beginning. Audiences deserve a bit
more. (on DVD)
3 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment