Royal Flash

(Movie Review)

Why I Watched This Movie

          Regular readers of this blog know that I discovered the Flashman series late.  However, once I did discover Flashman, I became an enthusiastic fan and read through the whole series.

            This is the only movie adaptation of the Flashman series.  It came out in 1975, and It doesn’t have a very good reputation (more on that below), but being a completeist I wanted to check it out anyway.  For curiosity’s sake, if nothing else.

            So, when I found this movie at the DVD stores in Cambodia, I wasted no time in buying it and taking it home.

This Movie’s Reputation

            This movie was a huge flop, and is furthermore regarded as a disappointment by Flashman fans everywhere, including Flashman’s creator, George MacDonald Fraser, who afterwards said that he would never let another Flashman movie be made because, after the experience of Royal Flash,  he "will not let anyone else have control of the script ... and that simply does not happen in Hollywood."

            One of my British friends and fellow Flashman fans, (someone who’s a bigger Flashman fan than me actually) even went so far as to tell me not to watch the movie, because it would ruin Flashman for me.  (He said he actually turned the movie off halfway through, because he was worried the film would ruin the books for him if he kept watching it.)

            The sins of this movie are many in the eyes of Flashman fans, but the principle complaint is that it skipped over the first book of the series and adapted the second book instead.

            As my friend said, “When you think of Flashman, you want to see him fighting the pirates in Borneo, or sailing to Madagascar.  You don’t want to see him stuck inside of that dark castle for the whole movie.  What fun is that?”

            Also, for us history geeks who enjoy Flashman because of all the little historical tidbits, Royal Flash is the least historical of the books—it’s the only one of the Flashman books that takes place in a fictitious setting. 

            The story is bookended by some real historical material (the Revolutions of 1848, the Schleswig-Holstein Question and real life characters Lola Montez, and Otto von Bismarck), but it’s primarily a spoof on The Prisoner of Zenda, and as such largely takes place in the fictional country of Strackenz.

            The AVclub interview with Malcolm McDowell offers some insight into why the producers chose to adapt the second book instead of the first book.

Royal Flash, it was a lot of fun to do it. It was really sad that we didn’t start that franchise with the first book. But there was so much baggage attached to it that Dick Lester said, “To hell with it, let’s just do the second one.” That’s why there’s this whole thing at the beginning with him at the fort—that’s the whole of the first book, right there. Awarded the V.C., because he had the Union Jack draped around him. Of course it fell on him, hit him, knocked him out, and he got entwined in it. It was a great part, but it didn’t really quite gel. The script was a bit overlong, then they introduced the partisans halfway through. Just a bit too much going on, I think. But Oliver Reed was wonderful as Bismarck.

AVC: The books aren’t that well known in the U.S., but that must have been a hugely anticipated film in Britain.

MM: Yes, I think so. But in Britain, there again, it should have been the first one, and I think people just went, “That’s weird.” So they didn’t go see it.

            It’s not specified what the extra baggage is, but I’m guessing that in the 1970s the British quagmire in Afghanistan was all too similar to the American quagmire in Vietnam. 

            There is also some abuse of women in the first Flashman book (one of George MacDonald Fraser’s more questionable gambits, and something makes the book very difficult to adapt to film.)

            And of course, one suspects budget constraints were also a factor.

The Review

          Well…it’s not a terrible film.

            Once you forgive the fact that they skipped over the first book in the series, it’s actually very faithful to the original source material (for those of us who care about such things.)  The story of Flashman bumbling into Otto von Bismarck, and Lola Montez, and then getting on both of their bad sides and becoming the victim of their machinations  in the fictional kingdom of  Strackenz all unfolds pretty much the way it happens in the book.

            And yet, I hate to say it, but the film is pretty boring to watch.

            Exactly what went wrong here is hard for me to put my finger on.  All the right elements seem to be in place, but the comedy just isn’t that funny, and the swashbuckling just isn’t that exciting.

            In other words, there’s nothing really wrong with this film, but there’s nothing really right with it either.  It plods along, dutifully hitting all the plot points from the original novel, but just never manages to become engaging in its own right.  Roger Ebert said of this movie: It's as if Lester and Fraser had such faith in the intrinsic funniness of a comic swashbuckler that they didn't work to make this particular one funny. So all the elements are in place, but nothing seems to work and nobody seems much concerned.

            Film history is littered with literary adaptations that appeared to have all the right elements from the book, and yet failed to work as films.  And this is but another example.

            Part of the problem is that in a Flashman book, the actual story is really only half the pleasure.  The long historical footnotes, which give the biographies of all the historical figures and background to the events, are what really make the book.

            In the book Royal Flash, Fraser, in his footnotes, gives the whole fascinating story of the real life Lola Montez (W).  In the movie, you don’t get any of this.  And without knowing her historical background, there’s very little of her in the movie that would appear interesting in its own right.  She just appears as a slightly crazy angry woman.

Cast and Crew

          The movie is directed by Richard Lester (W), who is most famous as the director of the Beatles movies A Hard Days Night and Help!.  And if you’ve seen the Beatles movies (and back in my Beatles - fan phase, I watched those movies not a few times) you can pick up on some of the same humor techniques being used in Royal Flash—for example having a character say something loudly, and then add a humorous aside in a much softer voice.

            (Also something that is reminiscent of the Beatles’ movies: in many of the scenes, there’s something a little bit off about the audio.  I’m fairly sure in some of these scenes the audio must have been recorded separately, and later synched onto the film.  Whatever it is, it’s just enough to be distracting.  But I think this was fairly common of British films from this era.)

            Bismarck is played by Oliver Reed (W), who is a famous British actor best known for playing imposing tough characters (I remember him as Bill Sykes the musical Oliver! (W) which I saw as a kid) and he does an excellent job here.

            For Bob Hoskins (W) fans, this movie was one of his first rules, and he’s got a little bit part in this movie as a Cockney London police officer.

            Roger Ebert gives a little interesting tidbit on many of the extras in this movie: The cast also is populated with a gallery of British character actors who've made a specialty of dressing up as Victorian officers, twirling their moustaches, strutting about and blustering. Just as Hollywood has a dozen or so standard Western character actors who always look at home on a horse or in a saloon, so England has Alastair Sim and Lionel Jeffries and Michael Hordern (and the best of all at this sort of thing, Trevor Howard, although he's not in "Royal Flash"). They add background and personality and a nice hokey quality I wish the movie had more of.

            And Flashman is played by Malcolm McDowell (Clockwork Orange, Star Trek: Generations).  Since the casting of Malcolm McDowell is somewhat controversial among Flashman fans, I’ll deal with that next.

The Portrayal of Flashman

          One of the reasons my friend hates this movie so much is because of Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of Flashman.  “The thing is,” he said to me, “in the novels Flashman is always able to bluff his way through and look brave.  Of course, because you know his thoughts, you know he’s absolutely terrified on the inside.  But he’s able to keep that all hidden underneath and pretend to be brave.  They didn’t show that in the movie.”

            George MacDonald Fraser was also reportedly unhappy with the casting choice. It wasn't just his looks and his style. He had that shifty quality

            And Roger Ebert said of Flashman: McDowell just doesn't seem focused enough. Flashman, at least as he comes through in such Fraser stories as the current Playboy serial, is maniacally devoted to his own cause and needs. McDowell doesn't project the ego. He seems like an observer at his own outrages.

           

            …Me?  I actually thought the Flashman in this movie was alright.

            This is a problem with any cinematic adaptation of a book.  The reader has used the author’s descriptions to create their own portraits of the character in their minds.  Not all readers create the same image in their mind, and every time a book gets adopted as a movie, you have some readers who are upset because the portrayal on film doesn’t match what they’ve created in their heads.

            But my own internal image of Flashman was very similar to what I saw being portrayed on the screen.

            Flashman is very good at bluffing, it’s true.  But once he realizes he’s in a situation where pretending to be brave is not going to do him very good, he’ll very quickly resort to begging, pleading, crying and whining.  This was very clear in the books.  And I thought Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of Flashman was very much in line with this.

            And yes, I suppose Malcolm McDowell is a little bit on the skinny side, and ideally you want Flashman to look a bit more like the swashbuckling hero he pretends to be.  But to me it’s a minor complaint.

            The opening scene especially I thought was very good, in which Malcolm McDowell does a good job of showing how sanctimonious Flashman can pretend to be, and then quickly juxtaposes this with Flashman’s actual character in a gambling and whore house.

            This was from the early days of the Flashman series, back when the books still served as a parody on the Victorian cult of duty and honor.  In an excellent parody of Patton,  Flashman stands in front of a giant British flag, and while proud patriotic music is playing in the background, Flashman spouts out meaningless platitudes about country and duty.  It’s all nonsense, and of course Flashman himself doesn’t believe a word of it, but Malcolm McDowell sells it so well. There appears to be a zealot’s fever in his eyes as he yells out this stuff, and his fervent demeanor so completely fools his audience.

            So, the last thing I have to tell you young fellows is this: play-up, and play the game! Honour your Queen and country! Mind what your Masters tell you.  Say your prayers each night.  Keep your minds and your bodies clean! Take a cold bath each day, and you’ll find you can always look the world in the eye like an English gentleman.

            Now my lads, I’m just a simple soldier….Yes, I am though.  But I tell you, if you follow these rules, then, when the last role call comes, you’ll be able to go up before the great headmaster with a clean British conscience and say: “Well sir, I tried to do my duty.”

            And I think… I think you’ll find, that’s good enough for him

            (You really do need to watch the video to get the full flavor of this though.  Watch the first minute of the video below.)

Trivia
IMDB has an interesting little bit of trivia.  In addition to being famous for the Beatles movies, Richard Lester is also responsible for coming into work on Superman II and III after Richard Donner got removed from production.  According to IMDB, Richard Lester worked in a character named Flashman in Superman III as an homage to this earlier work. (I've seen Superman III.  I don't remember this character, but I'll watch out for it when I see it again.)

Link of the Day
Chomsky at the United Nations