Peter O'Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as Jack, a man “curedâ€
Criterionforum.org user rating averages
Feature currently disabled
132 The Ruling Class
-
Martha
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:53 am
- Location: all up in thurr
132 The Ruling Class
The Ruling Class
Peter O'Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as Jack, a man “curedâ€
Criterionforum.org user rating averages
Feature currently disabled
Peter O'Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as Jack, a man “curedâ€
Criterionforum.org user rating averages
Feature currently disabled
-
jorencain
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:45 am
I can't just let that sit there as the only comment, so I'll take it from there...
I've only watched this once and, while I really enjoyed it, it was an exhausting experience. It definitely feels overly long, but Peter O'Toole's screen presence is amazing. I need to sit down and watch it again to see how I feel after a second viewing, but I anticipate that it will go by a little more quickly, now that I know what to expect.
I know that wasn't too much better than "it rocked", but I tried.
I've only watched this once and, while I really enjoyed it, it was an exhausting experience. It definitely feels overly long, but Peter O'Toole's screen presence is amazing. I need to sit down and watch it again to see how I feel after a second viewing, but I anticipate that it will go by a little more quickly, now that I know what to expect.
I know that wasn't too much better than "it rocked", but I tried.
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
I agree that at first it felt overlong. I was getting a big kick out of this movie, I love O'Toole and Alistair Sim, who were both the drawing points for me, and I loved the sudden, odd musical numbers. But by the last little bit I was getting a little tired of it all, even though I figured it would pick up again once he turned to Jack the Ripper. But like you suspected, repeat viewings do work better, though something tells me a little trimming would have helped, at least for me.
Love the ending, though. For some reason, out of all the crazy crap that happens in this movie, him walking past those images of corpses is the only thing from the film that really REALLY stuck in my head. Very creepy.
Love the ending, though. For some reason, out of all the crazy crap that happens in this movie, him walking past those images of corpses is the only thing from the film that really REALLY stuck in my head. Very creepy.
-
lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
-
Astroman
- FAQ: "Man or Astroman?"
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:31 pm
Wow.
I just finished watching this for the first time in about twenty years. What with the fuller, British cut* and all, it really was like seeing it for the first time. (Having said that, O'Toole's scream just before he went to the House of Lords has never really left my subconscious).
I really think this is an amazing film. Though it's a film of its time and place, there's so much relevance to our little world today- more than I expected. "You've forgotten how to punish," sounds like it could come from our House Majority Leader quite naturally, for instance.
I want to think a bit more about it, and post additionaly thoughts later. I hope to get others' additional thoughts as well.
*(as opposed to the Fuller Brush Cut - don't know why I wrote that)
I just finished watching this for the first time in about twenty years. What with the fuller, British cut* and all, it really was like seeing it for the first time. (Having said that, O'Toole's scream just before he went to the House of Lords has never really left my subconscious).
I really think this is an amazing film. Though it's a film of its time and place, there's so much relevance to our little world today- more than I expected. "You've forgotten how to punish," sounds like it could come from our House Majority Leader quite naturally, for instance.
I want to think a bit more about it, and post additionaly thoughts later. I hope to get others' additional thoughts as well.
*(as opposed to the Fuller Brush Cut - don't know why I wrote that)
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Funnily enough, I re-watched this recently, too. I had picked it up because one of my brothers loves it, wasn't overly impressed on my first viewing, but watched it with my other brother and loved it.
It's one of those rare, weird movies that seems to improve with multiple viewings.
And isn't Alastair Sim wearing a pirate hat one of the funniest things you've ever seen? I'd love to use that as an avatar.
It's one of those rare, weird movies that seems to improve with multiple viewings.
And isn't Alastair Sim wearing a pirate hat one of the funniest things you've ever seen? I'd love to use that as an avatar.
-
Astroman
- FAQ: "Man or Astroman?"
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:31 pm
I had a chance to listen to the commentary last night. It was indeed entertaining. All three Peters seem to have fond memories of making the film, and are all proud of the results.
This is my first exposure to the work of Peter Barnes. He mentions in the commentary that he used pop songs of the twenties, thirties, and forties in his works (until he started writing his own lyrics). Similar to Dennis Potter in that sense, which I find interesting. I like what I've seen of Potter, and, based on my brief exposure to each writer, they seem to share traits in form, if not substance.
O'Toole was utterly brilliant. The darkness in him during the last ten to fifteen minutes of the film is frigtening, especially with additional viewings - seeing him throw confetti at his wedding, it's hard to imagine him later in the film. It's tragic, really.
This is my first exposure to the work of Peter Barnes. He mentions in the commentary that he used pop songs of the twenties, thirties, and forties in his works (until he started writing his own lyrics). Similar to Dennis Potter in that sense, which I find interesting. I like what I've seen of Potter, and, based on my brief exposure to each writer, they seem to share traits in form, if not substance.
O'Toole was utterly brilliant. The darkness in him during the last ten to fifteen minutes of the film is frigtening, especially with additional viewings - seeing him throw confetti at his wedding, it's hard to imagine him later in the film. It's tragic, really.
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm
This had been a film that for about the last five years I was terrified of watching: Peter Medak (inconsistent filmmaker); musical number; class system vs. anarchism in early 70s Britain; and - gulp - 154 minutes in total!. I always had an image of a movie mess, but with interesting moments. So, finally, this afternoon, I sat down to watch The Ruling Class. WOW! It's completely nuts. O'Toole is over the edge all the way through - incredible. Frequently, I was bawling with laughter: "I'll love you from the bottom of my heart to the tip of my penis", "Enjoy yourselves while I'm gone; have sex." The 'musical' numbers come out of nowhere and I found them very amusing. The dark humour throughout was very much to my taste and overall, I think that the film is great, though somewhat cold and self-satisfied.
However, I rented the UK edition. The packaging states 154 minutes. It is NOT! It ran 122 (PAL) minutes and was presented in a somewhat scratchy 1.33:1 transfer. I still loved the film, though. But wasn't the original U.S. release 148 minutes, later cut to 141 minutes on VHS? So, what's the deal with this 122- (or 127) minute version? 30-32 minutes is quite a lot to lose. But, as I loved the film, I shall now order the Criterion edition and see how I feel about the longer version. I also would love to hear the O'Toole, Medak and Peter Barnes commentary, which is quite a line-up and is sure to be interesting!
I watched the 154-minute version today via the CC DVD. To be honest, there footage not present in the 122-minute cut that I saw back in March is not entirely satisfying but it adds more more coherence to the plot and character motivations (the entire scene with the rats is not in the 122m cut) and some scenes must be slightly longer, though I could perceive it - the pissing fox is not in the 122m cut.
There is no denying it: Peter Medak's film of Peter Barnes', The Ruling Class was, and still is, as highly unique film in every regard and it never shirks its controversial pathway, all the way to its truly unexpected and mortifying conclusion.
Ian Christie's concise essay is right on the money about the context of the film: "... beneath the veneer of modernization , very little had changed in Britain." And this is something that I doubt many American critics or audiences of the time - or even now - understood, at least to any deep degree. The so-called, "Swinging Sixties", much like all 'revolutions' didn't alter the political paradigm or power structures in Britain - it was all illusion. Grinding poverty remained throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, in which we saw recession, deunionization, significant unemployment, a meaningless war on an island near the Antarctic and all the while the idols remained strong, nary a crack appearing, whilst the masses diverted their attention to a flimsy pop culture, fashions and New Age gobblydegook and ultimately the atomization of Society, and it even being articulated blunkly and shockingly by the PM, Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as 'Society'." But all the while, the ruling class has remained, though they have had to camouflage themselves in various colours over the last 40 years - with one of the few unabashed public rituals remaining: the Fox Hunt, which continues to causes hysterical incredulity in an age of terrorism, health service meltdown and possible apartheid between secular anglo-saxons and Muslims. Earlier in the 70s, there was a film called, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer by Peter Cook, John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Kevin Billington and the in that film, we have in Peter Cook's Michael Rimmer - Tony Blair, it's uncanny. Normally, socio-political films for before the 90s - British films - date very badly, but there have been a few that haven't and The Ruling Class is one of them, but it has such an oddball aesthetic and attitude that it never really remained in peoples' minds as such.
The Ruling Class has an energy and personality all of its own and it is a shame that it isn't appreciated as much as it deserves to be. Yes, it is probably too long, but it barrels along beautifully and the second viewing is incredibly satisfying. It was a film that for many, broke too many rules in its day and even now when comparing it to other films of that period, it stands out as a black sheep, though the following year, we saw Lindsay Anderson's, O, Lucky Man! and Ken Russell was just getting into his stride. O'Toole's performance is electrifying and truly unforgettable and to think that he wasn't paid a penny for the role. He truly deserved to win the Oscar, but The Godfather was a huge smash and Brando was on a comeback, while The Ruling Class was for all intents and purposes, an unknown movie to Americans in 1972-73. A shame.
Incidentally, the film had to be cut to receive an X-certificate from the BBFC on April 12, 1972: As listed here. The Criterion transfer is from a X-rated British element as the certificate precedes the film proper. Criterion indicate that "the original 35mm interpositive" was used for the transfer, so one wonders what condition the original camera negative is in.
However, I rented the UK edition. The packaging states 154 minutes. It is NOT! It ran 122 (PAL) minutes and was presented in a somewhat scratchy 1.33:1 transfer. I still loved the film, though. But wasn't the original U.S. release 148 minutes, later cut to 141 minutes on VHS? So, what's the deal with this 122- (or 127) minute version? 30-32 minutes is quite a lot to lose. But, as I loved the film, I shall now order the Criterion edition and see how I feel about the longer version. I also would love to hear the O'Toole, Medak and Peter Barnes commentary, which is quite a line-up and is sure to be interesting!
I watched the 154-minute version today via the CC DVD. To be honest, there footage not present in the 122-minute cut that I saw back in March is not entirely satisfying but it adds more more coherence to the plot and character motivations (the entire scene with the rats is not in the 122m cut) and some scenes must be slightly longer, though I could perceive it - the pissing fox is not in the 122m cut.
There is no denying it: Peter Medak's film of Peter Barnes', The Ruling Class was, and still is, as highly unique film in every regard and it never shirks its controversial pathway, all the way to its truly unexpected and mortifying conclusion.
Ian Christie's concise essay is right on the money about the context of the film: "... beneath the veneer of modernization , very little had changed in Britain." And this is something that I doubt many American critics or audiences of the time - or even now - understood, at least to any deep degree. The so-called, "Swinging Sixties", much like all 'revolutions' didn't alter the political paradigm or power structures in Britain - it was all illusion. Grinding poverty remained throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, in which we saw recession, deunionization, significant unemployment, a meaningless war on an island near the Antarctic and all the while the idols remained strong, nary a crack appearing, whilst the masses diverted their attention to a flimsy pop culture, fashions and New Age gobblydegook and ultimately the atomization of Society, and it even being articulated blunkly and shockingly by the PM, Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as 'Society'." But all the while, the ruling class has remained, though they have had to camouflage themselves in various colours over the last 40 years - with one of the few unabashed public rituals remaining: the Fox Hunt, which continues to causes hysterical incredulity in an age of terrorism, health service meltdown and possible apartheid between secular anglo-saxons and Muslims. Earlier in the 70s, there was a film called, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer by Peter Cook, John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Kevin Billington and the in that film, we have in Peter Cook's Michael Rimmer - Tony Blair, it's uncanny. Normally, socio-political films for before the 90s - British films - date very badly, but there have been a few that haven't and The Ruling Class is one of them, but it has such an oddball aesthetic and attitude that it never really remained in peoples' minds as such.
The Ruling Class has an energy and personality all of its own and it is a shame that it isn't appreciated as much as it deserves to be. Yes, it is probably too long, but it barrels along beautifully and the second viewing is incredibly satisfying. It was a film that for many, broke too many rules in its day and even now when comparing it to other films of that period, it stands out as a black sheep, though the following year, we saw Lindsay Anderson's, O, Lucky Man! and Ken Russell was just getting into his stride. O'Toole's performance is electrifying and truly unforgettable and to think that he wasn't paid a penny for the role. He truly deserved to win the Oscar, but The Godfather was a huge smash and Brando was on a comeback, while The Ruling Class was for all intents and purposes, an unknown movie to Americans in 1972-73. A shame.
Incidentally, the film had to be cut to receive an X-certificate from the BBFC on April 12, 1972: As listed here. The Criterion transfer is from a X-rated British element as the certificate precedes the film proper. Criterion indicate that "the original 35mm interpositive" was used for the transfer, so one wonders what condition the original camera negative is in.
-
Narshty
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
Wow - this has just gone straight into my shortlist of five worst films in the collection. The Ruling Class is depressing for a multitude of reasons; the waste of a great, great cast, its uselessness as a piece of cinema, its high opinion of itself, and the shrill, ugly misanthropy that characterises the whole film. Peter Barnes' script is the worst sort of preaching to the converted, especially when it comes from a hatred seemingly borne of ignorance. I don't mean that the aristocracy are horribly wronged by their portrayal, but there is no sign of any details or nuance that show some sort of first-hand knowledge of what Barnes thinks he's going on about - everything is played on the same tiresome, broad, caricatured level. One suspects the upper classes would find their portrayal as mystifying and remote as everyone else.
Just in case we can't understand Barnes' view of his subject, he puts lines like "I wish the whole bleedin' lot of you were put away" in the mouth of Tucker, the butler whose inheritance leaves him financially independent to say what he likes. He may think that the upper classes are a disgrace, but he barely credits his audience with any more esteem. In the first part of the DVD's commentary (which I could only stomach 10-odd minutes of), he says that the play was borne out of hatred which is no surprise. However, his hatred for the subject is so all-consuming, it spills over into sheer unbridled misanthropy; even a character like Tucker, who you'd expect some measure of sympathy and understanding for, is a crude, unengaging mouthpiece. He's apparently a dedicated closet communist, but it has no dramatic bearing on the plot at all. Tucker's own boast that he spits in the oxtail soup and urinates on the Wedgwood crockery is about the level of serious political activism that Barnes is operating on. He doesn't do a thing except stand by on the outside, openly contemptuous, and grumble. There's no attempt to weasle in subtly and pull the rug out when least expected.
Michael Bryant: "His Lordship is a paranoid schizophrenic"
William Mervyn: "Paranoid schizophrenic? But he's a Gurney!"
Michael Bryant: "Then he's a paranoid schizophrenic Gurney who believes he's God"
William Mervyn: "But we've always been Church of England!"
That sounds like it should be a joke, but it isn't; the last line doesn't mean anything. The script is full of failed or nonsensical epigrams and witticisms like those. In the first half, he repeats variations on someone exclaiming "Christ!" for Peter O'Toole to pop up with "Yes?" an unconscionable number of times. Barnes doesn't seem to understand the concept of diminishing returns, which doesn't come as a surprise for a film with a plot this thin that clocks in at 154 minutes.
This might be altogether the worst directed film in the collection. Peter Medak, as he stresses, wanted to keep things theatrical, but that's a job for the actors, not the camera. Visually the film is utterly dead - Medak can't decide which he likes more: the zoom lens or the camera crane, and uses both as gratuitously as possible to no effect. It's been a long time since I've seen such clumsily inserted close-ups, again and again, patched together with no thought for rhythm or continuity - the gaps between each spoken line are absolutely deadening. His attempts at choreography, without exaggeration, are the level of the average school production. "Oh, they're dancing now."
The wearying assertion that it was meant to be theatrical is total crap: if you want something to be jarring and divorced from reality, and you succeed on those terms, that does not constitute a triumph. Comparing it to The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, with its similar theme released that same year, really puts the film's alleged achievements in context.
Just in case we can't understand Barnes' view of his subject, he puts lines like "I wish the whole bleedin' lot of you were put away" in the mouth of Tucker, the butler whose inheritance leaves him financially independent to say what he likes. He may think that the upper classes are a disgrace, but he barely credits his audience with any more esteem. In the first part of the DVD's commentary (which I could only stomach 10-odd minutes of), he says that the play was borne out of hatred which is no surprise. However, his hatred for the subject is so all-consuming, it spills over into sheer unbridled misanthropy; even a character like Tucker, who you'd expect some measure of sympathy and understanding for, is a crude, unengaging mouthpiece. He's apparently a dedicated closet communist, but it has no dramatic bearing on the plot at all. Tucker's own boast that he spits in the oxtail soup and urinates on the Wedgwood crockery is about the level of serious political activism that Barnes is operating on. He doesn't do a thing except stand by on the outside, openly contemptuous, and grumble. There's no attempt to weasle in subtly and pull the rug out when least expected.
Michael Bryant: "His Lordship is a paranoid schizophrenic"
William Mervyn: "Paranoid schizophrenic? But he's a Gurney!"
Michael Bryant: "Then he's a paranoid schizophrenic Gurney who believes he's God"
William Mervyn: "But we've always been Church of England!"
That sounds like it should be a joke, but it isn't; the last line doesn't mean anything. The script is full of failed or nonsensical epigrams and witticisms like those. In the first half, he repeats variations on someone exclaiming "Christ!" for Peter O'Toole to pop up with "Yes?" an unconscionable number of times. Barnes doesn't seem to understand the concept of diminishing returns, which doesn't come as a surprise for a film with a plot this thin that clocks in at 154 minutes.
This might be altogether the worst directed film in the collection. Peter Medak, as he stresses, wanted to keep things theatrical, but that's a job for the actors, not the camera. Visually the film is utterly dead - Medak can't decide which he likes more: the zoom lens or the camera crane, and uses both as gratuitously as possible to no effect. It's been a long time since I've seen such clumsily inserted close-ups, again and again, patched together with no thought for rhythm or continuity - the gaps between each spoken line are absolutely deadening. His attempts at choreography, without exaggeration, are the level of the average school production. "Oh, they're dancing now."
The wearying assertion that it was meant to be theatrical is total crap: if you want something to be jarring and divorced from reality, and you succeed on those terms, that does not constitute a triumph. Comparing it to The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, with its similar theme released that same year, really puts the film's alleged achievements in context.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
Narshty, my sympathy goes to you for having endured through the entirety of The Ruling Class. I gave up half way through for the very same reasons you just pointed out. It was thoroughly dull that I lost my patience quickly. If you feel the need to have CC's redemption after this unfortunate experience, then don't look further than the new Varda set. I've been savoring this box like Ralph with his Red Ryder on Christmas morning. Le Bonheur is like if Bresson directed All That Heaven Allows filtered through the world of 60s women magazines. But of course it's completely Varda.
Maybe we should listen to Napier.It's one of those rare, weird movies that seems to improve with multiple viewings.
-
Narshty
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
I don't know if I've got what it takes to make it through a second time. There are some films where you feel as if you could have spent that chunk of time better and some where you feel as if you've been actively robbed of a section of your life, like when you take a wrong turning or shut the door without your keys and instantly kick yourself for being so stupid. This film inspired the same surge of self-resentment for actually sticking through it even though I knew from the first 20 minutes it was dreadful.
I'm very excited at the prospect of the Varda set, but my financial strictures are so tight at the moment I can't buy another DVD without selling the previous one on first. I'm currently awaiting the postman to bring me the complete Ford at Fox boxset, so it may be a while. It sounds like a glorious palate cleanser though. I've seen Cleo and it just whisked me along. Indeed, since I saw it I keep getting confused and imagining I've already been to Paris.
I'm very excited at the prospect of the Varda set, but my financial strictures are so tight at the moment I can't buy another DVD without selling the previous one on first. I'm currently awaiting the postman to bring me the complete Ford at Fox boxset, so it may be a while. It sounds like a glorious palate cleanser though. I've seen Cleo and it just whisked me along. Indeed, since I saw it I keep getting confused and imagining I've already been to Paris.
-
Person
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 7:00 pm
Valid criticisms, as always, Narshty. But what about O'Toole's performance? I can easily understand why some - even many - people would hate this film, but I genuinely love it. It's a technical mish-mash and lacks subtlety, but Harry Andrews, O'Toole and Arthur Lowe are all a joy to watch. Definitely a curate's egg, though.
-
Narshty
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
Oh, so many wonderful actors, and faces, and voices, and it's so sad to see them, many in their twilight years, in such infantile, tedious material, so ineptly handled.
If anyone wanted to see an English black comedy with a magnificent cast, playing with as much overripe flourish as they can, yet with the advantage of a great script that also pokes fun at priviliged English eccentricity, look no further than the following year's Theatre of Blood, a triumph in all the ways this film falls flat.
If anyone wanted to see an English black comedy with a magnificent cast, playing with as much overripe flourish as they can, yet with the advantage of a great script that also pokes fun at priviliged English eccentricity, look no further than the following year's Theatre of Blood, a triumph in all the ways this film falls flat.
-
Person
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 7:00 pm
Well, au chaque leurs propres.Narshty wrote:Oh, so many wonderful actors, and faces, and voices, and it's so sad to see them, many in their twilight years, in such infantile, tedious material, so ineptly handled.
Yeah, that's a wonderful movie. I haven't watched it in a while, though. I might have to give it a spin this week, if time permits.Narshty wrote:If anyone wanted to see an English black comedy with a magnificent cast, playing with as much overripe flourish as they can, yet with the advantage of a great script that also pokes fun at priviliged English eccentricity, look no further than the following year's Theatre of Blood, a triumph in all the ways this film falls flat.
Glad to hear from a fan of Harry Andrews, though. One of the great "gruff" actors of all time and another of the multitude of unsung British character actors who is taken for granted:
Moby Dick (1956)
Ice-Cold in Alex (1958)
Sands of the Kalahari (1965)
The Hill (1965)
Battle of Britain (1969)
Play Dirty (1968)
The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968)
The Sea Gull (1968)
Entertaining Mr. Sloane (1970)
Wuthering Heights (1970)
Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)
Theater of Blood (1973)
Equus (1977)
Jack the Ripper (1988)
I find him hilarious in The Ruling Class. I wonder if the dishonourably discharged Trevor Howard would have played that role?!