Charles I: Downfall of a King (2019)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charles I: Downfall of a King is a documentary film in three parts which premiered on British television (BBC) in 2019.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Director: Tom Cholmondeley

** Host and presenter: Lisa Hilton

** Language: English

** Subtitles: English

** Run time: 3 x 60 minutes = 180 minutes

 

Several persons are interviewed in the film. 

 

Here are the names of the names of the participants (listed in alphabetical order):

 

** Anthony Adolph

** Justin Champion (1960-2020)

** Jessie Childs

** Jonathan Healey

** Leanda de Lisle

** Jane Ohlmeyer

** Dominic Pearce

** Joad Raymond

** Desmond Shawe-Taylor

** Charles Spencer

** Andrea Zuvich

 

Several historical moments have been reconstructed by modern actors (who act but do not speak).

 

Here are some names:

 

** Charles I (1600-1649) (the King) played by Will O’Connell

** Henrietta Maria (1600-1669) (the Queen) played by Doireann McKenna

** Lucy Hay (1599-1660) (Lady of the Bedchamber) played by Caroline Tinsley

** John Pym (1584-1643) (MP) played by Brian McCardie

** Thomas Lunsford (1610-1653) (Lieutenant of the Tower of London) played by Adrian O’Pray

 

As stated above, there are three episodes.

 

Here are the headlines:

 

Episode # 1 = Two Worlds Collide

Episode # 2 = A Nation Divided

Episode # 3 = The Final Showdown

 

The film focuses on 50 days at the end of 1641 and the beginning of 1642 which were highly significant for the development of English history.

 

There is a conflict between King Charles I and Parliament. There is also a conflict between Protestants and Catholics in England.

 

At the same time, there is a rebellion in Ireland: another conflict between Protestants and Catholics.

 

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

On IMDb it has a rating of 77 percent which corresponds to a rating of 3.9 stars on Amazon.

 

On Amazon there are at the moment 58 ratings of this product, 58 with reviews.

 

The average rating is 3.5 stars which corresponds to a rating of 70 percent.

 

Here are the details

 

5 stars = 32 percent

4 stars = 31 percent

3 stars = 11 percent

2 stars = 11 percent

1 star = 16 percent

 

A majority is positive: 63 percent offer four or five stars. A substantial minority is negative: 27 percent offer only one or two stars. A small group wants to be in the middle: 11 percent offer three stars.

 

As you can see, there are many positive reviews. I agree with some of them. It is easy to say something positive about this production.

 

What is good?

** The historical experts are well-chosen

** Key historical documents are well-chosen

** The locations are well-chosen

** The camera work is great

** The film is very informative

** Lisa Hilton is highly committed to her task

 

As you can see, a substantial minority of the reviews are negative. I agree with some of them. It is easy to say something negative about this product.

 

What is wrong?

# 1. The host and presenter Lisa Hilton appears constantly on the screen. Do we really need to see a close-up of her face so many times? This is a case of overkill.

 

Obviously, we want to see the host and presenter of the film, but we do not need to see her face so much.

 

# 2. As stated above, the film focuses on 50 days at the end of 1641 and the beginning of 1642. But the film stops in the middle of the story.

 

King Charles and Queen Henrietta have left London and they are hiding at Hampton Court. What happens next? Where is the rest of the story? How does it end?

 

There are three episodes. Many reviewers call for a fourth episode which could tell us what happens to the main characters after 1642.

 

** King Charles I was born in 1600. He lived until 1649 when he was executed. The last seven years of his life (1642-1649) are not covered. Why not?

 

Lisa Hilton begins each episode by telling us that he was executed, but how and why? When and where? She does not answer any of these questions.

 

** Queen Henrietta Maria was also born in 1600. She lived until 1669. The final years of her life (1642-1669) are not covered. Why not?

 

** The politician John Pym was born in 1584. He lived until 1643. The final year of his life (1642-1643) is not covered. Why not?

 

In short: this film covers events in 1641 and 1642 in great detail, but then it stops and the story is left hanging in the air. Lisa Hilton wants to tell a story. Why does she not continue until she gets to the end?

 

# 3. One historical expert makes an odd claim about the Irish rebellion of 1641. She says: never have so many Irish people died in such a short time.

 

This claim is not true. The Irish rebellion of 1641 cost many lives. Recent estimates say a low figure is 4,000 and a high figure is 12,000 lives.

 

But the Irish famine 1845-1852 had a much higher death toll: around one million deaths.

 

# 4. At the end of the third and final episode, Lisa Hilton makes a bold statement. She says without the conflict between King Charles I and Parliament in 1641-1642 there would be no American revolution and no French revolution.

 

This statement is neither explained in any way nor supported by any evidence.

 

If you wish to make such a bold statement, I think you should elaborate. I think you should offer some evidence to support it. But this does not happen.

 

Unfair criticism

Some of the negative reviews are unfair. Some reviewers claim the film contains numerous unfair attacks on US President Donald Trump. They are upset about it and this is why they offer a low rating.

 

This claim is unfair. Donald Trump is mentioned, this is true, but only once in a film which runs for three hours. He is not mentioned by Lisa Hilton but by one of the historical experts.

 

We can discuss if the reference to Trump is fair or not. But it is not fair to reject a documentary film about English history, which runs for three hours, just because Trump is mentioned in one sentence.

 

Conclusion

I must consider the positive and the negative elements. Having done this, I am ready to present my verdict.

 

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but I cannot go all the way to the top, because there are some flaws, which cannot be ignored. I have to remove one star because of these flaws.

 

This is why I think this film about the downfall of King Charles I deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).

 

REFERENCES

 

# 1. Books

 

Charles I:

A Political Life

By Richard Cust

(2007)

 

Killers of the King:

The Men Who Dared to Execute Charles I

By Charles Spencer

(2014) (2015)

 

The White King:

Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr

By Leanda de Lisle

(2017)

 

Charles I

By Mark Perry

(2019)

 

# 2. A documentary film

 

Charles I: The Royal Martyr

** Director: Ruth Wood

** Writer: Simon Kirk 

** Narrator: Michael Leighton

** Run time: 53 minutes

** Released in 1994

 

*****

Charles I

(1600-1649)

King of England, Scotland and Ireland

1625-1649

 

*****

Henrietta Maria

(1600-1669)

Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland

1625-1649

 

*****

The British politician

John Pym

(1584-1643)

*****