This is the type of film that shows how one can find interesting small moments in an otherwise rather average film. Buried in the middle of this film is a five minute beautiful example of a montage by rhythm as Joan Greenwood tries to make her way through a chaotic masque ball in order to meet her lover. The sequence climaxes with a series of flash pans and POV shots as we are thrust into the center of the action with the character. The filmmaker inserts fast POV shots of close ups of the masked revelers. The cuts and flash pans are edited rhythmically with the music and make for a wonderful example of a well-executed montage sequence. Show just this sequence to film students.
20 Reviews
"Charabancs for dead lovers -what's that all about?".....
ianlouisiana16 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
.....demanded my slightly deaf Uncle Charlie when my aunt read out the local cinema guide.
Not charabancs,saraband - it's a dance",she replied with all the authority of a woman who ran Ballet and Tap classes from her parlour for 30 years.
I favoured "Lassie" myself but I didn't get a vote and off we trooped to one of the town's four cinemas.
Two hours later on the bus home Uncle Charlie maintained he still didn't know what it had been all about.
"Lovely costumes",said my aunt.
I sat there drawing faces here I had breathed on the window.
There was a film about parachutists next week,maybe we could go and see that.
"Saraband for dead lovers" was a huge flop with picture goers in its time.
Despite good production values and sterling performances its subject matter -
an obscure European aristocrat mostly unknown to an audience who were generally strongly opposed to anything even vaguely Germanic three years after the end of World War 2.
In recent years more politically sophisticated audiences have caused a reassessment to have been made and it is now accepted as a well -made
beautifully produced piece of work,an early example of exquisite use of colour in a British picture.
Seventy years later I can hardly blame my eight year old self for finding it less than absorbing.
Mr P.Bull makes some interesting references to it in his mem which is well worth looking out.
Those Naughty Koeningsmarck Brothers!
theowinthrop6 August 2004
This film is about a scandal that almost changed history. Unless you study geneology, you probably are unaware of the exact line of descent of the present Royal Family of England. Most people don't really think about it but the House of Windsor has only had that name since 1917 (when it's German name was changed in World War I). It was known (from 1901 - 1917) as the House of Saxe - Coburg Gotha, because Edward VII's father (Prince Albert - Queen Victoria's husband) was the Prince of Saxe - Coburg Gotha. Prior to 1901 (when Edward VII inherited the British throne) the Royal Family was known as the House of Hanover. The Hanovarians ruled England from 1714 - 1901 through six monarchs. But prior to 1714, the Royal Family were the Scottish based Stuarts (who ruled, with one eleven year gap, from 1603 - 1714). It's confusing, but much political turmoil is involved in the change from Stuarts to Hanovarians.
The Stuarts were cousins of the Tudors, and when the great Elizabeth I died in 1603 she was without Tudor heirs. James VI of Scotland (son of Elizabeth's rival and cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots) became James I of England. James I had two sons and one daughter. The daughter, Elizabeth, married a German Protestant prince, the Elector of the Palatinate (now part of the Czech Republic). Her descendants included Prince Rupert, the brilliant cavalry general for his uncle King Charles I in the Civil Wars of the 1640s. One of the descendants of Elizabeth Stuart was Princess Sophia, the wife of the Elector of Hanover. In the 1690s, the elderly Princess found that (except for Princess Anne of England, and her son William, Duke of Gloucester - a sickly youth who would die in 1701) she was next in line to the British throne if anything happened to King William III and his wife Queen Mary II. If anything happened to Princess Sophia, her son Prince George inherited her claim to the British throne. Sorry for this confusion of inherited titles presumptive, but that is how it went.
Prince George was not a loveable person. He was a demanding bully. He had married a cousin named Sophia Dorothea of Celle for her inheritance (needed to beef up his German territories around Hanover). George's father (the Elector of Hanover) had a mistress, Countess von Platen, who wielded great influence in the German state. This Countess introduced a young Swedish aristocrat, Count Philippe Koeningsmarck, to the court. She liked the Swedish Count, who was a military expert. Actually she more than liked him - she adored him. While Koeningsmarck was grateful, he did hold her at arms length. This would prove a mistake.
His second mistake was that he and Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle met and became too chummy. Letters and diaries of the Princess survive, and suggest a platonic relationship, but it might have been closer. It angered the Countess, who felt her friendship was slighted. It angered Prince George, who (while he had many mistresses) did not like the snickers of people thinking him a cuckold. One day Koeningsmarck was called to the royal palace. He was never seen again, although many years later a skeleton of a man was found buried in an obscure corner there. Platen (most likely) decoyed the Swede, and had him assassinated - she found her influence in court dead after that, and in her last years was thought to be plagued by Koeningsmarck's ghost. In European circles the scandal spread, especially as it affected the way Englishmen viewed the prospected Protestant heirs to the throne. Had the choice of Hanovarians been needed to be made in 1695 - 1701, chances are George and his mother would have been by-passed. But the War of the Spanish Succession began in 1701, and lasted through the reigh of Queen Anne (the last Stuart). Her half-brother, James the Old Pretender (father of Bonnie Prince Charlie)was a Catholic who supported his cousin Louis XIV in the war. Prince George, despite the scandal, became King George I in 1714. And his descendants have ruled Britain ever since.
Poor Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle never was Queen. George did not divorce her, but he had her imprisoned in her castle at Celle until she died in 1726. Her son and daughter by George never forgave him, and the boy (the future King George II) made life very difficult for his father as a result. George I died in 1727. There is a story (which one would like to believe) that while visiting Hanover shortly after his wife's death, a note was thrown into his carriage from a crowd. The note was from Sophia Dorothea, and it cursed George for his bullying and cruelty to her and others. George, reportedly, had a seizure reading this vitriolic message from the dead, and was paralyzed as a result until he died. Unfortunately this story seems to be false.
The film is pretty close to the actual tale, though it makes the relationship between the Princess of Celle and Koeningsmarck seem more of a love affair than it may have been. Stewart Granger is fine as the Swedish Count, and Joan Greenwood (she of the plummy toned voice) is equally good as the Princess. Peter Bull, that splendid British heavy, does a good Prince George, bullying his wife and servants, but capable of sly viciousness when he wants to retaliate against Koeningsmarck. And Flora Robson shows the inner demons driving her to destroy the young protegee who can't reciprocate a love he never had in the first place. Anthony Quayle, as one of the rivals of Koeningsmarck at the little royal court, is as good as he usually is, and lives up to the warning of never turning your back on Quayle in a duel!
Oddly enough, the Koeningsmarck family left a larger shadow on European history than this film suggests. At one point in the script, Philippe mentions that his younger brother (Count Karl von Koeningsmarck) was tried for murder. It is true, and has so far escaped a motion picture treatment. In 1681, Lady Elizabeth Ogle was the richest heiress in England, and was being romanced by Koeningsmarck and by Thomas Thynn of Longleat, who was the richest commoner in England. Karl von Koeningsmarck had three thugs attack and kill Thynn in his coach in London. The three thugs were found guilty of the murder and executed, but the Count (due to influence from King Charles II) was acqitted. However, Count Karl died a few years afterwards. He and Phillipe had a sister Elizabeth, who had an affair with Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and elected King of Poland. Their illegitimate son was Maurice, Marachel de Saxe of France, the leading European general from 1722 - 1750. Marachel Saxe was known to be particularly rough in leading his men against armies led by members of the Hanovarian royal family in the wars of this period. Apparently he was trying to even the score for poor Uncle Philippe!
The Stuarts were cousins of the Tudors, and when the great Elizabeth I died in 1603 she was without Tudor heirs. James VI of Scotland (son of Elizabeth's rival and cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots) became James I of England. James I had two sons and one daughter. The daughter, Elizabeth, married a German Protestant prince, the Elector of the Palatinate (now part of the Czech Republic). Her descendants included Prince Rupert, the brilliant cavalry general for his uncle King Charles I in the Civil Wars of the 1640s. One of the descendants of Elizabeth Stuart was Princess Sophia, the wife of the Elector of Hanover. In the 1690s, the elderly Princess found that (except for Princess Anne of England, and her son William, Duke of Gloucester - a sickly youth who would die in 1701) she was next in line to the British throne if anything happened to King William III and his wife Queen Mary II. If anything happened to Princess Sophia, her son Prince George inherited her claim to the British throne. Sorry for this confusion of inherited titles presumptive, but that is how it went.
Prince George was not a loveable person. He was a demanding bully. He had married a cousin named Sophia Dorothea of Celle for her inheritance (needed to beef up his German territories around Hanover). George's father (the Elector of Hanover) had a mistress, Countess von Platen, who wielded great influence in the German state. This Countess introduced a young Swedish aristocrat, Count Philippe Koeningsmarck, to the court. She liked the Swedish Count, who was a military expert. Actually she more than liked him - she adored him. While Koeningsmarck was grateful, he did hold her at arms length. This would prove a mistake.
His second mistake was that he and Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle met and became too chummy. Letters and diaries of the Princess survive, and suggest a platonic relationship, but it might have been closer. It angered the Countess, who felt her friendship was slighted. It angered Prince George, who (while he had many mistresses) did not like the snickers of people thinking him a cuckold. One day Koeningsmarck was called to the royal palace. He was never seen again, although many years later a skeleton of a man was found buried in an obscure corner there. Platen (most likely) decoyed the Swede, and had him assassinated - she found her influence in court dead after that, and in her last years was thought to be plagued by Koeningsmarck's ghost. In European circles the scandal spread, especially as it affected the way Englishmen viewed the prospected Protestant heirs to the throne. Had the choice of Hanovarians been needed to be made in 1695 - 1701, chances are George and his mother would have been by-passed. But the War of the Spanish Succession began in 1701, and lasted through the reigh of Queen Anne (the last Stuart). Her half-brother, James the Old Pretender (father of Bonnie Prince Charlie)was a Catholic who supported his cousin Louis XIV in the war. Prince George, despite the scandal, became King George I in 1714. And his descendants have ruled Britain ever since.
Poor Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle never was Queen. George did not divorce her, but he had her imprisoned in her castle at Celle until she died in 1726. Her son and daughter by George never forgave him, and the boy (the future King George II) made life very difficult for his father as a result. George I died in 1727. There is a story (which one would like to believe) that while visiting Hanover shortly after his wife's death, a note was thrown into his carriage from a crowd. The note was from Sophia Dorothea, and it cursed George for his bullying and cruelty to her and others. George, reportedly, had a seizure reading this vitriolic message from the dead, and was paralyzed as a result until he died. Unfortunately this story seems to be false.
The film is pretty close to the actual tale, though it makes the relationship between the Princess of Celle and Koeningsmarck seem more of a love affair than it may have been. Stewart Granger is fine as the Swedish Count, and Joan Greenwood (she of the plummy toned voice) is equally good as the Princess. Peter Bull, that splendid British heavy, does a good Prince George, bullying his wife and servants, but capable of sly viciousness when he wants to retaliate against Koeningsmarck. And Flora Robson shows the inner demons driving her to destroy the young protegee who can't reciprocate a love he never had in the first place. Anthony Quayle, as one of the rivals of Koeningsmarck at the little royal court, is as good as he usually is, and lives up to the warning of never turning your back on Quayle in a duel!
Oddly enough, the Koeningsmarck family left a larger shadow on European history than this film suggests. At one point in the script, Philippe mentions that his younger brother (Count Karl von Koeningsmarck) was tried for murder. It is true, and has so far escaped a motion picture treatment. In 1681, Lady Elizabeth Ogle was the richest heiress in England, and was being romanced by Koeningsmarck and by Thomas Thynn of Longleat, who was the richest commoner in England. Karl von Koeningsmarck had three thugs attack and kill Thynn in his coach in London. The three thugs were found guilty of the murder and executed, but the Count (due to influence from King Charles II) was acqitted. However, Count Karl died a few years afterwards. He and Phillipe had a sister Elizabeth, who had an affair with Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and elected King of Poland. Their illegitimate son was Maurice, Marachel de Saxe of France, the leading European general from 1722 - 1750. Marachel Saxe was known to be particularly rough in leading his men against armies led by members of the Hanovarian royal family in the wars of this period. Apparently he was trying to even the score for poor Uncle Philippe!
An early costumer from Ealing Studios that was designed to challenge Gainsborough with Stewart Granger typically dashing
vampire_hounddog7 November 2020
In the 17th century Sophie Dorothea (Joan Greenwood) is married off to the boorish Elector George Louis of Hannover (Peter Bull) in an arranged marriage to that makes her miserable. He is set to become the future King George I of England when she begins an affair with the dashing Count Philip Konigsmark (Stewart Granger).
This first Technicolor film for Ealing attempts to challenge the market of costumers that was dominated by Gainsborough in mid-1940s British cinema. It is a little gloomy in places and alas performed poorly at the box-office. Significantly it was co-scripted by Alexander Mackendrick with Granger is in his by now familiar dashing swashbuckler role.
There was a scene that had featured a very early role for Christopher Lee that was allegedly cut out for being anti-Semitic.
This first Technicolor film for Ealing attempts to challenge the market of costumers that was dominated by Gainsborough in mid-1940s British cinema. It is a little gloomy in places and alas performed poorly at the box-office. Significantly it was co-scripted by Alexander Mackendrick with Granger is in his by now familiar dashing swashbuckler role.
There was a scene that had featured a very early role for Christopher Lee that was allegedly cut out for being anti-Semitic.
Love Hanover
Lejink5 December 2022
I was first attracted to this lesser-known British movie by its intriguing title and then as I investigated further, interesting story-line.
It's a beautifully shot and well-played historical drama concerning the alleged romance between the dashing and handsome Swedish Count Philip Chritoph von Königsmark, (Stewart Granger) and the young wife of the Hanoverian Prince George Louis, Sophie Dorothea, (Joan Greenwood).
She has been set up by her wealthy, vainglorious father in an arranged marriage with the penniless Prince of Hanover, who lives a life of wanton hedonism, but who needs the money to finance his military ambitions. The repugnant, corpulent Prince, played with dastardly relish by Peter Bull, is also cowardly, happy to see his handsome, moral but naive brother go off to fight and die in a doomed battle while he stays at home roistering and doistering as the phrase goes. But then the young princess encounters the gallant Philip after he returns alive from the war where his friend the Prince has died.
They start am illicit affair but there are two other women in the background whose influence and actions will ultimately doom their plans to escape from the court, the Prince's icy, unfeeling mother, The Electress Sophie, played by Françoise Rosay and Philip's middle-aged mistress, the influential, conniving and jealous Countess Clara Platen, in a strong, turbulent performance by Flora Robson. The Electress has plans to get her less than regal son onto the British throne and nothing must get on the way of that, least of all a young woman's feelings of first love.
With beautiful sets and costumes, Basil Deardon skilfully moves his pieces around this historical chess-board, equally as adept at displaying the pomp and grandeur of the court as well as the darkened stairways of the empty castle to where Philip ultimately meets his doom in an especially well-lit scene, boldly filmed without any accompanying background music. Granger is well-suited to playing the tragic hero with Greenwood a good foil as his outmaneuvred young lover.
There's ample proof here that post-war British cinema was just as capable as Hollywood of producing grand, ambitious costume-dramas, making this overlooked J Arthur Rank feature well worth tracking down.
It's a beautifully shot and well-played historical drama concerning the alleged romance between the dashing and handsome Swedish Count Philip Chritoph von Königsmark, (Stewart Granger) and the young wife of the Hanoverian Prince George Louis, Sophie Dorothea, (Joan Greenwood).
She has been set up by her wealthy, vainglorious father in an arranged marriage with the penniless Prince of Hanover, who lives a life of wanton hedonism, but who needs the money to finance his military ambitions. The repugnant, corpulent Prince, played with dastardly relish by Peter Bull, is also cowardly, happy to see his handsome, moral but naive brother go off to fight and die in a doomed battle while he stays at home roistering and doistering as the phrase goes. But then the young princess encounters the gallant Philip after he returns alive from the war where his friend the Prince has died.
They start am illicit affair but there are two other women in the background whose influence and actions will ultimately doom their plans to escape from the court, the Prince's icy, unfeeling mother, The Electress Sophie, played by Françoise Rosay and Philip's middle-aged mistress, the influential, conniving and jealous Countess Clara Platen, in a strong, turbulent performance by Flora Robson. The Electress has plans to get her less than regal son onto the British throne and nothing must get on the way of that, least of all a young woman's feelings of first love.
With beautiful sets and costumes, Basil Deardon skilfully moves his pieces around this historical chess-board, equally as adept at displaying the pomp and grandeur of the court as well as the darkened stairways of the empty castle to where Philip ultimately meets his doom in an especially well-lit scene, boldly filmed without any accompanying background music. Granger is well-suited to playing the tragic hero with Greenwood a good foil as his outmaneuvred young lover.
There's ample proof here that post-war British cinema was just as capable as Hollywood of producing grand, ambitious costume-dramas, making this overlooked J Arthur Rank feature well worth tracking down.
Truly Stunning Forties Melodrama
chaworth-127 September 2006
This is one of the most beautifully made Technicolor melodramas of the 1940's which loses nothing in maintaining historical accuracy. Look out for simply stunning performances from Peter Bull as the heir presumptive to the British throne and, above all, Flora Robson as Countess Platen. Stewart Granger (Konigsmark) is in top form and Francoise Rosay as the Electress Sophia is unforgettable. Dialogue is razor sharp throughout, the costumes are splendidly authentic and the sets are magnificent. The only area of weakness is Joan Greenwood's Sophie Dorothea, but she is supposed to be playing a tragic victim and maybe that's why critics wrote her off as a wet lettuce. It is much to be regretted that Saraband is not more widely available.
What a load of cack
AAdaSC3 June 2018
After 40 minutes of this film, I still had no idea what was going on. The story is complicated, confusing, slow-paced, uninteresting and full of talking. This is a true story that has had all the interest taken out of it. No wonder the film is forgotten - it's just not at all engaging. This is a terrible shame, especially as the story deals with the ancestors of the current royal family at the time when their ancestry was about to switch to the German lineage. I feel the film-makers have done a huge dis-service to what should have been a fascinating story. What we get is a slow snorefest of no interest with cast members delivering their dialogue in a very deliberately slow-paced manner. The worst offender is Joan Greenwood as Sophie Dorothea. She is terrible. All her dialogue is overdone in a slow, deliberate manner that is totally inappropriate and spoken for dramatic effect without any realism. The film is basically about a doomed love affair. That's how I'd describe it. However, it should be about so much more given the subject matter and significance to the English monarchy. I must tip my hat to fellow reviewer "theowinthrop" who explains the situation perfectly in his review. I suggest you read that for all the interest and knowledge surrounding this topic and forget about this film. You have been warned!
a gem of British cinema
orsino4430 October 2006
Terrific performances, excellent production values and superb color cinematography highlight this tale of court intrigue, forbidden love and murder. Saraband for Dead Lovers was mentioned by Stewart Granger as one of the few films of his that he was truly proud of, and it's plain to see why. He is terrific as Count Konigsmark, inventor of the famous Colichemarde sword that bears a version of his name, though that isn't even mentioned here. Flora Robson does a great job with a particularly juicy character reminiscent of Glenn Close's character in Dangerous Liasons. In fact, if you liked that film, you'll probably love this one. All the supporting cast are very good, especially Peter Bull and Anthony Quayle. Please someone restore this film and put it out on DVD. Kino? Anyone??
Beautiful love story
Bondgirl117 November 2000
An enchanting tale of political marriages and schemes for prestige all at the expense of innocent people. It's a disturbing tale especially when you realize how many women in history must have felt as repressed and lonely as our heroine Sophie Dorothea. But it is a beautiful story of a little stolen happiness. Stewart Granger of course is always dashing in a costume drama. I recommend it for all the lovers of romantic tragedy.
SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS (Basil Dearden, 1948) ***1/2
Bunuel197624 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have always wondered why this movie - which is generally accorded the rank of a minor classic by film critics and historians - is not better known today and more widely discussed; having now watched it for myself, while I would readily proclaim it a near-masterpiece, I can perhaps also pinpoint the reason behind its relative neglect: the thing is that its production company Ealing Studios (whose first color production - and, in hindsight, its costliest flop - it was) is more associated with its celebrated run of droll comedies than with tragic historical romances. Although SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS may initially seem to pertain to the "Gainsborough school" of costumers then in fashion in British cinema that were spearheaded by the box-office popularity of THE MAN IN GREY (1943), the film was clearly intended from the outset to be on a higher artistic plane altogether. Co-written by the great Alexander Mackendrick (who would soon go on to direct some of Ealing's finest comedies), the film greatly benefits from Michael Relph's sumptuous décor, Douglas Slocombe's gleaming Technicolor cinematography (that indeed makes one bemoan the fact that Optimum's far from optimally restored R2 DVD does not really do it justice!) and Alan Rawsthorne's majestic score; on top of it all, we have masterful direction (undeniably one of the finest showcases for the distinguished Basil Dearden) and impeccable acting from a splendid roster of actors: Stewart Granger (as the dashing but ill-fated Swedish soldier Konigsmark, SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS was reportedly the one film of his he liked best!), Joan Greenwood (a very moving performance as the doomed Princess Sophie Dorothea), Flora Robson (excellent as an unlikely courtesan/king-maker with her own designs on Granger), Francoise Rosay (as the formidably inflexible matriarch), Peter Bull (typically loathsome as the future King George I), Michael Gough (as his martyred younger brother), Frederick Valk (as one of Robson's 'conquests' and Rosay's kin), Anthony Quayle (as Robson's reptilian spy), Megs Jenkins (as Greenwood's empathizing maid), Guy Rolfe (appearing in the opening sequences as one of Greenwood's wardens) - and, allegedly in bit parts, even Peter Arne, John Gregson and Christopher Lee!! Among the various impressively-staged sequences in the film, two particular highlights stand out: a masked Greenwood's panic-stricken passage through a crowd of Carnival revelers being terminated by the sudden appearance of a facially uncovered Granger; and the climactic swordfight in a darkened hall which depicts a wounded Quayle mortally knifing Granger in the back, followed by the latter (having just uttered the name of his beloved Sophie Dorothea with his dying breath) being stomped in the face by a vindictive Robson!
Stunning Ealing film....a tragedy that it is not better known...
jem13214 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Amazing, amazing film that, sadly, virtually no one knows about. This Ealing historical romance, filmed in muted Technicolour tones, is just stunning. If you are one of the "Stewart Granger was a smarmy bastard who can't act" club, you obviously haven't seen this film. Granger and Joan Greenwood play the doomed lovers of the title to perfection. Flora Robson should have been nominated, and won, the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her excellent performance. This film contains many visual delights, not least a five minute montage where Greenwood tries to make her way through a masked crowd of revelers to meet her lover. It's an exhilarating, tense sequence that culminates in a passionate kiss. Truly one of the overlooked treasures of the 20th century. This is a big statement, but the film should be as well known and widely seen as other great British films of it's vintage, such as Lean's Great Expectations and Reed's Odd Man Out. Seek this one out at every opportunity! 10/10 +++++
Excellent
mp-peled7 October 2013
Long before the film was made, I read the book it is based on, namely Konigsmark by A.E.W.Mason. I found the book enthralling and was more than eager to see the film, which turned out to be equally magical, exciting and romantic. To my mind the actors were superbly cast and the sets and costumes so beautifully designed that I felt I was living the events myself and the book and the historical period came vividly to life. I do hope that copies of the film have not been lost and that one day it will reappear perhaps in a remastered form. It is one of the gems of forties' British film-making and deserves to be seen by a present-day audience.
Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places
bkoganbing5 January 2008
Saraband for Dead Lovers tells the tragic story of Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle who married Prince George Louis of Hanover most unhappily. Her's is one of the saddest stories concerning royalty ever.
This may have been Joan Greenwood's finest performance on screen. She's really the only decent person in this entire cast. For reasons of politics, she's rushed into a marriage with George Louis and has two children by him, a boy and girl. At the time this is all taking place in the 1680s, there's no reason to suspect that these kids will be nothing more than the Electoral Princes of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire.
But through their grandmother, played here by the indomitable French actress Francoise Rosay, they are descended from James I, the first king of the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England. She never lets them forget that for a moment.
Actually in fact a whole lot of people in 1689 would have to clear out of the way for Peter to become King of Great Britain. But over the next two decades, that's exactly what did happen. One thing the Hanover clan had going for them, they were firm Protestants and at that point there were too many people in Great Britain who had a vested interest in an unquestioned Protestant succession. It was the Hanoverian ace in the hole.
But before all these events occur Joan Greenwood falls head over heels for the dashing Swedish Count Philip of Konigsmarck as played by Stewart Granger. Granger probably plays Konigsmarck a lot better than he actually was, which was a military man who was not above a little bedroom politics to get what he wanted. Before becoming involved with the younger and more attractive Greenwood, Granger was providing a little nookie on the side to Flora Robson. Robson was the old mistress of the Duke Ernest Augustus played here by Frederick Valk, but the old girl wanted something a little livelier which Granger provided for a few favorable mentions. As in real life Granger moved away when he found something better and Flora reacted with the fury of a woman scorned.
Some of you might recognize a bit of Anna Karennina in this story and I wouldn't be surprised if Count Tolstoy took this story as inspiration when he wrote his epic classic.
Peter Bull and Joan Greenwood are the direct ancestors of the present monarch of the United Kingdom and her family. In 1715 Peter Bull became George I of Great Britain and distinguished himself by never learning to speak one drop of English. In fact all he saw Great Britain as was a cash cow to finance various continental Hanoverian ventures. But the little boy in this film grew up to be George II and so on and so on until Elizabeth II.
For what happens to lovers Granger and Greenwood you have to watch the film for. It's a story that the royals aren't exactly proud of.
This may have been Joan Greenwood's finest performance on screen. She's really the only decent person in this entire cast. For reasons of politics, she's rushed into a marriage with George Louis and has two children by him, a boy and girl. At the time this is all taking place in the 1680s, there's no reason to suspect that these kids will be nothing more than the Electoral Princes of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire.
But through their grandmother, played here by the indomitable French actress Francoise Rosay, they are descended from James I, the first king of the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England. She never lets them forget that for a moment.
Actually in fact a whole lot of people in 1689 would have to clear out of the way for Peter to become King of Great Britain. But over the next two decades, that's exactly what did happen. One thing the Hanover clan had going for them, they were firm Protestants and at that point there were too many people in Great Britain who had a vested interest in an unquestioned Protestant succession. It was the Hanoverian ace in the hole.
But before all these events occur Joan Greenwood falls head over heels for the dashing Swedish Count Philip of Konigsmarck as played by Stewart Granger. Granger probably plays Konigsmarck a lot better than he actually was, which was a military man who was not above a little bedroom politics to get what he wanted. Before becoming involved with the younger and more attractive Greenwood, Granger was providing a little nookie on the side to Flora Robson. Robson was the old mistress of the Duke Ernest Augustus played here by Frederick Valk, but the old girl wanted something a little livelier which Granger provided for a few favorable mentions. As in real life Granger moved away when he found something better and Flora reacted with the fury of a woman scorned.
Some of you might recognize a bit of Anna Karennina in this story and I wouldn't be surprised if Count Tolstoy took this story as inspiration when he wrote his epic classic.
Peter Bull and Joan Greenwood are the direct ancestors of the present monarch of the United Kingdom and her family. In 1715 Peter Bull became George I of Great Britain and distinguished himself by never learning to speak one drop of English. In fact all he saw Great Britain as was a cash cow to finance various continental Hanoverian ventures. But the little boy in this film grew up to be George II and so on and so on until Elizabeth II.
For what happens to lovers Granger and Greenwood you have to watch the film for. It's a story that the royals aren't exactly proud of.
Dancing In The Dark
Spondonman20 June 2011
At a time when Britain was supposed to be flat broke and ordinary people were seemingly as monochrome as the movies they watched, Ealing Studios was churning out classics of all kinds. It's all reversed nowadays. In this case a beautifully crafted and intelligent Mills & Boon in Technicolor and, with my thanks to the knowledgeable commentary of theowinthrop written earlier, the added frisson of apparently being (almost) perfectly true.
Amidst the political machinations of the House of Hanover in its striving for the throne of England 300 years ago, a young and beautiful woman forced to be the wife of the boorish future King falls for a young and dashing Swedish nobleman, and vice versa. While a powerful lady of the court is also passionately in love with the soldier. As always befits our Betters they all know their duty – to power and money, much to the unhappiness of all those only in love. Although initially it may take a few minutes to get into the politics of another world, it's a mesmerizingly told tale with solid emotional acting moving through some colourful luxurious sets and alternating between intense romance and somber intrigue, even a little swash. Of the main stars Stewart Granger was seldom more er masculine and although Joan Greenwood was even more wishy washy than usual it was perfectly played and believable. One thing: did Sophia's letter to her son ever get delivered?
It might be more of a hit with the ladies, but gents too should enjoy it, with or without hankies.
Amidst the political machinations of the House of Hanover in its striving for the throne of England 300 years ago, a young and beautiful woman forced to be the wife of the boorish future King falls for a young and dashing Swedish nobleman, and vice versa. While a powerful lady of the court is also passionately in love with the soldier. As always befits our Betters they all know their duty – to power and money, much to the unhappiness of all those only in love. Although initially it may take a few minutes to get into the politics of another world, it's a mesmerizingly told tale with solid emotional acting moving through some colourful luxurious sets and alternating between intense romance and somber intrigue, even a little swash. Of the main stars Stewart Granger was seldom more er masculine and although Joan Greenwood was even more wishy washy than usual it was perfectly played and believable. One thing: did Sophia's letter to her son ever get delivered?
It might be more of a hit with the ladies, but gents too should enjoy it, with or without hankies.
Why so poorly rated? This is an absolute gem!
philip-davies3130 June 2020
With most of the reviews here rating the film at 8 and above, the overall score of 6.6 seems to indicate an unreasonable bias in favour of the sort of reviewer who thinks that 'cack' is a useful characterisation of this masterwork, or who superciliously thinks that perhaps film students could just admire the brief technical mastery of the montage sequence - which is indeed brilliant editing - but who then dismissively junks the rest of the film.
Actually, most of the reviewers here actually do ample justice to a production which excels in all departments, and succeeds in being a romantic film which balances passion with such intelligence that a powerful and moving tragic sense is conveyed of real people trapped in a world of inhuman artifice and formality. I think Dearden's work here has a powerful impact that is at least the equal of David Lean's later epics. It also often even reminded me of the sad fate of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, like Koenigsmarck the commoner victim of a cruel aristocratic world, the reality of which is portrayed without illusions.
So why the poor overall rating? This really can't be justified, or tolerated, and I must be particularly lavish in my praise to help raise it up towards something nearer to it's true worth.
Once again, here in Britain, it was only thanks to the ever-excellent 'Talking Pictures TV' that we got a chance to see this neglected masterpiece at all. Really the general churlishness of modern neglect towards this utterly magnificent film is very hard to fathom.
Perhaps it is merely the jealousy of mediocrities who can never hope to grasp or emulate such an intelligent movie, in which the historical background is correctly but lightly established, or to command such a superbly well-constructed portrait of passion and intrigue in high places. In Britiain we seem to have developed an aversion to a past so often sweepingly dismissed as both hopelessly outmoded, as well as politically irredeemable, by an influential cultural cabal that wants to sweep away the inconveniently substantial achievements of earlier generations, which they find so uncongenial to their own doctrinaire, yet strangely insecure and intolerant ideals.
Objectively, the direction, screenplay, acting, costumes, set, camera-work and general mise-en-scene are of an uniformly high standard. Only a philistine, or a doctrinaire but shallow cineaste who feels threatened by having the grand achievements of his parent's and grandparent's generations, as it were, looking over his shoulder, could possibly dismiss such a magnificent and effective film. Some fellow-travellers of both regrettable tendencies seem to be sitting in judgement of this fine film here, but not enough of them to relegate it to a miserable 6.6, surely?
Actually, most of the reviewers here actually do ample justice to a production which excels in all departments, and succeeds in being a romantic film which balances passion with such intelligence that a powerful and moving tragic sense is conveyed of real people trapped in a world of inhuman artifice and formality. I think Dearden's work here has a powerful impact that is at least the equal of David Lean's later epics. It also often even reminded me of the sad fate of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, like Koenigsmarck the commoner victim of a cruel aristocratic world, the reality of which is portrayed without illusions.
So why the poor overall rating? This really can't be justified, or tolerated, and I must be particularly lavish in my praise to help raise it up towards something nearer to it's true worth.
Once again, here in Britain, it was only thanks to the ever-excellent 'Talking Pictures TV' that we got a chance to see this neglected masterpiece at all. Really the general churlishness of modern neglect towards this utterly magnificent film is very hard to fathom.
Perhaps it is merely the jealousy of mediocrities who can never hope to grasp or emulate such an intelligent movie, in which the historical background is correctly but lightly established, or to command such a superbly well-constructed portrait of passion and intrigue in high places. In Britiain we seem to have developed an aversion to a past so often sweepingly dismissed as both hopelessly outmoded, as well as politically irredeemable, by an influential cultural cabal that wants to sweep away the inconveniently substantial achievements of earlier generations, which they find so uncongenial to their own doctrinaire, yet strangely insecure and intolerant ideals.
Objectively, the direction, screenplay, acting, costumes, set, camera-work and general mise-en-scene are of an uniformly high standard. Only a philistine, or a doctrinaire but shallow cineaste who feels threatened by having the grand achievements of his parent's and grandparent's generations, as it were, looking over his shoulder, could possibly dismiss such a magnificent and effective film. Some fellow-travellers of both regrettable tendencies seem to be sitting in judgement of this fine film here, but not enough of them to relegate it to a miserable 6.6, surely?
Our Uncrowned Queen
JamesHitchcock8 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Although Sophie Dorothea of Celle was the wife of a British king, she was never crowned Queen of Great Britain. She was married to her first cousin Prince George Louis of Hanover, the future King George I, but it was never a happy marriage, and was dissolved in 1695 on account of her alleged adultery with an army officer named Count Philip von Königsmarck. Despite his German-sounding name, Königsmarck was Swedish by birth. He disappeared in 1695, probably murdered on George's orders, and Sophie spent the rest of her life under virtual house arrest in Ahlen Castle until her death in 1726, a year before that of her former husband. "Saraband for Dead Lovers" tells this tragic story. The curious title- a "saraband" is a type of dance- is never explained in the film, although it may be in the original source novel by Helen Simpson, which I have never read.
The Act of Settlement, which excluded Roman Catholics from the succession and established George's mother, the Dowager Electress Sophia, as next-in-line to the throne after the future Queen Anne, was not passed by the English Parliament until 1701. During the period in which the action takes place (1689- 1695) there were numerous people alive with a better claim to the throne, but in the film George and his mother are keen to stress their links with the British Royal Family and, inaccurately, talk as though their right to succeed was already a done deal. Perhaps the idea was to further the cause of Anglo-German reconciliation, three years after the end of the war, by stressing the dynastic links between the two countries. The closing titles point out that Sophie Dorothea was the mother of King George II and, through him, the ancestress of all future British monarchs.
Perhaps the weakest part of the film is the confusing sub-plot dealing with Countess Clara Platen, a mistress, or former mistress, of Ernest Augustus. She is in love with Königsmarck but he will have nothing to do with her, leading her to plot her revenge against him. Flora Robson was never really convincing as Platen, depicted here as a faded femme fatale; Marlene Dietrich (who probably would have been a lot better) was considered for the part, but Ealing were not keen on casting big-name Hollywood or foreign stars.
The rest of the cast, however, are much better. Peter Bull's George, for all his royal blood, is a vulgar, boorish bully who neglects his beautiful young wife and betrays her with a series of mistresses. Stewart Granger's Königsmarck is not only handsome and dashing but also sensitive, able to give Sophie the love which her husband denies her. Joan Greenwood makes an enchanting heroine, with her rich, distinctive contralto voice appropriate to Sophie's regal dignity. There is also a good contribution from the French actress Françoise Rosay as the formidable Electress Sophia, a woman whose only concern is to forward her dynastic ambitions and who remains blind to her son's grossness and to the emotional suffering of her daughter-in-law.
This was the first Ealing Studios film shot in colour, and with its elaborate sets and costumes can be seen as a precursor of the British "heritage cinema" style of historical drama. The roots of this style go back to the late forties; the Oscar Wilde adaptation "An Ideal Husband" and even Olivier's version of "Henry V" can be seen as other examples. Perhaps film-makers felt that, at a time of post-war austerity the British people needed something sumptuous to entertain them. Yet there is more to the film than good looks. It is also a moving character study of a doomed marriage and an equally doomed romance. 8/10
The Act of Settlement, which excluded Roman Catholics from the succession and established George's mother, the Dowager Electress Sophia, as next-in-line to the throne after the future Queen Anne, was not passed by the English Parliament until 1701. During the period in which the action takes place (1689- 1695) there were numerous people alive with a better claim to the throne, but in the film George and his mother are keen to stress their links with the British Royal Family and, inaccurately, talk as though their right to succeed was already a done deal. Perhaps the idea was to further the cause of Anglo-German reconciliation, three years after the end of the war, by stressing the dynastic links between the two countries. The closing titles point out that Sophie Dorothea was the mother of King George II and, through him, the ancestress of all future British monarchs.
Perhaps the weakest part of the film is the confusing sub-plot dealing with Countess Clara Platen, a mistress, or former mistress, of Ernest Augustus. She is in love with Königsmarck but he will have nothing to do with her, leading her to plot her revenge against him. Flora Robson was never really convincing as Platen, depicted here as a faded femme fatale; Marlene Dietrich (who probably would have been a lot better) was considered for the part, but Ealing were not keen on casting big-name Hollywood or foreign stars.
The rest of the cast, however, are much better. Peter Bull's George, for all his royal blood, is a vulgar, boorish bully who neglects his beautiful young wife and betrays her with a series of mistresses. Stewart Granger's Königsmarck is not only handsome and dashing but also sensitive, able to give Sophie the love which her husband denies her. Joan Greenwood makes an enchanting heroine, with her rich, distinctive contralto voice appropriate to Sophie's regal dignity. There is also a good contribution from the French actress Françoise Rosay as the formidable Electress Sophia, a woman whose only concern is to forward her dynastic ambitions and who remains blind to her son's grossness and to the emotional suffering of her daughter-in-law.
This was the first Ealing Studios film shot in colour, and with its elaborate sets and costumes can be seen as a precursor of the British "heritage cinema" style of historical drama. The roots of this style go back to the late forties; the Oscar Wilde adaptation "An Ideal Husband" and even Olivier's version of "Henry V" can be seen as other examples. Perhaps film-makers felt that, at a time of post-war austerity the British people needed something sumptuous to entertain them. Yet there is more to the film than good looks. It is also a moving character study of a doomed marriage and an equally doomed romance. 8/10
One of the greatest tragedies on film
clanciai4 December 2021
Joan Greenwood and Stewart Granger are the lovers here, and both make one of the best if not the best performances of their career. It's a melodrama of such extremely tragic measures that it matches even Shakespeare, and yet the story is basically true. The outrageous tragedy of a royal wedding where everything goes so completely wrong that it just has to continue going from bad to worse is enhanced by the consistent stylishness of the production with overwhelmingly beautiful and impressing costumes, fine acting by all and everyone and a cinematography all the way that leaves you constantly crestfallen, with the tremendous carnival scene to crown it all, which is symbolic for the entire film: the lovers find themselves compelled to seek protection in each other, since that is their only choice. Flora Robson and Francoise Rosay are tremendous in their supporting parts, both known as formidable queens from a number of films. Anthony Quayle is very young here in perhaps his life's only part as a scoundrel. This is something of a costume drama of all costume dramas, overwhelming both in its sumptuous brilliance of colours, images and script eloquence and in its fathomless tragedy of injustice; honesty paying for the cruelty of crass intrigue.
A royal life isn't necessarily a happy life.
mark.waltz26 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
We've seen that in our lifetime, royals with their names branded across every newspaper and rag in every country, and scandal is like morning coffee even if it isn't proven to be true. 5000+ years of world history is filled with equally scandalous stuff, spread through the courts of Europe through chambermaids, jealous aristocrats and titillated soldiers. This story takes place during a period of England's history when German relatives of past kings were chosen to take over the throne, just as a Scottish king did the same a century before.
The arrogant German prince George (Peter Bull) needs a bride and the pretty Joan Greenwood is selected, no love required, the only necessity that she can bear a heir. He's unloving (not that he's loveable anyway) and cruel, and once she's established as wife and mother, she embarks on a love affair with the romantic Stewart Granger. There's more than enough scandal whispered around for Bull to find out, and his wrath is swift and ruthless. Others in the court (particularly countess Flora Robson) do their best to create more damage, and the stage is set for a genuine historical tragedy.
The gorgeous photography, sets and costumes makes this a must for fans of historical events captured on film. There are probably far too many characters to make it flow without some confusion but the performance is by the leads and a good percentage of the supporting cast makes it intriguing and riveting. Greenwood and Grangerare an excellent romantic team, and Bull and Robson are terrific villains. The British Cinema of the 1940's was far advanced in creating these types of memorable melodramas, and fortunately, they have been recently discovered by American audiences who weren't privy to these on the late, late show or other expositions outside of arthouse showings.
The arrogant German prince George (Peter Bull) needs a bride and the pretty Joan Greenwood is selected, no love required, the only necessity that she can bear a heir. He's unloving (not that he's loveable anyway) and cruel, and once she's established as wife and mother, she embarks on a love affair with the romantic Stewart Granger. There's more than enough scandal whispered around for Bull to find out, and his wrath is swift and ruthless. Others in the court (particularly countess Flora Robson) do their best to create more damage, and the stage is set for a genuine historical tragedy.
The gorgeous photography, sets and costumes makes this a must for fans of historical events captured on film. There are probably far too many characters to make it flow without some confusion but the performance is by the leads and a good percentage of the supporting cast makes it intriguing and riveting. Greenwood and Grangerare an excellent romantic team, and Bull and Robson are terrific villains. The British Cinema of the 1940's was far advanced in creating these types of memorable melodramas, and fortunately, they have been recently discovered by American audiences who weren't privy to these on the late, late show or other expositions outside of arthouse showings.
A Fersen for Sophie.
ulicknormanowen31 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Absorbing historical movie, directed with his usual savoir-faire and undeniable talent by Basil Dearden ,with a dream of a cast :Joan Greenwood,as the sacrificed wife , who is denied her dignity, her children and even her liberty ( she was imprisoned for 30 years, guarded by lots of soldiers although she never tried to escape ); Stewart Granger ,as chivalrous dashing Koenigsmark ,who would be to Sophie Dorothea what Axel Fersen was to queen of France Marie -Antoinette :both men were Sweden ; both couple denied having sexual relations ; both keep us a lengthy correspondance ;French Françoise Rosay as the ruthless Electress , with a heart as cold as ice ; Flora Robson as the jealous lover who plunges her rival into misfortune ,divorce and loss of her love ones;Peter Bull ,as husband Georges Louis of Hanover a selfish contemptuous man whose ambitions are high and whose wife's only role is to give him children ("all we do is political :we marry and we make children, because of politics ,says the unfortunate Sophie").
Dearden's directing is brilliant :the farandole scenes are stunning , with a good use of the masks ; Koenigsmark,leaving Sophie in the dark mansion,and fearing an ambush is filmed as a film noir sequence .The wedding ,in a stormy atmosphere ,which is nothing but the greatest day in the fiancee's life ,when the priest demanded her complete submission; the poem she has her children learn to celebrate the birthday of their father which is met with disdain and even anger .At least Louis the Sixteenth loved Marie-Antoinette .
Dearden's directing is brilliant :the farandole scenes are stunning , with a good use of the masks ; Koenigsmark,leaving Sophie in the dark mansion,and fearing an ambush is filmed as a film noir sequence .The wedding ,in a stormy atmosphere ,which is nothing but the greatest day in the fiancee's life ,when the priest demanded her complete submission; the poem she has her children learn to celebrate the birthday of their father which is met with disdain and even anger .At least Louis the Sixteenth loved Marie-Antoinette .
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
