VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,4/10
5667
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Basato sullo scandalo Profumo del 1963, il film racconta la relazione tra una danzatrice esotica e il ministro della Guerra, che scuote il governo britannico.Basato sullo scandalo Profumo del 1963, il film racconta la relazione tra una danzatrice esotica e il ministro della Guerra, che scuote il governo britannico.Basato sullo scandalo Profumo del 1963, il film racconta la relazione tra una danzatrice esotica e il ministro della Guerra, che scuote il governo britannico.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 2 candidature
Joanne Whalley
- Christine Keeler
- (as Joanne Whalley-Kilmer)
Jeroen Krabbé
- Eugene Ivanov
- (as Jeroen Krabbe)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis movie narrowly escaped an X rating in the U.S. because of some questionable footage during the Cliveden House orgy scene. Closer scrutiny revealed that two extras were having real sex on a piano in one of the background scenes. Even though the images were blurry, the scene had to be trimmed for all general releases to avoid the restrictive rating, which BBFC censor James Ferman accomplished by defusing the light from a table-lamp in the foreground. The inquisitive-minded will find this sequence about 49 minutes and five seconds into the movie.
- BlooperA title card says, "One Year Later, 1962," indicating that Profumo addressed Parliament about Keeler that year. Profumo addressed Parliament in March 1963.
- Citazioni
Stephen Ward: All Russians are spies, it's how they're brought up.
- Versioni alternativeOriginal 114-minutes British version was shortened to 108 minutes for the USA theatrical release in order to avoid a X rating.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Wogan: Wogan with Sue Lawley (1989)
Recensione in evidenza
I saw this for the first time last night on Channel 4. I've never sought out the film before because I assumed that it would be an uninvolved telling of an uninteresting piece of British history. I was wrong.
The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.
Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.
Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.
The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.
I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.
The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.
Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.
Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.
The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.
I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.
- LewisJForce
- 17 ott 2005
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Scandal?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Scandal
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 7.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 8.800.000 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 658.660 USD
- 30 apr 1989
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 8.800.000 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 55 minuti
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Scandal - Il caso Profumo (1989) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi