The Prime Minister

Obviously, this film was designed to bolster the morale of the Brits at the time of the Blitz, but couldn't Warner Brothers have been more careful with the flow of the picture? It begins, as many biopics do, by reducing a great person's life to a flimsy love story. Only later, when his wife leaves the picture, does this truly become a political film. John Gielgud, looking wispy and vaguely Disraelite, turns in one of his least believable performances, especially in the scenes where he plays the elderly Disraeli. The poor make-up job, and his ridiculously stereotyped "old man" facial features make some of those scenes almost unwatchable.

This is the second film from this era that I have recently seen (the other being "The Life of Emile Zola") where a studio can make a picture about a Jewish person without ever mentioning the "J" word. When a person's Jewishness is so central to the plot, pussyfooting around it is unforgivable.

From a historical perspective, my favorite parts of this film were the Disraeli harangues in which he is obviously rubbing salt in Chamberlain-the-appeaser's wounds. I'm sure Churchill would have loved watching those scenes.

"The Prime Minister" is loosely based on the life and career of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The film first portrays his earlier life and career and then rapidly transitions to his time as Prime Minister.

The performances in this film were respectable. John Gielgud delivers a fine performance as Disraeli himself. Diana Wynyard is convincing as Disraeli's wife and Fay Compton was also notable as Queen Victoria.

This film is watchable and has a decent storyline. It is apparent that the story emphasizes certain points because this film was made as British propaganda for World War II, but that didn't bother me. Overall the film somewhat touched on the wit and energy of Disraeli, though not as much as it could have. I found "Disraeli" (1929) to be a much more engaging portrayal of Disraeli, and Arliss' performance as Disraeli is more charismatic and makes more of an impression.

This film had one serious flaw. It did not mention even once that Disraeli was Jewish. Almost the whole history of Disraeli's personal and political life was a history of struggling to overcome Anti-Semitism and struggling to be accepted into mainstream British society.Just describing the history of a dandy young man and novelist who becomes one of the rising stars of a young group of politicians during the earlyVictorian period doesn't give us the complete story of the real Disraeli

Such an abscure film, which finally came to TCM. There have been several films made about disreali, from his humble beginnings as writer to prime minister in the late 1800s, and trusted friend of the royals. The mighty geilgud had already been doing stage for twenty years when this role came along, although most of us know him from the films "arthur" and "becket". To some, the specific details of british political history can be pretty dry. The writers must have thought so also, as they frequently use written cards to move the story along, showing disreali, as he climbs the steps of offices. It's okay. The 1929 version with george arliss focuses more on trying to purchase the suez canal and keeping the russians in check. That one is a little more fun to watch. This 1941 version is directed by thorold dickinson, who was nominated for "oeuverture". Released in 1941, geilgud made this very early in his film career, possibly to influence england's actions during world war II.

Ok, so the acting was rather theatrical and the message rather patriotic. But, like Henry VI, it was a propaganda war film to stir the spirit of the English people in the height of the second world war. It didn't have the writing credits of Shakespeare but this must also be taken into consideration. To critise a film written for the sole purpose of bolstering the battered and bombed people of the British Isles in WWII and comparing it with what we are used to now as historical films (although Braveheart, The Patriot and U571 may be more deserving of criticism than The Prime Minister) is being blindsighted.

This film should be considered for what it's purpose is and what film has ever portrayed any historical figure in his or her real light. We have documentaries for that.

Just watch the film for what it is.