Beau Brummell

Beau Brummell was the leading dandy of his age, determining the fashion of men for centuries to come. Lord Byron called him the greatest man of his age, and yet he never made any pretensions to be something special. He just showed men how to dress properly and distinctly, doing away with all the exaggerated foppishness of 18th century fashion. Stewart Granger makes one of his best performances and makes Beau Brummell quite a credible character of consistent honesty, while the prize goes to Peter Ustinov as the prince of Wales, later George IV, who crowns the film by his formidable character of both humour and wit and pathetic awkwardness. Robert Morley plays his father, the mad king George III and has only one great scene, but that's the centre of the play and perhaps what you will be least likely to forget. Nigel Hawthorne made an entire film on this theme, but yet Robert Morley's brief appearance of the same character is more impressive. The main asset of the film though is the brilliant dialog, which sparkles with wit, spirituality and cleverness perpetually, and you will find it worth watching the film all over again just to concentrate on relishing the splendid dialog. Some would find the film overburdened with talk and miss the usual swashbuckling action of Stewart Granger, but he himself always desired to play more parts like this and less of the action virtuoso. Elizabeth Taylor was not yet a great actress at this point, but she nevertheless shines with her diamond beauty. The greatest credit goes to the script writers.

Beau Brummell (1954) is out of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and directed by Curtis Bernhardt. It's based on the play of the same name by Clyde Fitch with a screenplay written by Karl Tunberg, The music score is by Richard Addinsell with Miklós Rózsa and it is filmed in Eastman Color by Oswald Morris. Starring are Stewart Granger as Beau Brummell, Elizabeth Taylor, and Peter Ustinov plays the Prince of Wales. It is also a remake of a Warner Bros. silent film made in 1924 that starred John Barrymore as Brummell. "In the day of Napoleon, Nelson and Wellington, of Pitt, Burke and Fox, there lived a man called Beau Brummell. Lord Byron said he was the greatest man in Europe. Brummell agreed--and he very nearly proved it". Well that sets the mood doesn't it? Time to sit back and enjoy a romping good costumer with dandy dashers dealing in politico shenanigans and romancing buxom beauties. Only that isn't quite the case, for what follows is more a staid picture about a supposed interesting man during what was undoubtedly a very interesting time in 19th century England (this is the time when King George III was losing his marbles and the Pitt family flourished in politics as Whig Independents). But not all historical periods make for a great movie, so perhaps Brummell's tale just isn't that interesting to begin with? He was known for his love of clothes and gambling, and true enough he wasn't afraid to speak his mind, but on the screen it never ignites into anything blood stirring. It's an over talky piece that is low on action and skirts around the chances to keep the narrative spicey. Perhaps the presence of Granger lends false an expectation of a swashbuckler? But even armed with prior knowledge that this is not that type of Granger movie doesn't prepare for how laborious the picture is at times. Thank god, then, for Ustinov, who practically makes sitting thru the movie worth it on his own. He plays the Prince of Wales as a self-involved neurotic, thriving on decadence as he becomes the King in waiting and shares a passion with Brummell for the finer things in life. But away from Ustinov the acting is hit and miss, with Granger only asked to be handsome and deliver lines with style, and Taylor looking radiant yet hardly able to put any heat into the simmering romance with Brummell. It would have been nice to have had more of Robert Morley as George III, while both Paul Rogers as William Pitt & James Donald as Lord Edwin Mercer hold their respective ends up well enough. While away from the actors there's some good production value with Morris' photography, as the English countryside comes to life and the interiors of Ockwells Manor in Berkshire fit snuggly for the period setting. The core issues such as fashion, elegance and society standings may indeed be camera friendly, but the story around those things is sadly rather bland. 5/10

Brummel really died in France (in Caen) but not of TB.He actually developed a VD!TB was certainly more romantic . As we are told in " the man who shot Liberty Valance" ,when history is less beautiful than the legend,let's print the legend. The cast is very good: Stewart Granger portrays a committed dandy -we are not told he used to spend five hours a day to dress himself- who is a friend of the prince of Wales but who is influenced by the New World and the French Revolution.He looks like a cross between Lafayette (who refused to be at the beck and call of Louis 16th even before the Revolution) and Beaumarchais' s "Figaro ("what did you do to deserve so many goods?You were born (a noble) and that's it").Granger displays panache,dignity and loyalty;Peter Ustinov,gives a performance which reminds me of his effeminate Nero in "Quo Vadis" ;Robert Morley briefly appears as the lunatic king but he makes his scenes count;Elizabeth Taylor's part of a lady who cannot make up her mind- adventure or security- is not one of the actress's best though ;it was her heyday and "Brummel" does not compare favorably to "suddenly last Summer" "giant" or even "the raintree county" or "Ivanhoe".

George Bryan "Beau" Brummell (1778-1840) was a leader of fashion in Regency England and a close friend of the Prince Regent, although they eventually quarrelled. Brummell was eventually forced to leave Britain because of debts and spent the latter part of his life in poverty in France. He appears to have a considerable influence on the men's fashions of his day, helping to popularise cravats, trousers instead of knee-breeches, natural hair instead of wigs and to make fashionable the restrained, sober elegance which was to be the keynote of gentlemen's costume in the nineteenth century in place of the ostentatious dandyism of the eighteenth. Outside the field of gents' tailoring, however, he was not a figure of any great historical significance, so it is perhaps not surprising that this film is not an academically serious biopic, but rather a celebration of a colourful figure in a colourful age. The film is far from being historically accurate, especially as regards chronology. The events depicted here (the Regency Crisis of 1788, the Prince's marriage to Caroline of Brunswick, Brummell's rise in the Prince's favour, his fall from grace, the death of King George III in 1820 and Brummel's own death in 1840) historically cover a period in excess of fifty years, but here they are presented as occurring over a much shorter timescale. Rather oddly, the villain of the piece is William Pitt the Younger, widely regarded as one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers but presented here as a cunning, power-hungry schemer who refuses to allow King George III to be certified as mad (although he quite obviously is) in order to protect his own power. (The relationship between Pitt and the King depicted here more closely resembles that between the Austrian Chancellor Prince Metternich and the feeble-minded Emperor Ferdinand I who, for political reasons, was never declared to be insane). In reality Pitt died in 1806, but here he is shown as outliving not only George III but also Brummell. The film's politics are, in fact, rather inconsistent. Early on, Brummell, whose family although wealthy are of fairly humble stock, is portrayed as something of a radical filled with the spirit of the French Revolution and complaining about the class divisions within British society. Later on, however, he becomes as the Prince's friend an arch-reactionary, encouraging the future George IV to defy Parliament and to rule more as an autocrat than as a constitutional monarch. Brummell's justification for this apparent change of heart is that he feels that the Prince will make an admirably liberal ruler, far more liberal than Pitt, but the character played by Peter Ustinov does not really make us feel that this confidence is well-founded. Stewart Granger was known for playing dashing heroes in costume dramas, so was well-suited to the lead role, although it contains less in the way of physical action than some of his other parts from this period. Ustinov gives a good comic performance as the petulant, self-pitying Prince, and Robert Morley a more serious one as the mad old King. I was, however, surprised to see Elizabeth Taylor, already a major star in her early twenties, in a comparatively minor role. She plays Brummell's love-interest Lady Patricia Belham, although he eventually loses her to another man. Apparently Lady Patricia, a fictitious character not found in the play on which the screenplay was based, was inserted to allay any suspicions on the part of the ultra-puritanical American censors that the friendship between Brummell and the Prince might be homosexual in nature. "Beau Brummell" is not the sort of film which is likely to please the historian, but then it was never intended to. It was clearly intended as an enjoyable period romp and, to some extent, still works on that level. 6/10

Giving up a military career when he is rude to the Prince of Wales, Stewart Granger is excellent as the handsome gentleman consumed with looking great and cavorting with upper class society in this elegant film. Peter Ustinov is just marvelous as The Prince of Wales. Again and again, he shows that he was just born to play these majestic spots. Robert Morely is fabulous in the one scene that he appears in the film as the insane king. The weak link here is Elizabeth Taylor. She seems like she is acting in 1944's "National Velvet." The picture is a wonderful study of class values, snobbery and redemption in the end.

Sir Peter Ustinov has always been a good actor, even fifty years ago, I noticed when I spotted this movie on television. Is he really so small? Or did they just put so many tall actors around him? I don't know. However, this is not the right stuff for a movie. It's directed and acted like a stage drama and that's what it should be. Being a film, the old-fashioned plot isn't able to thrill. I was tired anyway and it was hard not to fall asleep.

As a writer, I appreciate the classic play from which "Beau Brummell" was adapted. The film directed by veteran Curtis Bernhardt and written by Karl Tunberg is a very solid one, which is a drama not an adventure. Perhaps post-1970 viewers are unused to listening to dialogue; also this is not history, it is fictionalized biography. This means the Beau Brummell we are given is the one to be judged; and frankly anyone who is the enemy of a half-mad pseudo-Christian monarch, and who tries to influence his son to be even marginally a better man and less of a dress parade fop, is an historical character worth making a movie about. Furthermore, any comparison between this film and "The Madness of King George", a naturalistic biography of a half-mad king is ridiculous; this is fiction, the latter cannot aspire to be anything comparable. The film is physically quite beautiful. Richard Addinsell and Miklos Rosza provided music, Oswald Morris the glowing cinematography and Elizabeth Haffenden the very striking and lovely period costumes.. With art direction by Alfred Junge, gorgeous bewigged hair and Joan Johnstone's makeup, the film looks quite lovely at all points. The storyline, which sometimes betrays its stage origins, in my judgment never really falters. George Brian Brummell attracts  the attention of the young Prince of England by critiquing his overly-elaborate redesign of the royal guard's uniforms. It's about all he has to do except wish he could marry his mistress, which his father will not allow. Brummell's audacity and subtle praise of his latent potential then causes him to make Brummell his chief unofficial adviser. He introduces pipe-stem trousers and the ancestor of the modern dress suit in place of the foppish fashions of the period; and he conducts himself honestly while hoping to free the prince from his father's madness and general tyranny. He is liked and respected by the ethical men at a corrupt and dangerous imperial court--remember we revolted against the mad king's family in the colonies--but eventually runs afoul of the king's touchiness, and to Lord Byron at a party instead of issuing an apology, asks of George Gordon, Lord Byron, "Gordie--who's your fat friend?" The Prince fails to forgive him for the intemperate remark; and Brummell is driven from court and only reconciled with the king as he lies dying. in poverty. This powerful and often thematic narrative may be a bit slow here and there, but intelligent dialogue, powerful confrontations and good acting make it a standout, compared to nearly every historical film made since its original release. In the title role, Stewart Granger is very good and charismatic. Even better perhaps are Robert Morley as the mad King, Peter Ustinov as the Prince, James Donald as Lord Mercer and Rosemary Harris as Mrs. Fitzherbert, the Prince's mistress. Other fine actors in this well-played feature include Peter Dyneley, James Hayter, Noel Willman as Lord Byron, Paul Rogers as Mr. Pitt, Peter Bull and Henry Oscar. As Lady Pamela, Brummell's love, Elizabeth Taylor lacks something in every department except looks; even after her relative shortcomings in classical films such as "ivanhoe" and this entry, studio heads hired her to play classical parts. I have always wondered why. Granger, handsome lead, was brought to star in a number of projects for the studio; he did not do a poor job in any one of them and turned in a very good one wherever, as here, he was able to inject humor into his part. This is a very fine, dignified and rewarding historical fictionalized biography, unlike so many before and since. It is very underrated.

Stewart Granger is George "Beau" Brummel, former Captain of Dragoons, who strikes up a friendship with the future King of England, the Prince of Wales, Peter Ustinov. Under Ustinov's imprimatur, Granger makes all sorts of friends and enemies in high places, including George Gordon, Lord Byron, advises the Prince on issues of politics and character, and, most important, changes the fashion of the nation from powdered wigs, white stockings, and elaborate dress, to understated black clothing with ordinary trousers. Granger and Elizabeth Taylor fall for each other but Taylor opts for marriage to the stolid James Donald rather than the dashing but erratic Granger who is making a living by gambling and has piled up a mountain of debts. Eventually, Granger not being willing or able to come to the mountain, the mountain comes to Granger -- at about the same time Granger's pip-pip advice to the Prince becomes too frank. Granger flees to France where he dies in poverty. It's not what you think of when you think of a Stewart Granger movie. He was the Errol Flynn of the 1950s. His best-known films involved swashbuckling, pursuits on horseback, that sort of thing. This movie is not like that. It's duller and, in a way, more adult. Granger here is a complex man and although the audience is invariably going to root for him -- he IS, after all, Stewart Granger -- he has quite a few flaws. It could even be argued that he is made up of nothing BUT flaws. Despite the fact that the movie does its best to paper over them, the artifice shows and the cracks are visible. My God, what a narcissist. He's self indulgent, full of rude Wildeian quips, snooty and insolent, manipulative, and reckless with the feelings of others. The Elizabeth Taylor character was invented to assure us that Beau Brummel was heterosexual but I don't know. I don't know that Granger himself is any more manipulative than the movie. Okay, he's an adviser to the Prince on politics. What are his politics like? The film introduces them by having Granger make a few indignant remarks about the high-flown ways of the aristocracy. Why, take the flour that those aristos put into their wigs! Enough to feed fifty million families on bread for ten million years! Very populist. And that's the end of his interest in people blessed with less opportunity than himself. Thereafter he urges the Prince to exert his power and, at the final confrontation, not to accept any compromise with parliament regarding the bestowing of earldoms. (Ustinov had promised to make Granger an earl.) Is Granger as Brummel simply using Ustinov as the Prince to advance his own interests? Granger muses to himself -- and to Mortimer, the servant who polishes his boots with champagne -- that it may have started off that way but now Granger realizes that the Prince needs his friendship as much as he, Granger, needs the Prince's. Right-o, Beau. That kind of reasoning is known as an ego defense mechanism. Granger is extremely handsome, dressed to the nines, and strides around with pomp and character. But Peter Ustinov is equally good in a secondary role -- a pouting, blushing, pink little porker. Ustinov convinces us that he's filled with self doubt and hesitancy, as much as Granger so skillfully plays the role of the self-confident sociopath. We all wind up rooting for Granger, yes, but we probably won't cheer so loudly if we pay attention to the goings on. Kids may miss the action of Stewart's other films of the period. Adults may be able to get into the intrigue and the intricacies of personal motives. They may also appreciate Elizabeth Taylor at her most gaspingly stunning.

Whether one is a good or bad person doesn't figure for legitimacy as a biography either in a book or movie. Obviously some people haven't a background in literature. King Lear or either Macbeths weren't good people. The point is that Beau Brummell changed forever the way men dressed, conversed and behaved or 'misbehaved' in West End London and it spread throughout the world. If you look at your shirt or trouser or even you underwear you have him to thank for your own version of masculinity, heterosexuality, homosexuality or metrosexuality. Do some research.

Enjoyed this film, however, I doubt very much if England found this a wonderful film to view. I know for a fact that this film was shown special to the royal family and they were simply shocked at how crazy their ancestors were portrayed in this film. It was from that time on, that all films ever shown to the royal family were to be screened first. Peter Ustinov,(Prince of Wales),"The Bachelor",'99 played the role of a fat prince who did not have a mind of his own or in other words, was a complete WIMP. Stewart Granger,(Beau Brummell), "The Trygon Factor",'66, was a care free character in the British Military and said what he wanted and did exactly what he wanted and lived off people. Beau also became good friends with Prince of Wales, after almost spitting in his face on different occasions. Elizabeth Taylor,(Lady Patricia Belham),"A Little Night Music",'78, was very pretty and played a rather quiet and confusing young lady, who did not know just what she wanted in life. Entertaining film, but not the greatest, but excellent acting.