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.
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.