An intriguing and profound aspect of life in the epoch of the internet is that we are privileged to gaze directly into the past. We have a vast treasury of more than a century of filmed images to draw on. What was once available only to the archivist and historian is now at the fingertips of anyone with access to a computer. Not only the theatrical presentations of cinema but the documentary footage of historical events and scenes of every day life.
This is, it may be said without exaggeration, something unprecedented in human history.
Previous to the invention of photography and the motion picture, our vision of the past was entirely reliant on wrought images and written description. These in turn were dependent on the subjective perceptions of those that created them.
What is new here is that we can view recorded artifacts directly, with no mediation other than the camera.
Now some will object that this only applies to documentary images drawn directly from life. To an extent this true. But even theatrical fictions can inform us in like fashion, if we view them as representing popular contemporary perceptions of their own time as well as the past.
Bearing the above in mind, I’d like to present a retrospective of one such. 1974’s British production A Fall of Eagles.
Broadcast back in pre-history. Before the Internet. Back when the only challenge to the Media triumvirate of ABC, CBS, NBC was the fledgling PBS, then building it’s national audience by importing British TV Series such as Upstairs, Downstairs and Elizabeth R, Eagles caused quite a stir.
Some of it may have had to do with the sheer audacity of the concept. The idea of a TV series based on the dynastic histories of the empires of Austria Hungary, Germany and Russia, culminating in their extinction during WWI, sounded just as unpromising then as it likely would today. Despite at least some of those events being still within living memory. Not to mention that trying to tell a story that encompassed such epic, sweeping events as assassinations, World War and revolution was a tall order in itself.
Eagles, like most such British productions of the time, was mostly shot in studio. Stock footage and archival images are used illustrate larger historic events while the camera zeroes in on the private and political concerns of the major historical figures involved. Obviously this meant that series would rise or fall on the quality of the writing and the performances of the actors.
Fortunately the UK, with its vibrant theatrical tradition, then as now was blessed by an abundance of talent in both of these fields.
The quality of the writing shows early as we are put on notice that this won’t be a typical treatment of great men strutting the stage of history. Instead we are immediately confronted by the pivotal role played by women in this drama. First by the clash of wills between the Empress Elisabeth and her Mother-in-law the Archduchess Sophia over the former’s sympathy with Hungarian national aspirations. Second by Queen Victoria’s daughter, the future mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Princess Vicky’s increasingly hostile conflict with Otto Von Bismark.
Together these comprise the first two episodes of the series, The first benefits from the fine acting of the indomitable Pamela Brown as the Archduchess and the freshness of Diane Keen’s portrayal of Empress Elisabeth. The second finds its center gravity in the marvelous Gemma Jones as Princess Vicky. She is well supported by a cast including the seasoned Maurice Denham as Kaiser Wilhelm I and as well by, in a treat for the fans of the Britcom Are You Being Served?, Frank Thorton as Queen Victoria’s main squeeze Prince Albert.
The biggest acting plum next to that of Princess Vicky went to the the versatile international star of stage and screen Curd Jurgens. In his long and varied career Jurgens demonstrated an aptitude for both Drama and Comedy. This double aptitude serves him well as Otto Von Bismark, a character by turns bordering the absurd or deadly, ruthlessly earnest. A splendid, highly entertaining performance where Jurgens appears to be enjoying himself immensely.
From such promising beginnings, the series takes us through the twist and turns of politics in Fin de siecle Europe. A landscape populated by increasingly deluded aristos, almost equally clueless, enabling politicians, haplessly naive reformers, committed radicals and hardened revolutionaries. A world in which the ruling families felt under constant threat of assassination and/or revolution. As the series illustrates, a fear that was entirely justified.
Along the way the narrative is driven by memorable performances of actors old and then new. Some, like Frank Thorton and Gemma Jones, whose greatest fame was yet to come. Among these are Kenneth Colley, Freddie Jones, Michael Gough, Michael Kitchen, Paul Eddington, John Rhys-Davies and Charles Gray to name some.
However, if you were to ask “Who is the most famous actor to have appeared in A Fall of Eagles?”, the answer would undoubtedly be Patrick Stewart.
Known to millions today as Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise and Dr. Charles Xavier of the X-Men, Stewart’s snagging a major part in Eagles was a milestone in his early screen career. His character was the central figure in two episodes including the penultimate one of the series.
So what was this juicy role you might ask?
Well as I may have indicated above, while Eagles limns a detailed portrait of those living atop the volcano, it doesn’t neglect those working to facilitate the eruption either. Stewart benefited from this.
Stewart fans who take time to view Eagles will be treated to his portrayal of Vladimir Lenin, chief instigator of the Bolshevik Revolution. And what a portrayal it is.
Filmed during the period of US-Soviet detente, the thaw in the Cold War allowed for a more nuanced, balanced and realistic characterization of Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov. After all, as Eagles makes evident, Lenin didn’t lead the Bolshevik Party on the basis of a personal dictatorship. He exercised his influence by swaying the collective leadership of the Party. A leadership made up of dedicated revolutionaries at least as fanatical and driven as Lenin himself. Convincing them to follow his lead would have required a sensitivity and skill alien to partisan caricatures of Lenin as a cold, inhuman dogmatist.
Which isn’t to suggest that Stewart’s Lenin is any kind of a touchy, feely sort, brimming with the milk of human kindness. He is, however, a recognizable human being, rather than either an Archdemon or Archangel of Revolution.
In some respects it was a perfect role for Stewart, given his background.
Stewart has stated that his politics are rooted in a belief in fairness and equality.[10] He considers himself a socialist and was a member of the Labour Party.[21][84][85] He stated, "My father was a very strong trade unionist and those fundamental issues of Labour were ingrained into me."[84]
So it can be seen that when it came to portraying the chief architect of the Russian Revolution, Stewart definitely had a dog in that fight, as an activist as well as an actor.
Interestingly, the same year he appeared in The Gathering Storm with Richard Burton, portraying a very different sort of Socialist in the role of Labor Leader Clement Atlee.
It must be admitted that both Lenin and Atlee were bald though.
I really can’t give enough of a rave for Stewart’s performance. He manages to thread his way between the extremes of adulation and condemnation to give a fully realized portrait of the complex human being behind the myths of both the Left and the Right. Well worth the investment of time to savor it.
The entire series of A Fall of Eagles is available on YouTube.