The Ruling Class - Criterion Collection (1972)

Peter O'Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as Jack, a man "cured" of believing he's God-only to become Jack the Ripper incarnate. Based on Peter Barnes' irreverent play, this darkly comic indictment of Britain's class system peers behind the closed doors of English aristocracy. Insanity, sadistic sarcasm, and black comedy-with just a touch of the Hollywood musical-are all featured in this beloved cult classic directed by Peter Medak.

Veddy British, Veddy Stoopid...I've Resorted To Hypnosis In An Effort To Forget It

Peter O' Toole's binge drinking (or occasional bouts of momentary sobriety) from the days when this film was made explains a lot about why he took on the role of a mad English Lord in the allegedly funny dark comedy The Ruling Class, although how Arthur Lowe was talked into coming aboard this brain-hurting turkey is a mystery.

In a nutshell, this perhaps one-time avant-garde movie from 1972 plays out like this... A fusty old nobleman, the thirteenth Earl of Gurney, played by Harry Andrews, is secretly an asphyxiphiliac who gets his jollies by having his manservant hang him (as in by the neck) from a bedpost every night, only to step in and rescue him just before he permanently blacks out. Well, the equally antique servant one night keels over of a heart attack right in the middle of one of His Lordship's bizarre and unfunny sessions of pleasure-via-strangulation, and the poor old chap dangles his way kicking and gasping to that great country house party in the sky.

Enter the Lord's heir, Jack, a certifiably insane Mod-ist with terrible fashion sense who goes through life under the delusion that he is none other than (gee, who didn't see this coming?) Jesus Christ incarnate. Scenes of loud, irritatingly madcap British "humor" pass and along the line the new Lord marries a stripper whose primary ambition is to have the salesgirls at Harrod's step-to for her now that she is a Lady. Meanwhile Lord Jack refuses to answer to anything other than "Jesus" or "JC" and the staff and family retainers are thrown into a tizzy. Various efforts are taken to cure the new Lord and make him an acceptable representative of the stogy old-line Tory Gurney family, and finally all seems well at the end when the Lord begins to answer to the name "Jack". Jack becomes a fire-breathing conservative complete with calls in his House of Lord's maiden speech for a return to capital punishment and the general exploitation of a rightfully downtrodden working class. Little do his peers know, however, that while cured of his delusions about being Jesus, the fourteenth Lord Gurney is not now answering to his own name of Jack, but he believes himself to that erroneously romanticized Victorian sexual misfit, Jack the Ripper. Yes, how hil-ar-i-ous, Lord Jack now a sexual murderer of women, uh-huh.

And that, Amazonians, is The Ruling Class for you, an agonizingly awful mislabeled classic.
December 7, 2007

More room in these views...

What a relief anyway to note that at least ONE reviewer below can write, both to the point and grammatically correctly! OK, on to the actual movie.

I'm slightly disappointed, but unsurprised, I suppose, not to see the following interpretation included among the many. I saw The Ruling Class when it first came out in the UK. Of course the film took well-aimed pot shots at a variety of British institutions, but also asked subtler questions of all of us, such as "Shouldn't society review its approach to insanity?" (and in fact, society did) "Don't we pay mere lip-service to human kindness and fellowship, whilst deep-down we in fact respect only wealth and status, no matter how doubtfully gained?" (no change there unfortunately) "Shouldn't we scrutinise more carefully the risks of information without responsibility?" (a good one, that, and rather relevant to today, wouldn't you say?). From my point of view, upon the Earl's psychological conversion by his parasitic family from open-hearted innocent to... socially-presentable 'something else', their inadvertent creation became a metaphor for the beast in all of us. The beast let loose because of human ignorance, fear, and contempt. A caricature, sure, highly exaggerated, certainly, but horribly valid all the same.

Oh, and by the way, I was utterly floored that although others in the ensemble won deserved praise at the time, Peter O'Toole's bravura performance was to a very great extent under-appreciated. I doubt whether it rankles with him today. But anyway, my hat's off to you, Peter. Always will be.
November 6, 2007

Typically brilliant British film, though it may not be for everyone...

This is a great film, one that polarises audiences even today. Some say it's outdated, that its targets (the stuffy upper class British snobs, the House of Lords, etc., etc.) are old news. Yet I feel that it hasn't dated at all, that we will always have these stuffy upper class bastards (whether they are British, American, French, or what have you) with us. Many have had problems with the mise-en-scene of the film, stating that it's too stagey because it's based on a play. I didn't find this at all. Peter Medak's direction is very good, and his compositions are quite good. I recently saw a film called Butley, which was based on a play and was really boring cinematically (but was well written and acted). This film doesn't feel like a filmed play at all. The performances are all top notch, especially O'Toole and Arthur Lowe as the butler. The film ranges from light farce to dark, dark humour. It has a very English air about it, and that may not sit well with many viewers. Much of English humour can be cruel, dark, heartless, and cynical, and this film has it in spades. It doesn't always translate well to American audiences (or other audiences). I think this film is an underrated masterpiece. I was very happy when Criterion released the full, truly uncut version. It was initially released in a 130 minute version, then later in an "uncut" 141 minute version (which obviously wasn't the full length version). This cut is. The film is a classic British farce played to perfection, a very rich film that can be viewed over and over again. August 21, 2007

They don't make movies like this anymore

Outstanding! Forget Lawrence of Arabia. This is THE Peter o'Toole role!
Even his only competing ranters Richard Harris & Burton could not have brought the hip eccentricity necessary for this role. This is a defining role like Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest or Malcom McDowell in Clockwork Orange. Yes, it's funny, but you will find yourself smiling between the jokes at the overall feeling that pervades. I'm not surprised by the few negative reviews by people who don't "get it" (they were not meant to). I am amazed that this was nominated for several Academy Awards. Ah, how far they've fallen since 1972. This was a wide-release cult film that stands as one of the best of the 70's, from a decade containing a wealth of classics. It's a subversive bon-bon for the twisted intelligentsia who will revel in the language, themes, scenery and faces.
June 6, 2007

One of my all time favorites

This old movie is a joy for Peter O'Toole fans. He is vulnerable, evil, sweet, loving, twisted, cruel, deceitful, transparent, innocent, corrupt, powerful,broken,weak and strong. All that and song and dance too, by a man who's beautifully in his prime. I think he's just wonderful in this one. And, the script is brilliant. I am happy to be able to get it on DVD now. April 2, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...