Didn't like Alais - The Lion in Winter (1968) Discussion

[–] anniebel 15 years ago

I agree. No character at all. It might have helped if she could act.

reply

[–] avatar1140 14 years ago

She was necessary to the film. Keep in mind that she was the only female in the movie who was young and easy to look at. Everyone else was, to be quite blunt, sore on the eyes. Only in the beginning of the film did Hepburn look good, before the emotional chaos ensued.
Every time Alais appeared on screen I could sigh with relief, it was almost like taking a break from watching the other hairy, mottled, sweaty men yell at each other...

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 14 years ago

She had a role to play in the intrigues, quite unwillingly. But you should check out the 2003 version if you want to roll your eyes. The actress was cringe-worthy (much like most of the cast sadly) and whatever importance the character could have is swallowed by her outrageous diction and over the top acting.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] HoferPM-1 14 years ago

There was a remake of this film????? Anyway, the girl who played Alais was bland and I thought totally unattractive. There are many actresses they could have chosen to do the part better.

reply

[–] Jimmy-128 11 years ago

Yep. Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, and it should have been much better than it was.

reply

[–] mattwich 14 years ago

I admit I felt the same way: Alais was tiresome and boring. Her first trouble is she sincere and honest, so, among the schemers and liars, she necessarily doesn't have the same zing and shock as the others. I'd recommend reading the original play.

What I discovered when I read the play was some of Alais's lines--ones that portray her as more mature and savvy, in fact--didn't make it into the movie. (In particular is the scene in which Henry makes his proposal of marriage to her.) Since Goldman did both the play and movie screenplay, I have to assume he was careful and intentional with every change. Therefore, I guess he meant to set up Alais to be railroaded by every other character in the movie. Too bad, because her character in the play is bolder and nobler (even likable).

I just read the play a week ago; I've yet to see the movie again since. When I do, I hope I'll find I can appreciate (or at least tolerate) Alais better, having gotten to see a different, better picture of her.

reply

[–] jaynekranc 13 years ago

She was right when she said she was just a pawn. I didn't see what was so special about her until Henry admitted that she was the person that would most stick in Eleanor's craw. That was actually the point of her. To be a tool practially everyone in the family could hurt each other with.

reply

[–] angmc43 13 years ago

Interesting that although Eleanor would have no problem killing any of Henry's illegitimate children, it's Alais who had no problem insisting Henry kill his own children.

reply

[–] jaynekranc 13 years ago

When did Eleanor kill illegitimate children? She said you could fill a whole village with the illegitmate children he'd had. I didn't think that bothered her as long as she still had her title.

If Eleanor had had a child of Alais' killed, that would have been after the planned annullment and Henry's proposed marriage to Alais, so that child would not technically be illegitimate.

I think it's interesting that Henry would go for an annullment which would render all of his children with Eleanor illegitmate by definition.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thesnowleopard 11 years ago

Interesting that although Eleanor would have no problem killing any of Henry's illegitimate children, it's Alais who had no problem insisting Henry kill his own children.

Yes, it's very interesting that Alais, when the chips are down, is as willing to slaughter her rivals as anyone else. I found her an unpalatable mixture of whininess, manipulativeness, passive-aggression, and cow-like stupidity--and I think that was entirely intentional. It's very easy to condemn Eleanor until you meet one of her rivals and see how much more appealing her vitality and forthrightness really are than the poisonous ignorance and passivity of women like Alais and--by extension--Rosamund.

Alais' (and Rosamund's) big attraction to Henry may have been simply that they were no challenge to him the way Eleanor was. He could be infatuated with them, but he could never truly love them the way he did her. I'm sure he'd have tired of Rosamund if she'd lived long enough, or of Alais if he'd lived long enough. He never really learned to tire of Eleanor.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

reply

[–] Rooto 13 years ago

I found this as well, she didn't seem to have anything to her. Fair enough if she was just mean to be a pawn in everyone else's games, but she could at least of been pretty. She was the only weak point in the film to me.

Protector of Percy. He is grand and not at all bad. Honest

reply

[–] elena-28 13 years ago

Oh, but Alais gets her digs in: she's the one who draws out a simpler, more truthful Eleanor, and when Alais says she would like to see Eleanor suffer, Eleanor looks straight at her and says: "Alais, just for you." And Alais breaks down and Eleanor becomes truly maternal. This is a rare and lovely moment, vital to our view of Eleanor, and only Alais has the qualities to make it possible for Eleanor; just as she's the only one who can draw a similar vulnerability from Henry. In being able to do this, she is, in fact, potentially the most dangerous person for them in Chinon. She can bring down their guard.

And Alais recognizes the same danger to her children that Eleanor expresses to Henry, and when she forces the hard choice onto Henry, it means more to him precisely because it's coming from *her*.

Alais is simple and sincere, but she isn't stupid; and being a pawn, she sees things from a very different, necessary perspective.

reply

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

Personally I thought she was quite attractive... except in the scene where the priest is brought in to do the marriage. At that point, when she was standing in the middle of the frame, her face looked very worn and haggard. I figured it must have something to do with the lighting of that shot-- but was it done deliberately?

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

She was the only likable character in this.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

[–] Jimmy-128 11 years ago

All she does is mope around

Of course she does...until her last scene. That's the whole point--she's supposed to be this passive, submissive, docile, placid little creature, and that's why it completely blindsides Henry (and the audience) when she grows a spine and she delivers her ultimatum.

reply

[–] MrEdnablackadder 11 years ago

I didn't like her either, mainly because Jane Merrow is a thoroughly awful actress. The fact she got a Golden Globe nom for this performance is ludicrous and, on top of that, had the nefarious consequence of giving her an inflated ego for the rest of her life. These days she has a lot of time in her hands as she doesn't act any more (I think she must be running a school of foreign languages or something) and she has a website and a blog where she talks about herself and has the habit of starting sentences this way : "Golden Globe nominated actress Jane Merrow"...

But I remember Peter once calling her the most kissable actress he ever worked with. She's also the only girl Patrick McGoohan ever wanted to kiss in an episode of "Danger Man". Maybe that's where her talents really lied.

reply

[–] manco82 11 years ago

Oh come on, no need to be so bitter. She's a good woman.

reply

[–] parisel 11 years ago

She was a horrible nag and shrew. That's all she did. If I were king, I'd never put up with being nagged by a mistress.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

reply

[–] molarmaven59 11 years ago

Dear parisel:

Tell that to Anne Boleyn.

Alais was rightfully worried for her life with Eleanor murdering H II's other mistresses.

Also, she was correct, HII's sons would kill her children as claimants to the throne. She had to make Henry realize that
scenario.

She may not have been actually plotting at all, but pointing out the reality .

It has happened before in royal courts around the world.

reply

[–] parisel 11 years ago

I didn't say she plotting. I was looking at it from a different point of view. Her nagging alone would put any man off, especially from a mistress. Her role is to provide him a haven from all his cares. It's just that, in this film, his love for her was hard to understand because of her whiny, dreary personality.

Eleanor came across as truly loving him far more than Alais did.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

reply

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Several novelists who have dealt with Henry II's love life have come to much the same conclusion; he really needed a woman who was his equal for brains and character, he just couldn't stand living with her....

I agree with you that Alais is the weak link in the ensemble. Proof once again of the old truism that it takes a very smart woman to play a dumb blonde successfully, and a very perceptive one to play an ingenue. I find from IMDb that Jane Merrow had a very long and prolific career in British TV after that, which means I must have seen her dozens of times without noticing her once.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 9 years ago

It's pretty doubtful Alais had anything to worry about, either for herself or for her hypothetical children. Despite what the film (and some vicious contemporaries) implies, the Angevins weren't in the habit of killing off fraternal rivals. If that were true, John wouldn't have lived long enough to rule. Nor would Henry have crossed the Church by killing his own children. The Beckett affair had taught him well his limits in that area.

Further, Alais was the daughter and half-sister of the King of France (as well as the step-sister of Eleanor's children, since Eleanor was her father's first wife). She couldn't just disappear and neither could any of her children.

Plus, she hadn't had any children, yet. A daughter would not inherit (any more than Henry and Eleanor's own daughters) and a son would be pretty far down the line of succession, for either England or for France. Alais in peril for being young and *maybe* fertile? Pretty unlikely.

The historical Alais was a pitiful figure, a political football between Henry and France. If the rumors Richard claimed when he rejected her after Henry's death were true, Henry sexually abused her by taking her as his mistress when he was supposed to be acting as her guardian. She was eventually married off but probably not in a way that befit her station. One could argue Eleanor should have intervened, but Alais was only 12 when Eleanor got locked up, so it's unlikely she was in a position to help.

The film Alais is more of a stereotype that sidesteps the worst of this rumor. She is young and revels in being young. Personality-wise, she's an amalgam of the historical Alais and the legend of Rosamunde, with an anachronistic dash of Anne Boleyn. She appears to be perfectly fine with being Henry's mistress (and horrified at the idea of being married off to Richard, as originally planned). All of her pretty protestations aside, she wants to be Queen. She wants to replace Eleanor. And that makes her unsympathetic because we know, deep down, that her insistence that Henry choose her over Eleanor and her brood is not based on fear or a desire to survive, but is as much of a power play as anybody else's.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

reply

[–] silverwhistle 9 years ago

The funniest (unintentionally so) fictional depiction of her is in Eleanor Porden's early 19C verse-epic Coeur de Lion, where she does a Xena, Warrior Princess turn and goes undercover on the Third Crusade as a Saracen warrior, and is mortally wounded in a duel with her own illegitimate son! It's a hoot!

"Active but Odd"

reply