Richard Harris at this point in his career had not yet lost his stage mannerisms. It's most obvious in the early scene where Pym and Ireton visit him at his home. He employs the stage actor's trick of keeping his back turned to the character he's actually speaking to, while declaiming his lines to the back of the upper balcony. It wasn't a bad performance..it was just a stage performance, not a camera performance. And in fairness the director should have caught this.

Richard Harris at this point in his career had not yet lost his stage mannerisms. It's most obvious in the early scene where Pym and Ireton visit him at his home. He employs the stage actor's trick of keeping his back turned to the character he's actually speaking to, while declaiming his lines to the back of the upper balcony. It wasn't a bad performance..it was just a stage performance, not a camera performance. And in fairness the director should have caught this.

Harris was just ok in a role he wasn't suited to (and an Irishman playing Cromwell?!)but no one could have looked much better when up against Guinness. Alec had more latitude than possibly any other actor EVER.

Yes to much of the Jutting chin,Brooding look,and I Beseech thee O my God,but i expect he was a Shakespearean Actor after all.
Politicians are like Nappies. They should both be changed frequently
and for the same reason."

Does anyone else think that Richard Harris is more convincing as Cromwell than Rod Steiger was as Napoleon? Talk about "stroppy teenager moods"
I don't agree. I don't think Harris was bad as Cromwell, but I do think he overdid it and was too theatrical, it felt too obvious that he was an actor playing a role. I think Steiger's Napoleon was more realistic and believable.
The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of history.
-Mao Zedong

He didn't wind up being king. He was offered the crown and refused. He was Lord Protector and England was, for the first and so far only time in it's history, a republic.
The King's good servant but God's first

This message has been deleted.

I thought the stroppy "teenager mood" might have been added to impart a personality onto the character of Cromwell, about whose personality we may not have much historical evidence. A great and valid means of making an historical character come to life. Otherwise he might just be a puppet enacting the course of his history. The "But, you fools, I'm not doing it for this reason . . . but to save England" spiel - almost moralistic hollywood haminess - was also necessary, unless this film was only meant to educate about the most important moment in the history of english democracy, and not meant to illustrate the power of conviction, albeit of a flawed character.
In any case, the film, despite possibly inevitable historic inaccuracies and a certain poetic license as to exact words spoken and attitudes held, managed to convey a complex period in history and to credibly bring together the events and actions of the personas involved.
The battle scenes seemed well staged. I have seen far worse in Fellini films, and there aren't too many obvious hams, stopping dead, throwing up their arms and doing a pirouette befor limply falling to the battlefield. The weapons and armour were convincing to me (as a armoury amateur).
Does anyone else think that Richard Harris is more convincing as Cromwell than Rod Steiger was as Napoleon? Talk about "stroppy teenager moods"
Frank

Harris was constantly in a stroppy teenager mood, most of the scenes consisted of him putting on a "Why must I suffer these fools" expression while starting softly and finishing loudly.
Whether this is Harris fault, or the director's, the script's or even perhaps this was what Cromwell was really like (I doubt it), it diminished what I found to be an otherwise entertaining and informative movie.

I agree
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth

I thought that alec guiness' acting as the king was eceptional and that harris playing cromwell was just beep <<
You can't spell and your opinion of "Cromwell" is beep. I liked it.

Why do some people bash Harris's performance? His acting was convincing and passionate.

Exactly. Harris is a great actor but the role was a pretty simple shallow one, and he hit it. It wasn't exceptional but it definitely did the job.

Well, Guiness impersonated a weak (that is to say: complex) character. Harris' Cromwell is nothing but a declamatory fanatic.

I don't know if anyone does, but certainly I don't agree.
Richard Harris is a wobderful actor and in this case he gave a terrific performance as Cromwell. In fact, he was way more emotional and convincing than the great Alec Guiness.