If "Scandal" (1989) was not a fairly accurate recounting of Britain's John Profumo Affair, the characters and events would be too weird to be considered plausible fiction. Defense Minister Profumo's attempt to refute allegations of his involvement with Christine Keeler ultimately brought down the 10 year Conservative Party government back in the mid-1960's. "Scandal recreates these events and gives the viewer a glimpse into the personalities and possible motives of the main players in this political soap opera.But recreating history is a secondary consideration in this film whose theme is about individuals who live in a fairy tale world until they fall victim to the grim forces that take life more seriously. The main player is Stephen Ward (John Hurt), a osteopath and recreational artist whose main goal is to be part of the right crowd, not so much immersed in this kind of society as in a position to observe it closely for his amusement. His method for doing so involves discovering ravishing young women from the poor side of town and doing a Henry Higgins number on them. The film begins with his discovery of Keeler (Joanne Whalley) who he begins grooming and introducing to prominent members of his in-crowd. The two soon fall in love, but theirs is not a physical relationship. Stephen delights in seeing his protégé work her magic on men in authority. This eventually leads to their doom, since no one quite understands such an unconventional relationship they have no credibility when an attempt is made to make Stephen a scapegoat for the government scandal.In retrospect the process of attacking Ward to contain the widening scandal was one of the two most shameful abuses of the judicial system in post war Britain. Coincidentally Hurt played the victim in the other one as well; "10 Rillington Place" (1971), in which Hurt is wrongly executed for a murder committed by his landlord, the now notorious serial killer John Christie."Scandal" is a powerful and arresting film with solid performances. Whalley has the biggest role and is a bit too intelligent looking to be completely believable as a character like Keeler. But she is so nice to look at that almost anyone would willingly trade credibility for scenery-and she is otherwise entirely convincing in an excellent performance. I first noticed her in "Willow", the film she made just before "Scandal". She had a secondary part but her scenes were the most memorable in the entire film. Hurt somehow sells you on the fact that his character derives an innocent joy from simply seeing a beautiful young woman walking down the street on a nice day.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I saw this for the first time last night on Channel 4. I've never sought out the film before because I assumed that it would be an uninvolved telling of an uninteresting piece of British history. I was wrong.The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.

Spoilers herein.Yet another in a long line of films that center on prostitutes as performers and vice versa. Naturally, we don't notice -- its part of the bargain. Add in the standard svengali, the tempter, the devil, the Enry Iggins.What distinguishes this one is supposedly more sexual frankness (but very little actually) and the fact that the events really happened more or less.It also features Joanna Whalley, who in other projects has had allure. But here, both she and Fonda play women much younger than they are with more febrile pulchritude than they can muster. Men mutter through their lives and legs orchestrated by Hurt's man who also can't master his character. Dafoe was able to handle this role much better in "Auto Focus." Nichole Kidman made her life in acting succeeding in the whore- performer's role in precisely the areas that Whalley fails. The business on the other side -- the story of the man sucked into casual pleasure and then being destroyed by a society based on the fiction of class -- isn't particularly explored here. So we can't fault the lack of clarity and energy.Whalley's charm as an actress is tied to red hair and how she uses it. For reasons of historical accuracy, we start out blond and then go red which during the course of the film gets browner and browner. This deprives her of her most significant tool.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting element

Much looked-forward to and gossiped aboutdramatization of the Profumo scandal which doesn't seem to know what it wants to be about and confuses the hell out of the viewer. It tries to capture the Sixties but it's arrogance and abundance of style over content betray it as a casualty of the Eighties. The script is oddly coy and cagey when it comes to key points in the pliot, and the whole Lucky Gordon episode is a mess. A fine performance by John Hurt goes some way towards salvaging something. But miniskirts in 1963? And while the end theme is pretty good, the lyrics are abysmal! Hurt's final scene with the falling cigarete though is splendid.