8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
An interesting allegory on fakes...and attributions, June 26, 2004
This review is from: A Question of Attribution [VHS] (VHS Tape)
attribute: to regard as produced by or originating in or with; credit; assign;
The Cambridge Spy Ring of the 30's and 40's. There were four: Guy Burgess, Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and Sir Anthony Blunt, and they passed on information to the Soviet Union. When found out, Burgess, MacLean, and Philby fled to the Soviet Union. As for Blunt, he remained in charge of H.M.Q.'s art collection and confessed in 1964. However, the Thatcher government exposed him and he was stripped of his posts and knighthood, dying four years later in 1983.
Alan Bennett, originally one of the Fringe (Peter Cook, Dudley Moore), wrote a drama work on Sir Anthony Blunt. Blunt is being persuaded by various intelligence men led by Donleavy to reveal other names, or rather, names behind the names in the Burgess/MacLean/Philby spy ring. To that end, Arthur Chubb, a firm but congenial man is sent to take over from the last agent who failed to get Blunt to reveal names. As Blunt is reminded over and over, he was guaranteed immunity, but not anonymity. The temptation is growing among MI5 to expose him, but alternatively, as Donleavy says, "we could order a vat of excrement and publicly haul ourselves into it." Meaning that the British public will know the government was involved in a coverup in shielding Blunt.
Aside from showing Blunt the usual stack of B&W photos of past faces, Chubb tries to get to Blunt through art, and learns about art theory and history as a result. But Blunt already knows who the fifth man is, and continues the evasion: "the canvas is vague, but the details stand out."
Standouts include the explanation of Titian's painting the Allegory of Prudence, and the restoration of a fake Titian, where they uncover a face that has been painted over it, mirroring the puzzle intelligence agents face when trying to figure out what the whole picture, i.e. who else is a traitor? Blunt tells Chubb that both their careers involve teasing out riddles and running some risks, where common sense is thrown out in favour of making a hobbyhorse. The faces behind the canvas, faces behind the faces, that's what Chubb is indeed looking for, moles and their puppetmasters.
However, the surreal conversation between the Queen and Blunt makes one wonder. In talking about the fake Titian, she tells him that it's very well to have a painting with the pedigree and background, but when one voices suspicions, hard to believe, that it's not what it seems, that it's a fake, does one still stick with its official attribution? Is she talking about the painting, or about Blunt? Yet the thing about fakes is, they are more interesting than the genuine article because of the publicity and sensation.
There are lots of revealing things about art, on how different periods and styles reflect different ways of looking at the world, and how importance it is not to see a painting and see it as one would see a photograph, but to see it as if one were living in that time, not as a stage to something better. And portaits are self-revealing, showing what one's really like; it shows one's secret self.
James Fox does a clearly toffee-nosed, snobbishly scholarly performance as Blunt. James Calder's good as Chubb, well known as Eleanor Bramwell's patient father in the Bramwell series. Geoffrey Palmer (As Time Goes By) has a small role as Donleavy, someone who's anxious on what Blunt will do. However, having Prunella Scales, a.k.a. Sybil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers playing Queen Elizabeth II, is an interesting choice for this drama piece that debuted on Masterpiece Theatre.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
masterpiece, December 13, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: A Question of Attribution [VHS] (VHS Tape)
I must give this 5 stars. I understand why the previous reviewer found the story to be somewhat confusing. It takes some doing initially to pick up the thread but it is a slight hurdle. The most outstanding feature of this film is its artful portrait of Blunt: a spy who had betrayed his country, abused his position and caused the distruction of those acting honorably in its service. Nevertheless his situtation and ultimate disgrace provoke compassion. The scene between him and the Queen is wonderful; however, I think that one is not supposed to be certain as to just what she knows about Blunt. She is depicted as a clever woman with an marvelous understated, ironic personality. I do not know whether Queen Elizabeth is accurately presented but it is certainly very good theatre and a memorable, highly amusing scene. I saw this as a campanion to "An Englishman Abroad" to which I would also assign 5 stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good acting, confusing story, October 11, 2000
This review is from: A Question of Attribution [VHS] (VHS Tape)
A Question of Atribution is the story of Sir Anthony Blunt, the curator of the Queen's Pictures who was revealed as a former Soviet agent in 1979. Sir Anthony had actually been uncovered as a spy in the 1960s, but received immunity and anonymity in return for his cooperation with western intelligence services. A Question of Attribution takes place sometime after Sir Anthony's role as a spy was discovered, but before his public disgrace. British viewers will probably be more familiar with the ins and outs of the Blunt case than will we Americans. Even though I knew the barebones details of the Blunt case and how it connected with the Burgess-Maclean-Philby cases, this film was a bit confusing for me. The best part of the film depicts Blunt's meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, excellently portrayed by Prunella Scales. (I believe this was the first time The Queen had been portrayed by an actress in Britain). The Queen skewers Sir Anthony's pretensions and makes it clear that she knows all about his KGB connections without being so impolite as to refer to it directly. This scene is the highlight of the film. Buy the film and fast forward to it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
