mikestone1948 Reviews

Pathfinders in Space (1960–1961)

A Wonderful trip Down Memory Lane

[10/10 · 5 March 2022]

I originally watched the last two "Pathfinders" series at ages twelve and thirteen. I hesitated a bit over buying the dvds - as others have noted, it's sometimes better not to try and go back - but in this case I have no regrets.

With fifty years hindsight, there is of course some disbelief to be suspended. Apart from the sheer unlikelihood of taking children (not to mention their pet hamsters) on such a voyage, the special effects, if they can be dignified by that name, are thoroughly 1950s, with the space rockets being all too obviously toys lifted up by a thread of cotton. However, being old enough to remember my family's first tv (a 14 inch black and white acquired when I was eight or nine) I was fully aware that they didn't have modern special effects in those days. I didn't let it bother me, and anyway it seemed to get better as the series' progressed.

The pleasantest surprise was the series I had not seen as a child - the first one, "Pathfinders in Space". As there was no element of "sentimental journey" attaching to that one, I did not expect to like it as an adult, and might not have bothered with it had the series' been marketed separately. That would have been a sad mistake, as I found it great. In particular, I was really gripped by the scene where the characters learn that the supply ship can return to earth - but only with one adult and one child. It was really well done. Having seen the later ones, I knew perfectly well that all the major characters, at least, must have survived, yet somehow it didn't matter. I was on the edge of my seat as I waited for the next episode to begin.

The series was of its time in other ways beside visual effcts. The news that all but two of them are, in effect, condemned to death, is received by adults and children alike with the stiffest of upper lips, and no one protests or argues when the names of those chosen to live are announced. Looking back, I get the strong feeling that attitudes to childhood and especially boyhood were rather different in those days. Well within living memory, a boy of sixteen had won a posthumous VC at Jutland, and there were many men (and women) still in their early thirties who had been in the French Resistance or similar at Geoff's age. Expectations were higher, or at least different.

Even so, though, it seems a bit much that no comment is ever made about the boys' conduct in the face of death. Apparently it was just expected that they would "naturally" (??) behave as their elders did. This despite the fact that Professor Wedgewood does not seem a hard or unfeeling parent. His children (even the mischievous Jimmy) are never punished beyond the mildest of rebukes. They seem to like and respect him, and to have absorbed his values willingly enough. Oh, I give up! PiS was made well within my own lifetime, but at times its human characters seem more alien to me than anything they could have found in outer space.

On a more human note, for me this scene is "stolen" by little Jimmy (Richard Dean) as he pleads for his hamster to be allowed to go back to earth, resolved to save his pet even if he himself is to die. I found it really moving, perhaps because it was so credible. I could all too easily imagine a child of Jimmy's age (11) behaving as he did.

I rather regret Jimmy's disappearance from the later series', though his place was in some ways well filled by Harcourt Brown, who rather anticipated Doctor Smith in "Lost In Space". Margaret was a good replacement for Valerie, and all the series' did well, especially for the amount of scientific, geographical and other knowledge which they managed to insert without ever holding up the plot.

Final oddity. Even when they make it back to earth, we never get a glimpse of the children's mother. I'd have expected to find her waiting at the base, probably with a few well chosen words for the Professor. It's small wonder that Jimmy and Valerie are absent from the later seasons. After what happened last time, Mrs Wedgewood probably (and quite understandably) wouldn't let either of them within a hundred miles of Buchan Island, and even Geoff may well have had to put up a fight to be allowed back.

I wonder also if this explains the Professor's own absence after Episode 1 of PtM. Was he just felt to be too unsympathetic a character to belong in a children's show?

All in all, PiS is remarkably "gritty" for something aimed at such a young audience, and it's possibly significant that nothing quite so stark ever happens in the sequels. Still, (and despite the ghastly 1960 visual effects) it is well worth a view. I have no regrets about getting the dvds, if only for the glimpse they give of us Brits as we were before, in Brian Aldiss' words "The Romans became Italians".

After this, the other two serials come as a bit of an anticlimax. But Pathfinders to Mars scores a few hits on the scientific front, guessing correctly that the Martian "canals" would turn out to be optical illusions, and that the atmosphere there would be thin enough to require the wearing of spacesuits, not just oxygen masks as then was commonly assumed. Those fast-growing lichens were also an interesting idea, and quite credible, as anyone who has heard of a "flash flood" will be aware.

The big change, though, is the introduction of a human villain (which PiS had done quite well without) in the shape of UFO-nutjob Harcourt Brown, who hijacks the fourth Moon rocket and takes it to Mars instead. Doubt if a Moon rocket could carry the food and oxygen for that, but never mind. He is an acquired taste, but interesting, and more than makes up for the absence of little Jimmy, whose inclusion in PiS must have strained the credulity of even a juvenile audience.

Pathfinders to Venus is the weakest of the three in scientific terms. It adopts the classic "jungle planet" concept which was dated even in 1961 and would be totally exploded by Mariner 2 the following year. It even makes cave men contemporary with the dinosaurs, Fred Flintstone style. However, it makes up for this for me by the further development of Harcourt Brown, who now emerges in a far more sympathetic light with his determination to protect the native Venusians from the conquest and colonial exploitation which he foresees. The "good guys" have also grown a bit. They started out by hating Brown, and with every justification, given his often outrageous behaviour; yet by the end they have learned to forgive, and they (and probably much of the audience) part from him in a spirit of understanding and even a degree of sympathy.

All in all, a great trip down memory lane, at least for this 64 year old kid. And a fascinating glimpse both into "the way the future was" and into the way a lot of Brits were well within living memory - and maybe one or two still are. If you're into a bit of nostalgia then these are for you.

Knights of God (1987)

King Arthur Legend Meets Secret Army.

[8/10 · 5 March 2022]

"Knights of God" is a 1987 children's' tv series, set in a future where Britain (or at least England) has fallen into civil war and been taken over by an extreme religious (though apparently non-Christian) dictatorship. It focuses on the adventures of a young man in whom both the Knights themselves and the resistance movement take an unaccountable interest,

The Knights' uniforms and the black helicopters they use recall an earlier series called "The Guardians" which also featured a Britain that had collapsed into dictatorship, while some of the resistance fighters are reminiscent of Secret Army and similar WW2 stuff. KoG, however, is permeated with overtones of Arthurian legend. The leader of the resistance (based in Wales) is actually called "Arthur", whilst the Knights' leader is named "Mordrin" - perhaps to invoke Mordred.

As always, there's room for a nitpick or two. About the most absurd bit is the claim that the whole Royal Family has been wiped out. Short of WW3 (and doubtfully even then) this would be a sheer impossibility. There must by now be hundreds, if not thousands, of people descended from Sophia of Hanover, by no means all of them living in the UK. The entire Norwegian Royal House is descended from Edward VII, and of course there are Germans galore. I will leave to others to ponder the philosophical point of whether it is better or worse to be ruled by a German than by a religious nutter.

Gervase (George Winter) is a rather passive kind of hero, the sort that has things happen to him rather than making things happen. And many viewers probably figured the outcome of his "quest" well ahead of time. But this is ok for what is basically a kids' action adventure, and is surely more than made up for by John Woodvine's brilliant performance as Prior Mordrin. For me, he steals the show with a great portrayal of the paranoid dictator going to pieces as his regime starts to crumble.

All in all, well worth a read or (if you can get it) a view. It's a scandal that no proper dvd has been issued. However, I understand that Youtube is filling the gap for now.

Buck Rogers (1939)

Wonderful "Blast From the Past".

[10/10 · 5 March 2022]

For me, this was a really long trip down memory lane. I last saw this serial at a children's matinee in 1956 or '57 - when I was eight or nine years old.

In the circumstances, it has stood the test of time remarkably well, holding my interest all the way through even as the old codger that I now am. There are minor grumbles of course. - giving Saturn a solid surface and a breathable atmosphere was unscientific even in 1939 - but I enjoyed it enough that I was willing to suspend disbelief.

The theme is nice and simple. Buck and his teenage pal Buddy are trapped in a crashed dirigible, and their lives saved only by use of a "suspended animation" gas. They wake up 500 years later to find that the world is now a dictatorship ruled by one "Killer Kane" with a hard core of resisters holding out in a secret underground city. Buck and Buddy of course join the Good Guys.

In fairness to Kane, his nickname is perhaps a bit harsh. As far as I recall, the only people he kills are ones who are fighting to overthrow him - something virtually all governments claim the right to do. But he is quite nasty enough, putting those who annoy him to slave labour as "robots", controlled by special helmets which suppress their memories and will power. Even one of his advisors suffers this fate for daring to talk back to him.

From there, it's essentially to-ing and fro-ing between Earth and Saturn, with both sides trying to secure the support of the native Saturnians. In due course the Good Guys win.

One thing struck me. The synopses at the beginning of each episode were rolled out "horizontally" in the same way that the "Long, long ago in a galaxy far,far away" introduction was rolled out at the beginning of Star Wars. I wonder if the latter's makers acknowledged this.

In short, if you can tolerate what passed for special effects in 1939, and aren't too fussed about scientific inaccuracies, it's a surprisingly good view. Enjoy. I just wish I could say the same for the 1970s remake.

A Boy Ten Feet Tall (1963)

Wouldn't have missed this film for the world.

[8/10 · 5 March 2022]

Verified Purchase This is a magnificent story about a young boy who loses his parents in the Suez action of 1956, and sets out to find his aunt - who lives in Durban at the other end of the continent!. At his age he has no notion of the distance involved, but he has a little compass and he knows that it is south, so off he goes.

On his way he falls in with various people, some a lot more trustworthy than others. As a result he soon develops a highly suspicious nature, becoming very jumpy and inclined to take to his heels at the first sign of anything suspicious. This tendency to bolt first and ask questions afterwards almost certainly prolongs his adventure a lot more than it need have been, and I have a sneaking sympathy for the frustrated rescuer whose car the boy immobilised before escaping, and who (now a hundred dollars out of pocket) expresses a desire to drown the brat. But in light of Sammy's experiences, his attitude is not unreasonable.

The high point of the film is when Sammy falls in with a loveable rogue (Edward G Robinson), who takes him under his wing and gives him his first bit of security since his long walk began. You can see the boy's self-confidence steadily grow, to the point where he saves his benefactor's life by coolly shooting a leopard when it attacks. The boy is now so happy that he wants to forget about auntie and just stay here forever.

But it's too good to last. Sammy's guardian is outside the law, and his new life is brutally destroyed when police come along and do their duty. If I recall correctly, this loss of his new "family" is the only time in the film where Sammy breaks down and cries. But it couldn't have lasted anyway, as his friend (after a heart to heart from his oppo Harry H Corbett) acknowledges that they have no long-term future together, and that Sammy needs to return to the world of school exams and qualifications. For this reason he harshly breaks off their relationship and gives information about Sammy to the aunt - though persuading her to let him complete the journey for himself.

He duly does, but now he's a different boy. Despite the brutal parting, he remembers the old rogue with fondness and asks after him, and in general has clearly made the jump from little boy to young man. It is either luck or a stroke of genius that the actor chosen for his part, Fergus Maclelland, is actually twelve rather than ten. Over the months of film making he gets noticeably taller, which is symbolic of how Sammy has grown, along the way - and by no means only in height.

The Rainbow Jacket (1954)

Lovely 1950s Weepie

[10/10 · 5 March 2022]

This is one of Ealing Studios' finest productions.

It's a simple story. Thirteen-year-old Georgie Crain, has a passion (inherited from his late father) for everything to do with horses in general and horseracing in particular. He falls in with suspended jockey Sam Lillee (Bill Owen) who sees him as a "natural" and takes him under his wing, eventually getting him a place in a Lord's racing stable. His widowed mother, who is still struggling with money problems stemming from his father's losses through betting on horses, is less than enthusiastic at first, but finally won over.

We get to see both sides of the racing world. The patronising arrogance of the toffs who run it will drive any egalitarian up the wall. In the scene where Crain is up before the Stewards, one half-expects them to produce a cane and tell him to bend over. By their own lights, they are decent enough, but even this lifelong Conservative voter found their attitude hard to stomach. Perhaps they are best summed up as "honourable but insufferable".

But the Sport of Kings has a far less genteel side to it, and this threatens all Crain's and Lillee's hopes. Attempting to get the boy's mother out of money trouble, Lillee has to fall back on the same bad company which had got him suspended - and to get his young pupil involved as well.

Fella Edmonds takes a wonderful part as Crain. There is a really touching scene where he chooses to take a fall (breaking his arm in the process) rather than mistreat a horse. Later, he takes an even greater risk to save Lillee from losing his last chance of returning to the sport they both love. Lillee, sensing that something ain't right, and that the boy may be about to lose his racing career almost before it has begun, finds that he can save it only at a terrible personal price.

Well, this being an Ealing film, of course he duly redeems himself. Put like this, some may find it a bit trite, but this sentimental old twit found it deeply moving all the same, literally shedding tears at the end. As far as I know, Fella Edmonds is still alive. If so I hope he re-watches this film from time to time. It is a genuine masterpiece.

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Great Moral Question. Where Does the Buck Stop?

[10/10 · 5 March 2022]

Despite its title, this film is not about the war crimes trials of 1945/6, which tried and condemned the top Nazis. Rather it is about the aftermath, as the victors wrestled with the question of how far down the totem pole the burden of responsibility should or could extend.

None of the defendants (all German Judges) ever murdered anyone with his own hand, nor did they participate, in any direct way, in the mass-murders of the Holocaust. They committed individual injustices against individual victims, like the labourer forcibly sterilised for failing and IQ test, or the young woman forced to testify against a dear friend, and so sending him to his death, under threat of herself being tried for complicity in his "crime". They authorised the sterilisations and passed death sentences under the unjust laws. Yet the laws had been duly enacted and they could no doubt have claimed like so many others o have been just "obeying orders", though unlike military personnel they had at least the option of resigning but chose not to.

Maximilian Schell takes a good part as their defence counsel, correctly pointing out that sterilisation of the backward had been allowed even in some of the democracies, with he approval of as eminent a jurist as Oliver Wendell Holmes - an uncomfortable reminder that activities later stigmatised as "nazi" enjoyed an alarming degree of respectability until Hitler gave everyone a wake-up call by starkly illustrating where they could lead. But the savage way that he badgers a prosecution witness illustrates all too well the horrors he is trying to defend. It even provokes his most eminent client, Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) to get up and make a public confession and recantation. Janning is a famous jurist who stayed o under Hitler because (like some foreign observers) he believed that a stricken Germany had need of a "strong man" at the helm.

And all of this takes place against the background of 1948, as the Berlin Blockade and imminent air lift is setting the stage for the Cold War. For many, the crimes of the Third Reich ae already "old hat" and the priority now should be enlisting the German people as allies. Spencer Tracy, as the senior judge, finds himself under increasing pressure to go easy on the defendants, as does the Prosecutor, (Richard Widmark).

Tracy takes a great part as he wrestles with these questions, as well as more personal ones, and at the end he gets the most memorable line. When Janning begs him to believe that "We ever knew it would come to that" (presumably meaning the Holocaust) he curtly responds that it "came to that'' with the first unjust death sentence which Janning handed down. Even had that been his *only* crime, it would, alone, have amply justified his sentence. Janning's words only serve to show that, despite his eloquent "repentance", he still hasn't really got the message. He still believes that had the Nazi regime been responsible only for six thousand deaths (or however many eggs he deemed acceptable to break in making is national "omelette", then his actions would have been excusable - that the end could perhaps have justified the means. Despite his recantation of them, the moral defect that led him into those actions is with him still. Prison is where the belongs, though as Schell presciently foresees, the politics of the day ensure that he doesn't stay there long.

Lost Angels (1989)

Long Neglected Movie About A Long Neglected Scandal

[8/10 · 25 February 2022]

This film has been little heard from since its release over thirty years ago, but deserves better, as it touches on one of the long-running scandals of US medicine.

The title is perhaps not wholly appropriate. The central character, troubled teen Tim Doolan (Adam Horowitz), may well have been lost in various ways, but he is far from angelic. He and his girl friend have a run-in with the Police after driving her parents' car into a swimming-pool. His Mom and stepdad have left him home alone while they go off for a foreign holiday. His divorced (and violent) natural father refuses to take him in, disowning him because he "chose his Mom" at the time of the divorce. From what we see of his half-brother, who chose Dad, this may not have been entirely a bad thing.

On their return, Mom and stepdad extricate him from Juvie Hall at the price of enrolling him in a psychiatric hospital. One can perhaps have some sympathy for their action, but surely none at all for the way it is carried out. They leave him in the dining room while they go to "sort something out" then drive away without so much as a goodbye. When he realises this, his understandable panic attack leads to his being held down and anaesthetised. He wakes to find himself strapped to a bed

Nor do things improve later, When the parents, Mom and both Dads, are gathered together for family therapy, the meeting quickly degenerates into a brawl, with both sides screaming abuse at each other, completely ignoring Tim's presence. And when he co-operates with the programme to some extent, and is allowed a day out with his mother, inevitably something "comes up" and she doesn't keep the appointment. .If he's not exactly more sinned against than sinning, at least both are clearly present in ample amounts.

Aided by the brother, who has turned up like the proverbial bad penny, he gets out anyway. But when, after various stupidities, he gets to visit his home, he is in for a shock. The parents are so busy entertaining guests that it's several minutes before they even notice his arrival. Moreover, his things have been cleared out of his old room. It is precisely as though he has never existed.

At this point one might see benefits in his committal. With parents like these, some time away from them might even help. Well, at least it could have, had the staff at the institute been conscientious and caring. But they are nothing of the sort. With one important exception, they see the kids purely as a meal ticket. Even the Janitor despises them, dismissing them as "rich garbage" whom nobody wants. They are detained as long as their folks' medical insurance lasts, then discharged whether they are ready for release or not. Thus the girlfriend, whose parents have a cheaper policy, is freed long before Tim. She blesses her luck, but it turns out not to be.

Tim has one support there, Dr Charles Loftus (Donald Sutherland), the one decent doctor in the place. However, he has problems of his own, as his work puts too much strain upon his marriage. Indeed, as he storms against the evils of the system to his more complacent colleagues, at times his behaviour and his language are hardly better than those of his protégé. However, when Tim, once again AWOL, learns that his former girlfriend has a drug problem, Loftus steps in to trace her, possibly saving her life. However he cannot stop Tim being penalised for going out w/o permission. There is more of the same, mostly involving the brother who has "graduated" to gun crime.

The ending perhaps lacks conviction. Loftus drops Tim off at home, promising to sort things out with the Institute, hence the alternative title "The Road Home". . One wonders if it could really be that simple, and what the parents would have to say. But all in all it isn't bad.

I have seen this film decried as "sensationalist", but, though action-packed, it isn't really. Indeed, at times it seems more like a documentary than a drama. By one of those crazy coincidences, in the same year this film was made, I was reading a horrific newspaper story about how perfectly normal children were being confined to mental institutions on spurious "diagnoses", which enabled the nuthouses to run up extravagant bills for their "therapy". One particularly nasty case involved a then 13-year-old boy in Florida who was doing his second stretch in such a place (the first had been when he was eleven!!) and whose only illness was that since his parents' divorce he had kept insisting that he wanted to live with the non-custodial parent. While confined, he was drugged against his will despite being perfectly healthy. Eventually, he won his fight over custody, but not until he was *fifteen*. A straight-A student when his ordeal began, by the end he was having to repeat a year in some subjects. If there is one thing worse than a neglectful parent, it would seem to be an over-possessive one.

Clearly, you didn't have to be a delinquent to encounter the kind of abuse described in "Lost Angels". I should like to believe that this sort of thing couldn't happen today, but quick googles for "child psychiatric fraud" or similar are far from reassuring. This line of business seems to be much the same "Snake Pit" that it was when this movie was made.

In short, well worth a view and I wish it was more widely known.

The Postman (1997)

Great Movie, Unjustly Panned

[10/10 · 2 August 2021]

Kevin Costner's movie version of David Brin's sf novel (or rather, mainly the first of its three sections) has had a decidedly bad press, but looking back from 2021 it is difficult to see why.

Set in a near-future America devastated by a nuclear/biological war, it follows the fortunes of an itinerant who wanders around the scattered townships which remain, in the hope of finding one to take him in. He doesn't have much luck on that score, as most already have as many people as they can support, until he gets an unexpected break. He finds the remains of a US postman, with a bag of old mail some of which, providentially, is addressed to people in the next town at which he calls.

Costner secures admission by claiming to be a a real postman, working for a (fictionally) restored US government. He is met with some scepticism, especially by the local sheriff, but enough people believe him to encourage him to keep up the masquerade.

However, his hopes are quickly dashed by the arrival of the Bad Guys, a self-appointed militia group called Holnists, who roam around exacting tribute (and conscripts) from the townships They are led by one General Bethlehem, who does not appear in the book. The Holnists as a movement do, but there are important differences in the movie version. Bethlehem is decidedly racist, rejecting one draftee for being of Asian origin, and closely inspecting another for possible Black ancestry. His men even kill and eat Costner's mule, because a cross-breed of horse and donkey has no place in the New Order. In the book, by contrast, we are explicitly told that their founder, Nathan Holn, was *not* a racist. Though Brin's Holnists follow a "Might Is Right" philosophy, and practice a form of serfdom, this does not appear to be on racial lines.

This is my one real grumble about the film, which I feel overdoes it a bit, turning the Holnists into cardboard villains. Thus when Bethlehem rides into town, he immediately starts conscripting, without the slightest effort to find volunteers. Yet in this situation, he could probably get quite a few, given that most young men there may well have few job options other than unmechanised farm labour, ie a lifetime contemplating the south ends of northbound mules. Compared to that, service under Bethlehem might really not seem so bad Yet in the film the only character who expresses that view is shown as a dimwit, hardly above the level of the village idiot. Here I feel the movie "cheats" a little, passing over the motives of those who accepted the Holnist life. After all, Nathan Holn's original followers must have had some reason for following him.

However, for me at least this nitpick is more than offset by the touching (and revealing) scene at the film show, where Bethlehem's men indignantly reject Universal Soldier in favour of The Sound of Music. Clearly the Holnist rank and file - even willing ones who accept their life as the "least worst" of a rotten set of options - still pine for the happier and gentler things that they have lost, and would welcome an alternative if they saw one. In a way, they too are victims. This provides an explanation of their behaviour at the end of the film, where things that Costner has learned during his time with the Holnists will play a crucial part in enabling him to defeat Bethlehem.

But that's in the future. More immediately, Costner escapes from the Holnists and hides out with his future wife, who eventually (and somewhat forcefully) persuades him to come back to town. On arrival, he finds that he has really started something. The young people of the townships are worshipping him as a hero and organising themselves into a postal service for the whole area. Indeed, it emerges later that he has admirers far beyond the immediate precincts, with others having set up a similar service for a "Restored Republic of California". We are never told whether this republic really exists or is just a fiction similar to his own, but it hardly matters now. The movement is in full swing.

Needless to say, Bethlehem is not best pleased by any of this, and sees all too clearly the danger to him which the postmen present. He launches all out war, and as the casualties mount, Costner looks on in horror and attempts to call the whole thing off. But this ship has already sailed. His young "disciples" have the bit between their teeth and will not take no for an answer. Costner has made his bed and must lie in it, come what may.

And more does come. The enthusiasm of the young Postmen starts to captivate their elders, who also rally round. In one scene, reminiscent of a WW2 drama, the Sheriff of Pineview, who had once (correctly) dismissed the Postman as an obvious fraud, now defiantly shouts "Ride, Postman, ride!" as he and his fellow townsfolk are mown down by a Holnist firing squad. The fire is well and truly lit.

I have seen some criticism of the way the townsfolk are allegedly portrayed as "sheep" knuckling under to the Holnists until hero-boy comes along, John Wayne style, to set the example. To me though, all this indicates is that Costner has been lucky in his timing. Had he come on the scene ten years earlier, a populace still demoralised from the apocalypse would not have followed him. Ten years later, and he would not have led them to victory because someone else would already have done it. As it is, he has arrived at the critical point, where the townsfolk have recovered enough to take on the Holnists, but haven't fully realised it yet. Costner is the trigger rather than the bomb.

All in all, I find it a great movie, and certainly far superior to the epidemic of disaster films with which we have been bombarded since, with their ice ages, earthquakes and of course asteroid and meteor impacts ad nauseam. Those who panned when it first came out might perhaps have been cautioned that "You ain't seen nuffin yet." Like those who welcomed Henry VIII as a great relief after his father's tyranny, little did they know what they had coming.

Thunder in the West (1957– )

Children's Historical Adventure

[7/10 · 4 May 2014]

I remember watching this as a boy. It is set in the West Country during Monmouth's Rebellion. The family are, by and large, just doing their best to avoid trouble, though iirc the youngest daughter is a strong supporter of the rebel Duke.

They have various adventures, including, iirc, trouble at the hands of an unscrupulous supporter of Monmouth. Apart from the daughter, they don't take his side, though finding him attractive as a person. At the end, they go to London to try and persuade King James to spare the Duke's life - needless to say without success.

Sorry but that's as far as my memory goes after over half a century.