If you go looking for a definitive, gritty, modern-day take on the King of Wessex, you'll probably end up watching The Last Kingdom or Vikings. That makes sense. But if you dig back into the late sixties, you'll find something much stranger. The 1969 Alfred the Great film, directed by Clive Donner and starring David Hemmings, is an absolute trip. It isn't just a movie about a guy fighting off Danes; it’s a psychological profile of a man who really, really wanted to be a priest but ended up having to be a warlord instead. Honestly, it’s one of the most polarizing pieces of historical cinema ever made. Some people love it for the scale. Others hate it because the lead character is, well, kind of a jerk.
But that’s exactly why it matters.
In a world where historical epics usually give us a hero who is 100% noble from the first frame, this Alfred the Great film gives us a protagonist who is struggling with his own "darker" impulses. He’s obsessed with law and order, yet he’s constantly at war with his own desire for a quiet, celibate life. It’s messy. It’s loud. It has thousands of real-life extras because back then, you couldn't just CGI a crowd of Saxons.
The Casting Gamble That Actually Worked
David Hemmings was coming off the massive success of Blow-Up when he took this role. He didn't look like your typical bearded, hulking warrior king. He was slight, had these piercing eyes, and looked like he’d rather read a book than swing an axe. That was the point. The real Alfred was famously sickly and more of a scholar than a fighter. Hemmings captures that neurotic energy perfectly.
Then you have Michael York as Guthrum. He’s the Viking leader, and he plays it with this swaggering, almost rock-star energy. He’s the foil to Alfred’s stiff, religious repression. Watching them go head-to-head isn't just a battle of swords; it’s a battle of ideologies. On one side, you have the burgeoning idea of "England" and Christian law. On the other, you have the wild, pagan freedom of the Great Heathen Army.
The supporting cast is stacked, too. You’ve got Ian McKellen—yes, Gandalf himself—in one of his earliest film roles as Roger. It’s fascinating to see him so young, showing that theatrical gravity even back in '69. Prunella Ransome plays Aelhswith, and her chemistry with Hemmings is... complicated. The film doesn't shy away from the fact that Alfred was kind of terrible to her, largely because of his own internal guilt about "fleshly desires."
Why the Battle of Ethandun Still Looks Better Than CGI
One thing you have to respect about this Alfred the Great film is the sheer scale of the production. They filmed in Ireland, mostly in County Galway. The producers hired the Irish Army to play the Saxon and Danish soldiers.
💡 You might also like: Why Love Island Season 7 Episode 23 Still Feels Like a Fever Dream
That’s something we’ve lost.
When you see a thousand men charging across a field in this movie, those are actual human beings. You can feel the weight of it. The mud is real. The exhaustion on the actors' faces isn't makeup; it's what happens when you spend weeks in the Irish rain wearing heavy wool and leather. Clive Donner, who was mostly known for "New Wave" style films, brought a very experimental eye to these scenes. He used long lenses and strange angles that make the combat feel claustrophobic and chaotic rather than heroic.
It feels like a nightmare.
Most critics at the time didn't know what to make of it. They wanted Ben-Hur or Spartacus. Instead, they got a movie where the hero spends a good chunk of the runtime having a spiritual crisis in a swamp. But if you look at the real history, Alfred’s time in the marshes of Athelney was exactly that—a period of total desperation.
Breaking Down the Historical Accuracy (Or Lack Thereof)
Look, it’s a Hollywood-adjacent production from 1969. It’s not a documentary. There are some things they got right and a lot they tweaked for drama.
- The Law-Making: The film correctly emphasizes Alfred’s obsession with the law. He wasn't just a general; he was the architect of a legal system that would eventually define the English identity.
- The Religion: The tension between his desire for the church and his duty to the crown is historically supported. Alfred was a deeply pious man who reportedly carried a book of psalms with him at all times.
- The Costumes: This is where it gets sketchy. The helmets and armor are a bit of a mish-mash of different eras. It’s got that "sixties epic" sheen where everything looks a little too clean until the fighting starts.
- The Personality: The movie makes him out to be almost a fanatic. While the real Alfred was certainly intense, the film cranks the "tortured soul" dial up to eleven.
The "Burnt Cakes" Legend and Cinematic Pacing
You can't make an Alfred the Great film without mentioning the cakes. It's the one story everyone knows. Alfred, in hiding, is told by a peasant woman to watch her cakes. He gets distracted by his own failures and lets them burn. She yells at him, not knowing he’s the king.
📖 Related: When Was Kai Cenat Born? What You Didn't Know About His Early Life
In the 1969 version, this scene is treated with a sort of grim realism. It’s a low point. It’s the moment where he realizes he is no longer a king—he’s just a man who can’t even do a simple task. It’s a turning point that leads him to regroup and eventually win at the Battle of Edington (Ethandun).
The pacing of the movie is weird, though. I’ll be honest. It starts off with this frantic energy, slows down to a crawl in the middle, and then explodes at the end. For a modern audience used to the "Marvel rhythm" where something happens every eight minutes, this might feel frustrating. But if you settle into the atmosphere, the slow bits are actually where the character development happens. It’s a psychological study disguised as a war movie.
Is It Worth Watching Today?
Absolutely. But you have to go into it with the right mindset. If you’re expecting Braveheart, you’re going to be disappointed. This is a movie about a man who hates himself for being a warrior.
The cinematography by Alex Thomson is gorgeous. He went on to do Excalibur and Legend, so you can see those roots here. The way he shoots the English (well, Irish) landscape is haunting. There’s a specific scene where the Saxons are moving through the mist that looks like a painting come to life.
It also captures a transition in filmmaking. It was one of the last big-budget historical epics before the industry shifted toward smaller, grittier "New Hollywood" stories in the 70s. You can see the struggle between the old-school "cast of thousands" mentality and the new-school "psychological depth" approach. It’s a bridge between two worlds.
Where to Find It
Finding a high-quality version of the Alfred the Great film can be a bit of a hunt. It doesn't get the same rotation as Cleopatra or The Ten Commandments. It’s available on some streaming platforms like Amazon or Apple TV depending on your region, and there have been DVD/Blu-ray releases that pop up on eBay. It’s a bit of a cult classic now.
👉 See also: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
A Legacy of "The Great"
Why don't we see more movies about him? Alfred is the only English monarch to be called "The Great." You’d think there’d be a new movie every decade. Maybe it’s because he’s too complex. He’s not a simple action hero. He’s a guy who suffered from chronic pain (likely Crohn's disease, though historians debate this), who was terrified of God, and who basically invented the concept of a navy because he was tired of getting hit by surprise.
The 1969 film is the only one that has tried to capture that specific blend of intellectualism and violence on a massive scale. It’s an ambitious failure in some ways, but a brilliant success in others. It dares to make the hero unlikeable, which is a bold move for a movie that cost millions of dollars to produce.
If you want to understand why Alfred still matters, you have to look at the foundations he laid. He didn't just win a battle; he built a culture. He translated books into English so his people could read. He built "burhs" (fortified towns) that became the blueprint for modern English cities. The film touches on this, showing that his mind was always five steps ahead of the guy with the sword.
Actionable Next Steps for History Buffs
If you’ve watched the movie or are planning to, here is how you can actually dive deeper into the real story without getting lost in the fiction:
- Read Asser’s "Life of King Alfred": This is the primary source. Asser was a monk who actually knew Alfred. It’s biased as heck, but it’s the closest we get to a contemporary biography. You’ll see exactly where the 1969 film got its "tortured saint" vibe.
- Visit Winchester: If you're ever in the UK, go to Winchester. There’s a massive statue of him there. It’s the old capital of Wessex, and you can feel the history in the streets.
- Compare with "The Last Kingdom": Watch the first season of the show alongside the movie. It’s fascinating to see how David Dawson’s portrayal of Alfred in the 2010s compares to Hemmings’ version in the 60s. They both lean into the "pious but ruthless" angle, but in very different ways.
- Listen to The British History Podcast: Specifically the episodes covering the 870s and 880s. Jamie Jeffers does an incredible job of breaking down the actual military tactics Alfred used, which makes the battle scenes in the movie much more interesting to analyze.
The Alfred the Great film might be a relic of its time, but like the king himself, it refuses to be forgotten. It’s a strange, loud, beautiful mess that reminds us that history isn't just about dates and battles—it's about the weird, flawed people who lived through them.