Mutiny on
the Bounty { 1935 }
Director : Frank Lloyd
The movie was made in black and white and the theme throughout is the
same ;
Bligh { Charles Laughton } is bad, Christian { Clark Gable } is good and
the crew are all jolly tars.
The pretentious essay at the beginning, written in what passes for Olde
English script, states pompously that the events to follow improved the
British Navy --- just how is left to the imagination.
Right from the beginning, Bligh's name is touted as being feared
throughout the navy and even before the ship sails Bligh orders a
flogging is carried out even though the sailor is dead !
Christian, all cheery charm and bonhomie unsuccessfully tries to stop
the sadistic Bligh sending a midshipman aloft in a gale and the next day
Bligh orders a keel-hauling even though the practice had been banned
years previously.
Floggings
take place daily with the inference that Bligh would flog the ship's cat
if it purred.
In between being flogged, keelhauled and sent up the mast in gales,
Bligh is also systematically starving the crew to death having allegedly
left most of the ship's stores in his pantry before the Bounty sailed.
Throughout a program of sadism which would have made the Marquis de Sade
proud, Christian retains his boyish grin and the crew are as jolly as
can be. They are all made even jollier when they arrive at Tahiti and
find a bevy of
Hollywood beauties all in soft focus, fresh from the casting couch and
sporting sarongs from Fredricks. So, now we have Fletcher Christian, the
crew and the whole of Tahiti versus Captain Bligh.
Anyway, the crew have the time of their lives but somehow or other
the job of collecting breadfruit plants is finally finished { in which
time Christian has become a father, which was a good trick considering
the ship only stayed 5 months } the monstrous Bligh orders the crew back
on ship to carry out their mission and surprise, surprise nobody wants
to go. Christian and his mates take the ship and sail away leaving Bligh
in an open boat and 3500 miles to go.
A few minutes later and Bligh has fetched up back in England where he is
immediately ordered to return on the Pandora to capture the mutineers.
--- in reality, a Captain Edwards commanded the Pandora.
At the trial, in the final scenes and true to his character, Bligh is
spitting venom, while Christian's Dad expresses outrage which is a
pretty good trick considering he had been dead for the previous fifteen
years.
In
real life, Charles Laughton was disliked by Gable who was averse to
working with homosexuals -- which prompts the question why.
Mutiny on The Bounty won Best Picture Oscar for 1935 ---which also
prompts the question -why?
Mutiny on the Bounty {
1962 }
Director : Lewis Milestone
This version was hardly worth
bothering with because it added little to the Gable film apart from
being filmed in glorious Technicolour. In fact the film may not be
in black and white but the portrayal of the characters certainly is with
Bligh even more inhumane and sadistic and Fletcher Christian is so
"good" that he might as well have donned a white stetson ---
even that would not have been out of place among the bizarre outfits he
wears, presumably borrowed from Liberace's wardrobe.
The casting of Brando in the role of Fletcher Christian is a blatant
example of utilising a top Hollywood name to sell a film and the result
is nothing less than hilarious --- Brando's Christian is a parody with
his foppish mannerisms and his odd accent which may have impressed
American audiences but is straight out of the Dick Van Dyke school of
elocution which also left British audiences in howls of laughter.
It's difficult to believe that this is the man who left us in awe as The
Godfather.
Trevor Howard's Bligh is the same old tired caricature of the
underhanded, devious, cruel and inflexible sadist who is unique among
men in having not one redeeming quality.
The opening paragraph of this page states that one of the main reasons
why the crew of the Bounty mutinied was the allure of the beautiful and
amoral island girls so it is a supreme irony that Brando himself fell
for his co-star Tarita and they subsequently married.
In a memorable feat of the director's art, Lewis Milestone has gathered
together a crew of excellent character actors
{ including Richard Harris } and turned them into a crew who would have
been more at home in The Pirates of Penzance. The best thing that
can be said about the whole thing is that the scenery is good.
Mutiny on
the Bounty { 1983 }
Director : Roger Donaldson
The
last Bounty film to date was at the opposite end of the spectrum in it's
depiction of the famous story and gave a far more balanced and coherent
view of events. The film unfolds with Bligh { Anthony Hopkins } at his
own court martial, narrating his version of how the ship came to be
taken, to a formidable Edward Fox presiding, alongside Laurence Olivier
as Admiral Hood. As Bligh tells his tale, flashbacks illustrate any
discrepancies in his story and Hopkins fleshes out the character of
Captain Bligh, subtly illustrating the many facets of this complex
character. The one-dimensional view of the man as a monster and a bully
is put to rest as the film probes the reasons for the mutiny. A
combination of many factors led to the mutiny, with Bligh vainly trying
to keep control of events spiralling out of his control --- intelligent
enough to realise that they were but unable to prevent them.
Before reaching the Pacific, his officers, who should be his greatest
allies, are shown to be less than dependable. His second in command,
Fryer { Daniel Day-Lewis } is openly insubordinate and disliked by crew
and fellow officers alike and the surgeon turns out to be a habitual
drunkard.
Fletcher Christian { Mel Gibson }, as always, is played as a handsome,
well-rounded-fellow, popular with his fellow officers and crew alike.
There is a great deal of truth in this but what is never stated is that
Christian was immensely strong and athletic which alone would have won
him a great deal of respect. He had sailed with Bligh before and
under his tutelage had risen to become a well-respected officer.
He took Fryer's place as second in command and Fryer never forgave Bligh.
Throughout the voyage, Bligh tries to look after his crew and
occasionally wins them over but a major watershed in their indiscipline
is Bligh's intractable and stubborn resolve to shorten the voyage by
rounding the horn. After thirty days of incessant storms they are forced
to go via The Cape of Good Hope. Bligh's reputation is diminished by
this incident more than any other but what the crew were never aware of
was the Admiralty's dilatory manning of the ship had caused them to set
sail far later than anticipated.
Eventually reaching Tahiti, they spent from October 1788 to April 1789 {
a total of 23 weeks } potting and loading the
breadfruit plants. In all this time, the crew were exposed to what must
have seemed like heaven on earth with sunshine, freedom from duty and
best of all the bare-breasted and free-wheeling sexual attitudes of the
flirtatious Tahitian girls and unsurprisingly they did not want to
leave.
The indolent days spent in Tahiti went to make up an unhappy group of
sailors when they were forced to return to their duties and the ship
sailed away. Bligh's dignity had been eroded by the nature of the
natives and his authority had been eroded accordingly as he attempted to
bring his crew back into line. Christian had always been an ally but he
now found himself in the unenviable position of attempting to carry out
Bligh's orders while maintaining his popularity among the lower decks. His
was a classic case of having authority over men and being one of them at
the same time. As a result, Christian became highly stressed. Driven by
Bligh, manipulated by the crew and the siren call of the island all
proved too much for Christian and his stress levels became so
intolerable that he finally snapped.
His hysterical screams of "
I have been in Hell"
as Bligh
pleads for sanity tell it all.
The film is a great adventure story with Hopkins making a great Bligh.
Mel Gibson is excellent as the bewildered Christian and the supporting
cast with many British actors making up the crew are top-rate. The
crew are far from the 1935 and 1962 versions and Liam Neeson, etc go to make up a
glorious gathering of villains. Proves the case that you can make an exciting, colourful, adventure film
and not deviate from the known historical facts.
Ben Hur {
1959 }
Director : William Wyler
written by General Lew Wallace in 1880 was a novel with
fictional characters interwoven into historical backgrounds and was so
thoroughly researched and carefully translated onto the screen that the
integrity of the director William Wyler shone through. The film garnered
an unprecedented eleven Oscars and was an instant box-office success. In
those days few people owned T.V. sets consequently cinemas were always
full but the mixture of romance, history, action and great story-line led
to cinema queues all over the western world for
Ben-Hur
and it was always
the chariot race that was spoken of with awe. The cast followed a
well-trod path, mixing Hollywood stars and respected character and / or
classical actors { usually British } in order to give the usually heavy
dialogue the necessary gravitas. It should be noted that it took a great
deal of courage to create films of this genre and any one of them could
turn out to be a laughing stock if the sets were poor or the costumes
looked silly or worst of all, an accent sounded out of place.
Charlton Heston, fresh from his success in
The Ten Commandments, was ideal
in the starring role of Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish
Prince, and Stephen Boyd an ideal foil as Messala, the Roman Procurator.
Hugh Griffith, Jack Hawkins, Andre Morell and Finlay Currie play their
parts superbly and it is to the director's credit that he has avoided even
a trace of a Brooklyn accent which can sink a film such as this.
As a history lesson, films such as
Ben Hur
are at one and the same time,
educational and inspirational and far superior to poring over a text book.
The colour and dialogue bring to life a Roman garrison on the outskirts of
the Empire. We learn in the first few minutes the difficulties in
maintaining that garrison as Stephen Boyd frets over his responsibilities
and we see immediately that the embossed metal chest-plates of a Roman
general are extremely heavy as he sighs with relief on removing it. The
hostile undercurrents engendered by the presence of the Messiah are subtly
in place and life in a Jewish city under an occupying power are also
clear. So, even in the opening few minutes a whole gamut of information is
flashed graphically onto the consciousness of the audience who would
possibly reject such information presented in textbook format. The lesson
is that to learn history you must make it exciting and to do that you must
"bring it to life" and in a way when watching films such as this
we are living for a short time in a re-creation of life 2,000 years ago.
The whole film carries on in this manner ---- we learn that leprosy was
commonplace and the life of a galley-slave was virtually unendurable and
life was incredibly difficult but always worth living.
The most enduring set-piece in the film is the chariot race and the
Director has spared no effort to make it nail-bitingly exciting and
historically authentic. The sets are superb, from the seated sections of
the arena to the dusty elliptical floor onto the magnificent Spina in the
centre. A whole encyclopedia of descriptive text could never surpass the
learning experience represented by just this one section of the film.
When Hollywood put its mind to it they produced works of art. Ben-Hur is
an outstanding example of an entertaining and educational voyage into the
past and its quality is there for all to see.
Ben Hur
is one of the better
examples of the endless line of historical epics turned out in the 50's
and 60's ranging from the absolute pits such as Demetrius
and the Gladiatiors, the highlight of which was Victor Mature
rolling around in the arena with a tatty rug; the terminally boring The
Robe; Cleopatra which
was just a vehicle for Taylor and Burton to reproduce on-screen what they
were doing in real life ---lovin' and fightin' ; Fall
of the Roman Empire which took just a little more than two
hours. And the interminable list went on and on with actors such as
Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd seemingly indispensable if there were
togas to be donned. Even Charlton Heston wasn't immune to the odd
turkey and whole audiences were known to have died of terminal boredom at
showings of El Cid. Here and
there, a little gem came about and Spartacus became
a classic as audiences tired of all that gravitas.
Spartacus {
1960 }
Director : Stanley Kubrick
Throughout the 50's and 60's
T.V. had not yet taken the hold that it does today and many people could
never afford a set anyway so it was a reasonable bet that when a new
epic came around then the queues would extend around the block and often
did. The sense of anticipation was electric and it was always with a
sense of triumph and relief that you paid for your ticket and gained the
sumptuous foyer where glamorous usherettes held armfuls of souvenir
booklets. These were inevitably colourful, informative and expensive and
if you were with your girl-friend it looked a bit mean not to buy the
book but if nothing else it did add to the occasion by giving a sense of
attending the theatre rather than merely " going to the
pictures". Spartacus was just such an occasion and the little-known
story of the Slaves Revolt for once did not disappoint and has quite
rightly become acknowledged as a cinema classic.
At the time of the film's release, the Slaves Revolt was known mostly to
historians only, but the story captured popular imagination and is a
prime example of entertainment and information combining to be
educational. Most of the learning process is subliminal and we owe a
great debt to those unsung heroes the costumiers and the props men for
painting pictures of past times which are far more vivid than any text
book could ever be.
The advent of Spartacus was like a breath of fresh air to audiences
weary of pretentious Biblical epics with interminable orations which
droned on and on ---and the combination of a fascinating story and
non-stop action drew universal applause wherever it played. The age-old
tale of the downtrodden underdog winning the day is always irresistible
and Spartacus was the epitome of a heroic fight against a repressive
regime. Karl Marx knew the story and valued it enough to attempt to
enrol Spartacus, the man, into the pantheon of Communist heroes.
Kramer had a great screenplay, a wonderful action/adventure and a fine
leading actor ----Kirk Douglas with just the right balance of
athleticism and intelligence was Spartacus. He also had some established
Hollywood stars such as John Ireland who played Crixus, a historical
character who fought alongside Spartacus and there was Jean Simmons as
the great man's wife. Little is known of the wife of Spartacus and the
name Varinia is fictional but it is likely that the version of her in
the film is very much the same as she was in real life. The part of
Draba played by Woody Strode is fictional but his muscular and sensitive
Nubian gladiator is an outstanding performance by an actor who never
failed to excel in every part he played. Despite all these great
players, Kramer was intelligent enough to realise what many directors
had found before him ----that American accents were acceptable in the
action roles and in fact enhanced them but when it came to members of
the Roman Senate they just sound ludicrous. In such cases, it's almost
obligatory to call upon British character actors and it was these
additions that gave the film its final polish and took it to another
level. Laurence Olivier and Charles Laughton provide the necessary
gravitas for the parts of Crassus and Gracchus but Peter Ustinov steals
every scene as Batiatus, the owner of the school for gladiators.
Wheedling and sly in the market place, brutal and overbearing to his
slaves and ingratiating and obsequious to his masters, Ustinov provides
a master-class in the art of acting and won himself an Oscar for his
trouble.
Spartacus is unusual among Roman epics in that there are no mentions of
the glory of Rome ---rather does it concentrate more on the daily lives
of a cross-section of Roman citizens. What comes across quite clearly is
that the whole structure was a class-ridden and repressive police state
where plebeians had little or no rights whatsoever and human beings were
"owned" and regarded as no better than cattle.
When the Spartacus Rebellion began and 120,000 slaves followed and then
fought several Roman Legions to a standstill the whole of the Republic
was shaken to the core. The extent of their fear was apparent when the
slaves were finally defeated and in a cruel act of vengeance they
crucified 6,000 of them along the Appian Way. This scene is one of the
most poignant in the whole film and the words ;
"I am Spartacus" repeated
over and over again have reverberated down into movie history.
One Millon Years B.C. {
1966 }
Director : Don Chaffey
As a
historical film you would have to go a long way to find a more inaccurate
representation of an era and this must be the definitive example "how
not to do it". I suppose Director Don Chaffey could argue that it was
so long ago that how does anyone know with any accuracy how things were,
but two things jump up and bite you right away ---one is the
undisputed fact that the dinosaurs had died out 60 million years
previously and the other is that the bikini was not invented until the
1950's. Nevertheless, the film was quite popular not least for the
presence of Raquel Welch and England had won the World Cup that year so
most people were walking round with beatific smiles anyway. Apart from
Raquel, the other attraction was Ray Harryhausen's dinosaurs which were
state-of-the-art at the time but have now become as archaic as their
subject matter with the advent of computer-generated images. One of the
highlights of the film is Raquel being carried off by a pterodactyl, in
fact most of the highlights have Raquel in there somewhere.
The
definitive "caveman" movie is still out there awaiting
production and I am surprised that Steven Spielberg has not attempted it
yet. Two of the major obstacles in making this kind of movie are the names
such as Tumak and Ahot and so on ---for some reason they can be most
off-putting - and the monosyllabic speech interpretations such as Ugh and
Grumph don't ring true either. Having said that, perhaps Spielberg has
done the "caveman" movie in his own inimitable manner and
instead of taking us into the past has brought the past to us in Jurassic
Park, thus eliminating the problems I have outlined.
Any one of us can only have a glimmering of how life was at the dawn of
man but it definitely wasn't like this.
The 50's and 60' s spawned any
number of Hollywood Epics which ran into millions being spent on
production costs. The costs were accrued on lavish sets, numberless
extras, big-screen formats and not least, extravagant fortunes paid to
acknowledged Stars guaranteed to bring in the crowds. Those Directors who
are still around must stand in awe at the computer graphics creating finer
sets than any craftsman and any number of "extras"required . The
only thing that hasn't changed are the exorbitant sums paid to the Stars,
unless of course a Director is willing to take a chance on an
"unknown" which often sees a new star enter the firmament or
alternatively cause a film to go into freefall.
The spiralling costs of the great Epic movies eventually brought about
their demise --- it only needed one poor showing at the box-office and
millions went down the drain. But, in recent years there has been a
renaissance in the production of Epic movies, brought about by the
comparative ease with which computer graphics generate whole cities and
armies at the push of a button.
Waterloo
{ 1970 }
Director : Sergei Bondarchuk
Waterloo is a
rarity among historical films in that there are no fictional elements
whatsoever --- the film is a completely factual account of the battle and
the events leading up to it. As such, it is not to everyone's taste
{ my wife hated every minute of it } but for anyone interested in the
Napoleonic era it is de rigeur entertainment.
Bondarchuk has gathered together a first class selection of actors, each
depicting his or her role with painstaking accuracy but it has to be said
that acting honours always take second place to the monumental battle
scenes.
The film begins with Napoleon's tearful farewell to his Imperial Guard in
the courtyard at Fontainbleau and swiftly changes to his dramatic escape
from Elba. Rod Steiger plays the part well but concentrates a little
too much upon Napoleon's dramatic side { Steiger always did go in for
"emoting" } displaying little of the charisma which
persuaded Marshall Ney { Dan O'Herlihy } and his troops to change sides in
that famous confrontation.
It cannot be emphasised too much just how accurately this film recounts
the story even down to the Duchess of Richmond's ball on the eve of the
battle which introduces many of the major players on the British
side. As the dance goes on, the rain pours down outside onto the bay
windows and Bondarchuk has reproduced the weather conditions which were as
much a factor in the battle as any of the tactics.
When the battle begins, all the major pivotal events of the battle are
shown in the sequence in which they occurred commencing with the French
attack on Hougoumont which ebbed and flowed for most of the day --- one
small criticism is that Bondarchuk has missed the opportunity to
illustrate the desperate hand-to-hand fighting at the besieged
farmhouse. The attack on La Haye Sainte and Blucher's diversionary
tactics precede one of the highlights of the battle { and the film } which
is the Charge of the Scots Greys made famous by Lady Butler's fine
painting. The vigour and energy of the Scots Greys were to lead to
their downfall as they raced too far and were left stranded deep within
the French lines only to be cut down by the French Lancers --- yet another
British action to become more renowned for it's glorious disaster than any
victory. Bondarchuk has not neglected to recount the poignant death
of Ponsonby { Michael Wilding } bogged down in the mud and speared by
French Lancers meeting exactly the same death as his father before him.
If the Scots Greys were foolish then Ney countered with a foolishness of
his own using his cavalry in a pivotal part of the battle which had
Napoleon tearing his hair out at Ney's profligate waste. Wave after
wave of French Cuirassiers charge across the battlefield, washing up
against the British squares and breaking time after time against hedges of
bayonets in scenes in which Bondarchuk has brought Lady Butler's and
Felix Phillipoteaux's paintings to life.
The final act in the drama is the attack by the Old Guard sent in to
administer the coup-de-grace and they confidently advance up the hill
towards Wellington. Bondarchuk gets it spot-on when he has
Wellington shout " Now Maitland ---now is your time !" and the
Redcoats rise from the long grass to fire withering volley after volley
into the Guard and for the first time ever the Imperial Guard breaks and
runs. Both Bondarchuk and Cambacérès retrieve a little of the
Guard's tattered honour refusing to surrender what remains of the elite
troops with a riposte of "Merde" and being blasted into history
by the British cannon.
Christopher Plummer makes an excellent Wellington with Rupert Davies as
Lord Gordon, Orson Welles as Louis and Terence Alexander as Uxbridge all
outstanding despite such little screen-time. As a historical account
Waterloo has few rivals --- none of the famous quotes have been omitted
and the research has been thorough and accurately translated onto the
screen. To his credit, Bondarchuk has resisted a
temptation which few have ever been able to and omitted any fictional love
affairs turning out in the process an entertaining and informative
historical account accurate enough to stand as a teaching device in any
academy.
The Last of the
Mohicans {
1992 }
Director : Michael Mann
From the novel by James
Fenimore Cooper
Written in 1826 and
universally acknowledged to be a classic, Fenimore Cooper's most famous
novel is virtually unreadable today ---- it's too slow for the modern
reader and the quaint phrases and sentences are testimony to how much our
language has changed over the years. But in it's day, Mohicans was a
best-seller all over the world, enthralling its audience with a thrilling
tale of love and adventure among the exotic tribes of Indians in what was
still a wilderness which few had seen. Although the book has become antiquated the story and its heroes endure
and will hopefully do so for many years to come.
As the film begins and even before the credits come up, drumming can be
heard in the background becoming louder and louder and rising to a
crescendo when the film opens onto the mountainous scene before us. Think
' Ravel's Bolero' and you have some idea of the stunning beginning to
Mohicans and throughout the film the music of Randy Edelman, Clannad and
Daniel Lenois is a feature of the film, changing the mood from foreboding
to exultation to sadness as required.
Central to the story are Hawkeye { played superbly by Daniel day-Lewis }, Chingachgook
{ Russell Means } and Uncas ( Eric Schweig } who are
free spirits in the forests of New York State,1857, where the French
and British are fighting it out for possession of America and subsequently
Canada. The historical and geographic backdrop could hardly be better to
tell the story of Hawkeye's love for Cora { Madeleine Stowe} providing some great action scenes set against the
rugged beauty of the woods and waterfalls of Carolina complementing the
real events which took place.
The battle for Fort William Henry is a brilliant re-enactment of the French siege
and is quite detailed down to the mortars which the French used to good
effect, the letter which went astray and the non-appearance of General
Webb. The Marquis de Montcalm { who was to die three
years later at
The Heights of Abraham } was generous in allowing the British to keep
their colors and leave the fort with dignity intact. Montcalm was
not to know that his gesture was to have unfortunate consequences by at
the hands of his disgruntled Hurons who melted into the woods. The ensuing massacre as the Huron attack the
British in a picturesque meadow is one of the most gripping scenes in the
film and a graphic account of an historically factual event. The Huron
were essentially a peaceful people but from the days of Champlain they had
been cultivated by the French for their skills in trapping and pathfinding
which was eventually to bring about their downfall at the hands of the
Iroquois who fought for the British.
Peaceful nation or not, Magua the Huron is vengeance personified ---
cruel, without an ounce of compassion or humanity he is the epitome of
savagery in his implacable hatred of Colonel Munro. Wes Studi was made for
this role ----he has done nothing before or after to equal his part in
this film ---- he is Magua. Despite the formidable presence of Daniel-Day
Lewis and all the other players the part of Magua is pervasive throughout
the film --- you just can't take your eyes off him.
Just as the beginning of the film demand your attention the finale is
just as memorable in a bloody fight to the finish upon a cliff top where
Cora loses her sister and Hawkeye loses his brother in the conclusion to a
fascinating film.
Without the music Mohicans would be a tremendous film by any standards
---add the perfect background music which the Director has utilised to
perfection and you have a tour de force in the illustrious career of
Michael Mann and the rarity of cinema as a true art form.
Braveheart { 1995
}
Director : Mel Gibson
I have to confess
that before seeing Braveheart I was filled with trepidation as to how Mel
Gibson would represent William Wallace, a legendary warrior in the cause
of Scottish Nationalism. On a first showing, I was not too impressed but
little by little I have come to revise my opinion.
The story of
William Wallace is polarised between the years 1297, when his star was in
the ascendant and 1305 when he was put to death. These years are
documented to a degree but the years prior to this are shadowy and
fragmentary and as a result have become subject to variances and
conjecture as illustrated in the film. The screenplay is based upon a
novel of the same name by Randall Wallace which in turn is drawn from an
epic poem called The Wallace by Henry the Minstrel or Blind Harry as he is
better known. This would be all well and good apart from the fact that
Blind Harry's version of the story was written nearly 200 years after the
death of Wallace and is itself flawed. Other sources such as Andrew
Wyntoun's Originale Cronykil of Scotland { 1420 } and Walter Bower's
Scotichronicon { 1440 } are simply, hero-worshipping, eulogies of the man.
Sources from English writings are unsurprisingly, vitriolic diatribes
calling Wallace " a thief ", " a bandit" or " a
pillager of Holy Shrines" as the fancy took them. So it can be seen
that much of the story is either shrouded in mystery or lost in the mists
of time and the screenplay necessitated a great deal of conjecture and
imagination to fill in the gaps.
There is a perfect example of this at the beginning of the film ; it is
established that Wallace came from humble origins, it is believed that his
mistress lived in the Lanark area and it is fact that he killed the
English Sheriff of Lanark, William Heselrigg. The writer has cleverly
brought these seemingly unrelated facts together to explain in a dramatic
and action-packed manner just why Wallace became such an implacable
opponent of the English. The inter-relation of the known facts, as
entertaining as it is, has no basis in fact but certainly makes for a
great start to the film. Just to make sure that nobody
is any doubt as to the righteousness of Wallace's cause the factual
massacre of the Scottish Lords which took place at the Barns of Ayr is
also portrayed as well as the emotive Droit de Seigneur by the venal
English.
The focus of
Wallace's hatred is Edward 1 { nicknamed Longshanks because of his height
} ably played by Patrick McGoohan, Longshanks is portrayed as a cruel
warmonger. This is somewhat one-dimensional as he did attempt
reconciliation with the Scottish aristocracy but his other sobriquet of
The Hammer of the Scots was not without foundation.
Having
provided a wonderfully entertaining opening, the film entered into the
years when Wallace's impact upon Scottish Nationalism was to become
legendary and the scene is now set for his first major victory against the
English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. The Director dispensed
with the need for a bridge and created a set-piece medieval battlefield in
which both sides hacked each other into bloody pieces using fiercesome
battleaxes and broadswords. The action is both exciting and excruciating
and is probably as realistic a representation of a medieval battlefield as
can be seen anywhere. One minor fault is the use of the plant derivative,
woad { isatis tinctoria } to make the Scots look even fiercer than than
they were. The use of woad was restricted to the ancient Britons, 1,000
years previously. Scottish soccer fans have always painted flags of St.
Andrew on their faces but since Braveheart the practice has become even
more widespread.
Wallace was
made famous by this one battle and entered into the world of the Scottish
Lords and Scottish politics which was in time to bring about his downfall.
For the time being though, he could do no wrong and was knighted by John
Balliol. After Stirling Bridge, Wallace became bolder and bolder in his
raids upon English garrisons culminating in his advance into towns in
Northern England. In the film, Wallace's army actually sack York but in
reality they never got further than Durham. Nevertheless, the raids which
were carried out while Longshanks was preoccupied in France, stung the
English into responding in kind and an army was despatched to bring the
Scots back into line. The two armies finally met at Falkirk and with
Wallace's reputation at an all-time high he felt confident enough to face
the English in a set-piece pitched battle { which Stirling never was }. It
was at Falkirk that Wallace employed the use of thousands of long stakes
forming his troops into four groups of "hedgehogs" bristling
with spears but in Braveheart, Mel Gibson sets this device at the Battle
of Stirling. The Scots were no match for the English archers and cavalry
and as shown in the film Wallace was comprehensively defeated.
There
is a scene at the end of the battle where Robert the Bruce is fighting on
the English side and has Wallace at his mercy but lets him go. The whole
of this scenario is pure fiction and derives from the Bruce's father who
was allied to the English and fought on their side at Falkirk.
Robert the Bruce appears throughout the film as a tortured soul
vacillating between diplomacy or even alliance with the English and the
pure patriotism of many of his fellow Scots. There is possibly a great
deal of truth in the film's suggestion that Wallace was finally his
inspiration to tip the balance in favour of opposition to the English and
that Wallace was therefore, indirectly responsible for the victory of
Bannockburn.
The scene at Falkirk where the Irish, fighting in the ranks of the British
army, go over to the Scots is also fiction but has its basis in a mutiny
by the large Welsh contingent who were never content to be vassals and
were also near to starvation.
The final
scenes where Wallace has been betrayed and taken for trial to London are
both harrowing and moving which is no mean achievement. The practice
of being" hung, drawn and quartered" was not an uncommon
punishment in those days and illustrates graphically just what a barbaric
age it was. After various tortures Wallace's body was cut up
and sent to the four points of the compass and his head impaled upon
London Bridge. Mel Gibson's handling of these gut-wrenching scenes
could hardly be bettered and the scene where he is on the cross presages
his latest role in the controversial Jesus of Nazareth film.
The only
really jarring note in the whole film is Wallace's affair with Princess
Isabella, the wife of the homosexual Edward the Second. There is no
question that this event never happened and is simply the director bowing
to the Hollywood tradition that the leading man is obliged to have a love
interest or maybe Mel just fancied an excuse to cuddle up to the delicious
Sophie Marceau. Given that the whole tale has become distorted with
the passage of time is it too fanciful to wonder if in another few
centuries historians will revisit the story and take Braveheart
as the
literal truth and have Princess Sophie having Mel's baby ?
One other small point is that when Princess Isabella arrives to marry
Edward the Second, one of the characters, knowing that he is gay says that
Longshanks probably wanted her for himself. The fact is that for all
his admitted harshness and cruelty he loved his wife Eleanor of Castile to
the point of distraction. When she died in Lincoln the whole court
travelled with her bier in a cortege to London. The journey was a
long one in those days and at each of the twelve stopping points Edward
decreed that an ornate building with Eleanor's statue be
erected. They were called Eleanor Crosses and there are
only two remaining, the finest of which can be seen at Charing Cross.
Despite the latter paragraph, Mel Gibson created an exciting re-creation
of William Wallace's life and times and the parts which were
patently not true--- well they should have been.
The Patriot {
2000 }
Director : Roland Emmerich
If The Last of The Mohicans represents
the finest in fiction based on a historical background then
The Patriot's
combination of historical inaccuracies and Mills and Boon screenplay can
only be described as the worst.
When Mel Gibson read the script he must have thought that the
metamorphosis from dedicated family man and rocking-chair craftsman to a
guerrilla leader in the American War of Independence would be a
challenging role. But both incarnations are so ludicrously over the top as
to be laughable. In the guise of family man Benjamin Martin bringing up
seven kids with only some kindly Swanee River-type black folks to help
out, the sentimentality is mawkish to say the least, while on the other
hand, cast in the guise of a fighting militiaman smacks more of Conan the
Barbarian in his wholesale destruction of the British army. There is one
distasteful scene in particular where after slaughtering a regiment of
Redcoats { aided by his two barely teenage but deadshot sons } he hacks at
the body of a soldier with a tomahawk in a complete frenzy, emerging
covered in blood. This scene was distasteful to say the least, made even
more so by Martin's return to normality with a rueful expression as if he
had just killed a chicken.
When Martin is not covered in gore after hacking yet another Redcoat into
little pieces he is pontificating about the awfulness of war or indulging
in some sentimental nonsense with his cute-stroke-brave brood or chuckling
patronisingly over some running joke involving blackened teeth.
Possibly the worst part of this dreadful film is the role of Colonel
William Tavington { Jason Isaacs } who is quite obviously a
thinly-disguised parody of the real life Banastre Tarleton. Tarleton was
an English, Lieutenant Colonel of Dragoon Guards and was active in many
battles in upstate New York. He was feared by the American militiamen for
his ruthless efficiency and vilified for allegedly giving no quarter
at
the battle of Waxhaws. He was in fact no worse than many American officers
and much of his reputation was propaganda ---he returned to England as a
hero. In this version of events Tarleton {or Tavington ---if it's true
then why not give
him his real name?} has been demonised into a latter-day S.S. officer who
thinks nothing of shooting children in the back and committing atrocities
too numerous to mention. One particular scene has him gleefully burning
down a church full of men, women and children --- an event which was a
total fiction and an insult to the British army. The fact that The Patriot
was originally based upon the career of Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox,
until somebody pointed out that he was not averse to massacring Indians
and raping slaves, makes the portrayal of Tarleton even more unedifying.
With its ludicrous stereotypes of dim-witted Redcoats, ever-cheerful,
black slaves, naïve but courageous militia and cute little kids, added to
sugary sentiment and extremely heavy-handed humour The Patriot could only
ever appeal to another Patriot.
The only people who emerge from the wreckage with any credit are the
costumiers and technicians with both sets and scenes second to none ---
it's just a shame that the rest of the film did not live up to their
excellence.
When making films with a historical background it is important that the
audience recognize which is fact and which is fiction --- there are people
out there who will take it as read that this is a factual account of what
happened. In this instance, the director has completely relinquished any
responsibility to ensure that the historical sections are accurate which
is at best just downright lazy and at worst is dangerous slander.
Gladiator {
2000 }
Director : Ridley Scott
Comparisons with
Spartacus
are inevitable but it is a tribute to Kubrick that it has taken
all of 40 years before anything approaching the quality of his epic made
an appearance. There are many similarities between both films and one or
two of them are quite uncanny but there is a major difference in that
Spartacus took a historic event and sprinkled it lightly with a smattering
of fiction while Gladiator took a fictional story and added a dash of
historical background. Unfortunately, the historical additions do not
stand up to close scrutiny and several of them have been
altered radically in order to heighten the dramatic effect. With that in
mind, Gladiator remains a memorable and entertaining movie and from a
historical perspective, if it does nothing more then it provides a
colourful splash of Roman life and a beautiful computer generated
reconstruction of Rome itself.
In many ways, the opening scenes are the best part of the film and promise
a great deal as the Roman Legions face the Germanic hordes in a dark and
brooding forest clearing. The images of the troops facing the bloodthirsty
barbarians are an accurate portrayal of front-line Roman soldiers and the
difficulties they faced in the name of the Empire. On this occasion they
are victorious but there were many occasions when they were not and it was
one of the most dangerous postings in the Roman army.
The portrayal of Marcus Aurelius by Richard Harris is excellent and a fine
interpretation of the Philosopher Emperor who spent much of his life
holding back the barbarian tide on the Rhine frontier. He did indeed try
to train and advise his son Commodus to take up the reins when he died but
there is no evidence whatsoever that Commodus speeded him on his way into
the afterlife. Marcus Aurelius's handing command to a general is of course
fiction.
The part of Commodus is one of the most difficult and pivotal roles in the
film ---- the deranged Roman Emperor is now a stereotype and has been done
so many times it is difficult to imagine anything new can be added but
Joaquin Phoenix manages to give a beautifully understated performance as
the petulant, deranged and dangerous emperor. He steals many of the scenes
which is quite an accomplishment considering the exalted company he is in.
Another stereotype is the Roman matron conspiring behind the scenes and
Connie Neilsen as Commodus's sister Lucilla also manages to break through
the constraints of her role and add another dimension to her part as a
woman living nervously alongside an unpredictable maniac and attempting to
shield her son from his aberrations.
Once again British actors were chosen to play the parts of Senators {
since I,Claudius Derek Jacobii is always in the forefront
} and just as in Spartacus the owner of the gladiator school { Peter
Ustinov } has a singular and eccentric personality. Oliver Reed who must
be the most under-rated actor in British cinema put in a sterling
performance and vies with Ustinov for the best lanista---sadly he died
during filming.
The focal point of the whole film is of course the Gladiator himself
played by Russell Crowe ---
"my
name is Maximus Decimus Meridius" ---
who brings all the attributes necessary to the role.
Enjoyable on-screen
for most of the time, there are several occasions when Crowe is involved
in dream-sequences which would have been better omitted. Dream sequences
rarely work and are for the most part boring and on this occasion the
cruelties imposed on his wife and child would have had far more impact if
left to our imaginations.
It would be easy to think that the final scenes in the arena were the most
historically inaccurate of all with Maximus fighting a Roman Emperor
merely a figment of the imagination but Commodus did in fact make it a
practice to fight in the arena. However, he was not slain by a gladiator
but was assassinated.
Spartacus took place circa 79 B.C. and Gladiator circa 180 A.D. testifying
eloquently
To the Roman fascination for the games and if they took place today
there's no doubt that there would be no shortage of patrons which is also
an eloquent testimony.
Kingdom of Heaven
{ 2005 }
Director : Ridley Scott
In tackling a story of the Crusades Ridley Scott set himself an even
more difficult task than Gladiator and if nothing more the film is a
triumph for the costumiers and props men who have produced an authentic
backdrop of the era. the film follows the same formula as Gladiator
but unfortunately Orlando Bloom lacks the necessary qualities and gravitas
to carry such a demanding role and only just about gets away with
it. In the present climate of Islamic and Christian tensions any
portrayal of either religion as being at fault in any way could have been
construed as Jingoism at the very least but the director has given a fair
and balanced account of events and in fact most of the Islamic fighters,
particularly Saladin, emerge as far more civilized than the Templars and
Hospitalers. The big problem is that the film is very wordy and the
plot is thin ---- Scott would have been far better advised to have
concentrated on a particular momentous event than trying to capture the
grand sweep of the times. The Crusades are a fascinating subject and
once again the point is proven that historical events are far more strange
and interesting than anything Hollywood can dream up.
The D.V.D. version of the film is extremely interesting and possibly
unique but it sets an example which others would do well to follow.
On the disk the whole film is reproduced in its entirety and each time
something occurs which is of historical interest there is a detailed
explanation right down to the customs and practices of everyday
living. In some ways this film is more fascinating than the main one
----certainly giving an insight into many medieval habits, tools and mores
and it was revealing at just how much of the film had passed me
by. Ridley Scott has illustrated clearly just how much research goes
into a historical drama such as this and even though the film is in the
main a fictional account there is so much historical detail of every kind
that even subliminally we are learning of the Crusades and having a
picture painted of how it used to be.
The Last Samurai
{ 2003 }
Director : Edward Zwick
Ok, at first glance the storyline looks ridiculous ----7th Cavalry meets
Samurai warriors --but take no notice of the critics who rarely enthuse
about anything and at best can only muster a jaded and half-hearted
enthusiasm for something which takes their fancy, The Last Samurai is a
compelling adventure story of the old school set to a background of a
Japan in tumult.
The costume department should take a bow for the obviously loving care
that they took in recreating the diverse armour and weaponry of the
Samurai warriors and similarly the unsung research department for their
painstaking research in the mores and customs of the Japanese at that
time. But perhaps the honours should go to the stunt arrangers whose
martial arts scenes are superb culminating in a set-battle at the finale
which excels in every way.
The story itself is complex, with many twists and turns, but the overall
theme is the regret for the passing of a people and culture many thousands
of years old and not least for the manner of its passing which was
genocidal. Captain Algren
{ Tom Cruise } is the embodiment of that regret and when we first meet him
he is reduced to taking part in a carnie side-show in between drinking
bouts. We learn in flashbacks that Algren took part in atrocities
and massacres in which women and children were shot down indiscriminately
and it is fairly obvious that the Washita is referred to ---- a slaughter
of the innocents which Custer claimed as a battle honour which stands
comparison with Chivington's shameful Sand Creek massacre. A
monologue in which Algren rails bitterly against his Commanding officer,
comprehensively destroys the myth of Custer and the legend of the 7th
Cavalry .
When Algren is requested to travel to the then mysterious country of Japan
in order to train the army of the Emperor he reluctantly agrees. In
their first battle with the enemy Samurai warriors, Algren is taken
prisoner and lives among the Samurai for many months. He comes to
realise that their way of life is thousands of years old, that they have
ancient customs and courtesies which are worthy of retention, that they
are very much in a minority, and most of all he learns that they are being
victimised. The comparisons with the Sioux are obvious and Algren
realises that if he carries out his contract to train the Emperors army
then he will be once again taking part in a genocide against an indigenous
people.
Algren comes to love and respect the Samurai and although he knows that it
is certain death this time he takes their side in an act of redemption
which will purge his soul for the guilt he carries for his previous
misadventures.
The final battle is brilliantly done with intriguing set-piece
battle scenes in which the medieval swords and bows of the Samurai defy
and very nearly defeat the modern howitzers and gatling guns of the
Imperial army. As the sole survivor, Algren limps into the Imperial court
and in the penultimate scene he passes the caul of guilt onto the Emperor.
Billy Connelly appears in a cameo role at the beginning of the film and
once again shows that he could probably could have become a better actor
than stand-up comedian if the cards had fallen another way. But
Timothy Spall steals the acting honours for his portrayal of an eccentric
Englishman in the Imperial court, somehow managing to combine timidity and
courage and an intellectual interest and affection for the Japanese way of
life. The Japanese actors are brilliant with Ken Watanabe
outstanding as Katsumoto and Masato Harada sufficiently evil as the
underhanded Omura.
Japan, circa 1876, is little known historically to westerners and so to
present an adventure story with such a background is out of the usual run
of historical features. Combined with some great action scenes this
is the way I like my history represented.
Gods and Generals { 2003 }
Director : Ronald F. Maxwell
Much of this page rails against the liberties
taken whilst making historical movies but that's not a criticism that
could ever be levelled at Gods and Generals which presents the facts as
they happened in almost documentary fashion. Sadly, that's about the
only accolade that could be given to this film which takes the always
fascinating subject of the American Civil War and turns it into a boring
and long-winded diatribe. For Civil War buffs, Gods and Generals is
required watching but even they must admit that the film attempts to cover
too much ground in looking at the war from both sides and over too many
years.
The worst part of the film is that everybody involved seems to be infected
with an unnatural verbosity and whether it's a slave, soldier or general,
all of them have this strange compunction to break into lyrical speeches
about war, family, life and death and so on and so forth ---- all of it
while staring into the middle-distance or looking up at a starry
sky. Jeff Daniels even finds time to recite an epic poem in full
about Caesar crossing the Rubicon in his part as Col. Chamberlain as he
directs his men into battle and his wife Fanny { Mira Sorvino } not
to be outdone, puts both her husband and half the audience to sleep with
her speech while they are in bed together. But the worst one of all
is the Shakespearean monologue by the black slave, Jim Lewis to a mounted
Stonewall Jackson ----both horse and rider are visibly wilting as Jim
rambles on about patriotism and the American dream and the wonders of
slavery in the New World ------- Frankie Faison who played Jim had quite
obviously been heavily influenced by re-runs of Gone With the Wind.
In between all these archaic utterances the
battle scenes provide some light relief although they are all very
similar in many ways, with the infantry steadfastly walking into a
hail of cannon fire a common theme.
Gods and Generals was made as a prequel to Gettysburg by the same director
and the two films are similar in many ways although Gettysburg, made in
1994, is far superior. For a start, the dialogue is more snappy in
Gettysburg and the director is concentrating on just one subject and while
the film is also made in near-documentary fashion it still retains some
element of excitement.
The best thing that could be said about Gods and Generals is that it does
give some flavour of what it was like for officers and men to go into
battle during the Civil War and illustrates clearly that the war on land
was little different to battles fought in Europe 200 years previously.
Robert Duvall stands out as Robert E. Lee and is head and shoulders above
others in the film who are all stilted and wooden.
Although it flies in the face of everything said before ---given the
choice between factual dramas such as these or the fictional Shenandoah
then it has to be said that the latter is far more entertaining and
instructional about the American Civil War.
In the pipeline are a number of Hollywood histories
-----one is a biography of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst in the
title role. I hope I'm wrong but the opportunities for the salacious
myths and lies about that sad personage will I fear be too much of a
temptation for the film makers not to omit.
Similarly, Scarlett Johansson is pencilled in to play Betsy Balfour who
played a minor role in Napoleon's final exile on St.Helena. Betsy
was aged 14 when she lived on St.Helena and befriended Napoleon who she
saw as a kind of "uncle" and had little knowledge of his impact
upon the world. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there was
ever anything other than a platonic relationship between the two but
already screenwriter Benjamin Ross has stated that ;
"The facts of what happened are very
interpretable. I'd be delighted to get historians jumping up and
down".
Given the above statement and the fact that the makers are
hardly likely to make a film about Napoleon playing blind man's bluff with
a child, the accuracy of this film would seem to be very much in
doubt. With Al Pacino reputed to be playing Napoleon I hope for all
our sakes that the temptation to play such a challenging role is balanced
against a critical reading of the screenplay.
The lesson for Hollywood is that history is fascinating in its own
right and requires no embellishment but it is a lesson that is
consistently ignored.
|