Friday, January 26, 2007Asoka
DIGG THIS ARTICLE. 2001, India. Starring Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Danny Denzongpa, Rahul Dev, Hrishitaa Bhatt, Gerson Da Cunha, Subhashini Ali, Umesh Mehra, Sooraj Balaji. Written and directed by Santosh Sivan. Buy it from Amazon
Writing reviews of bloated historical epics is a bit difficult for me. On the one hand, they comprise one of my favorite categories of film. I love watching a cast of thousands get gussied up in peplum tunics and armor then go tearing about vast landscapes with spears and catapults hurling big flaming balls (though I reckon you can't actually go tearing about the landscape with a catapult). I love the sinister palace intrigue, the lavish sets, the gratuitous dance numbers performed by scantily clad women, the blustery overacting, and of course the giant battle sequences. On the other hand, these sorts of films rarely lend themselves to the types of reviews I like to write, if for no other reason than so many people have already heard of the films. What's new that I could possibly add? Sometimes I get a break, of course. Because many people my age and younger missed a good many of these films, I can discuss them without feeling like I'm going over the same "did you know" talking points. So I will review The Vikings starring Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas, but I would never review Cleopatra, despite the fact that I love the film dearly. You don't need me to tell you about Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, though, just as you don't need me to repeat the gossip about Richard Burton and Liz Taylor's torrid behind-the-scenes love affair. At other times, epics come along possessed of such a profound gravity that my usual jokey demeanor seems unsuitable for the subject matter. King Hu's monumental A Touch of Zen is another of my favorite movies, but my attempt to write a review of it was disappointing, at best. A film like that demands a much cleverer, well-developed analysis than my usual stock company of, "Hey! Boobies!" In my darkest hours, I am capable of writing such pieces; I just don't find them appropriate for Teleport City, where I like to keep things as light and frothy as a Candy Johnson go-go routine (some of my older, overly self-important reviews not withstanding).
I sometimes sit and ponder these conundrums for a few minutes, before I finally wave my hand in dismissal and figure I should just get on with reviewing something, and if it happens to be a big ol' epic movie full of heavy themes and grandstanding thespians, then so be it. So it is that I come to the lavish Indian epic Asoka, which among, other things, is going to allow me to rectify some of the poor work I did writing about A Touch of Zen years ago, because both films share quite a bit both structurally and thematically, though only one of them has a Shahrukh Khan bathing scene every half hour. But first, let's indulge in some history. All things considered, I had a pretty fair education. I lucked into a string of great teachers in high school at a time when we had a nice blend of forward thinking "progressive" education and classical book learnin' -- which is a fancy way of saying we were expected to learn about stuff then also think about it. Still, even though I had fairly intensive world civ classes back in the day, they were still hamstrung by the usual Western cultural bias, meaning that we learned a lot about the Greeks and Romans, a fair amount about the Egyptians (who may be African, but they knew Greeks and Romans, so Western Civ classes are cool with them -- plus, you know, like mummies and stuff), a smattering of things about the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians, and then plenty about medieval Europe. When it came to Asia, however, we learned basically that countries in Asia did, in fact, exist at various points in history, and two of them were called China and Japan. Beyond that -- not so much with the education. Still, it's more than we learned about Africa excluding Egypt. The sum total of my knowledge regarding Africa would lead me to believe that there were the Egyptians, and then there were the unfortunate folks who got rounded up during the slave trade. Any other traces of culture, history, and civilization pertaining to Africa I may have gotten was gleaned entirely from the pages of Tarzan and Solomon Kane pulp novels, and it turns out they may not have been the most reliable of historical sources. If we were and continue to be short-changed in our scholastic enlightenment as pertains to China and Japan, that's nothing compared to what we learned about India, which was pretty much nothing. But then, honestly, who would want to learn anything about India? I mean, a giant country full of some of the most colorful customs, outlandish legends, and monstrously fantastic gods? What kid would want to learn about that when they could be learning about Charlemagne for the fourth year in a row? Not that I have anything against Charlemagne, mind you, or against learning the highlights of Western Civ. I quite love it all, actually, but after hearing about Charlemagne over and over again, I could have used a little aside about Asoka or the first emperor of China or something, anything, other than the Magna Charta yet again. India fares even worse than Japan and China, because at least the lack of education regarding the histories and cultures of those two countries was supplemented by some exposure to their current pop culture. Kungfu movies and Godzilla may not teach you much about a country that would impress a historian, but you do learn something about another country; even if the events on screen might not be entirely historically accurate (though I'm pretty sure Five Deadly Venoms is 100% historically verifiable, even the part about the guy walking up walls), you learn what people in those other countries watch, and from that you can start to branch out (though the dry wing of film studies would have you believe that to understand a nation's cinema, you have to watch the art films none of the people in that country actually watch). If nothing else, at least it puts the country in your consciousness. It was early exposure to things like Ultraman and Bruce Lee that got me interested in Japan and China, and even if my school was lacking in a curriculum that paid much attention to these places, at least I knew I wanted to learn about them on my own.
But not India. There was no pop culture presence for India in the United States, at least not in Centerfield, Kentucky in 1979. I didn't even know enough about India to know if I wanted to know anything about India. I knew where it was on a map, and I knew there were an awful lot of people there, but that was pretty much it. As to the cultures and customs, to say nothing of their pop entertainment and movies, I knew so little that it never even occurred to me such things might exist. I wised up, eventually, though my entry into trying to pick up some knowledge pertaining to India was a pretty late arrival on the playing field already occupied by players from China and Japan, as well as the usual lot from England, Italy, France, Mexico, and the good ol' United States of America. Even after I started catching glimpses of "Bollywood" films here and there, or hearing descriptions of them, India remained a strictly b-team affair, partly because this was the pre-Internet, pre-DVD era, and procuring films from India without being near a major center of Indian population was viciously difficult. It was hard enough tracking down Jackie Chan movies from Hong Kong, but at least there was an established network into which one could tap.
Things didn't start to change until I moved to New York City. Hong Kong and Japan were two film industries in serious decline by that time (late 1990s). I'd seen as many of the old films as were available at the time, and the new films were pretty horrible. I ended up living on East 5th Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues, which for those of you unfamiliar with the geographic make-up of New York City and the East Village, is right next door to Kojak's old precinct, but also right next to the string of Indian restaurants that populated 6th Street. Around the same time, I picked up a book called Mondo Macabro by Pete Tombs, and read with excitement the descriptions of insane Indian horror films from the 1980s. Satiated as I was with all things Hong Kong and Japan, I decided to try and find some of these movies. Luckily, nestled in between the row of restaurants that were my neighbors was a video store that stocked Indian films. It wasn't exactly easy going. None of the videos had English titles on them, and the horror films about which I'd read were pretty much the pariahs of the Indian VHS world (more about that when I review one of them, though). Still, thanks to a couple helpful employees, I was able to stumble across a few horror, fantasy, and action films that would appeal to me. Even then, it wasn't easy to get into the movies. They were long, for one, and had no translations. This was nothing new for me, but deciphering an untranslated kungfu film from the 70s is a lot less difficult than trying to unravel the myriad plots and subplots of the typical Bollywood masala film without benefit of familiarity with the cliches, formulas, or stars. Plus, the VHS tapes were of uniformly dreadful quality, often interspersed with commercials or scrolling advertisements. I once rented a freaked-out horror film called Cheekh only to find that the tape had a scrolling advertising ticker running not at the top or the bottom of the screen, but right through the middle! For the whole movie!
Given the circumstances, Bollywood failed to click with me at that time. But it kept getting mentioned here and there in various books, and the photos always looked promising. If only there was a source for movies that didn't have ads for basmati rice and attorneys plastered over the picture. Then came the Internet, and more importantly DVDs. Suddenly, I could do a search for Indian films and turn up all sorts of sources that had never been accessible to me before. And best of all, rather than paying $20 for a VHS dupe with copious on-screen ads and no subtitles, I could pay $3.99 for a DVD with subs and a widescreen presentation of the movie. Those old horror films were still MIA, but I was finally able to learn names like Dev Anand and Amitabh Bachchan. The first Bollywood film I ever purchased was Don. If you are wondering what the hell all this has to do with Asoka, then you must not have read many of my previous reviews. It's always important to me to set the stage and explain not just how I felt about a certain film, but why I feel that way and what went into making me feel that way. This often manifests itself in the form of long-winded, meandering stories about VHS tapes. Bear with me. Of course, there was no going back after that, and while I logged many hours watching Bollywood films, they remained more or less absent from my review repertoire since I was still fairly ignorant of India in general and Indian film in particular. I wrote an early, clumsy, but enthusiastic review of Don, but one could hardly claim that it boasts very much in the way of insight into or history about the stars, production, or climate in which it was made. Mostly, I just thought Amitabh was a bad-ass with a truly epic collection of bow-ties. So I set out on a quest to educate myself a little more, and while I didn't think that I would be able to increase my Bollywood superpowers to the point I'd advanced my Hong Kong action cinema powers, I figured I could at least not try to sound like a complete moron. So here I stand before you, now, an incomplete moron.
It's only very recently that I feel I've acquired enough experience to write somewhat competently about Indian movies. It's still not an easy subject to learn about. There are a lot of books about Bollywood cinema, but the vast majority of them stick to the safe and predictable, discuss the same movies (how many essays about Mother India must I read?), and treat the whole of Bollywood cinema as if it is a dry academic topic that must be handled with humorless sincerity and absolutely no sense of the fun and pageantry that appears in the movies themselves. While I enjoy exploring the ins and outs of such serious theoretical approaches and feel they are an important aspect of understanding cinema, they are by no means the sole defining factor of film. Myopically focusing on the dry academics and critical theory, especially in a populist cinema like India's, seems to exclude a massive piece of the puzzle. In short, where's the fun? Where's the source material that embraces the wide variety of Indian cinema, from Mother India to the shameful and sleazy horror films of the Ramsay Brothers? From Sholay to Mithun fighting ninjas? It wasn't really out there. And while we're better off now than we were even a decade ago, when you would think based on what we see and read in the West the whole of Indian cinema was comprised of the collective works of Satyragraha Ray, we still want for a really smart but enthusiastic embrace of both the serious and the absurd in Hindi film. And don't even get me started on the lack of coverage for Tamil films.
The World Wide Web improves things a little bit, but most of the Indian film review sites focus on newer productions -- which is fine, for learning about newer productions -- or on the usual suspects and "classics" of Indian cinema. But people like me want to really dig into the dark and ignored crevasses of Indian genre films from the 60s and 70s. These remain wildly underrepresented online, especially compared with the vast body of well-written and informative sites that explore Italian cult cinema, or Hong Kong, or Japan -- among others. Anyway, my point is this: I have like a hundred screencaps from Asoka, and to be able to use them all, I need a really long article. So you get this long, padded preamble in order to justify my many photos of Kareena Kapoor dancing or Shahrukh dumping water on himself.
No, wait. That's not my point at all. My point is this: you (and I) may not have learned a particular something (or many somethings, for that matter) back when were in high school. But that's not really an excuse. A little spark from something as disreputable as pop culture can end up with you actually learning a lot about a country and a culture. My journey to Bollywood was a procession of tiny crumbs scattered here and there in a vast forest, but every time I stumbled across a new one, it made learning more all the more enticing. I'm doing my best not to let this breadcrumb trail analogy end up with me being lured into Shahrukh Khan's gingerbread house (though I know many people who would be willingly lead into such a place). And this is how pop culture works at its best. It piques your interest, and from there, with any luck, you launch a greater exploration and come to a better understanding of other people. In other words -- I can learn the history of Japan, but it's Sonny Chiba and Bunta Sugawara that helps me strike up conversations with actual Japanese people. So it is too with India. I learn Amitabh and Shahrukh, and my interest in them becomes an interest in the actual history of both India and the Indian film industry. And from the jumping off point of analytical scholarly and historical surveys of Indian cinema, I learn the framework of discussing the films, and then can launch into the glorious backwaters of the weird and wonderful that so delights me from all the cinemas of the world.
In approaching a review of the film Asoka, for instance, there were several things I had to do before I could write a halfways decent review of the film. I had to learn about Shahrukh Khan, one of the reigning kings of Bollywood cinema. I had to learn about director/cinematographer Santosh Sivan. And not least of all, I had to learn who the heck Asoka was, as one can assume that a film called Asoka is going to have something to do with the actual Asoka. Asoka is a pretty funny guy to know absolutely nothing about. In terms of ancient world history, he was a man the caliber of Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan or Qin Shi-huang, the first emperor of China. And like these men who were more familiar to me, Asoka embodies all that is noble and ruthless, admirable and despicable, about men who live lives of epic scale. These complexities in great men -- "great" referring to the scope of the accomplishments and the impact they had on the world around them more than being a description of their demeanor or potential as a drinking buddy -- make for superb cinema if you are willing to deal with these complexities. Many times, a movie is not, and you get a rather shallow, white-washed impression of the man (Julius Caesar more so than any of the others, at least in the West). More recent cinema has become obsessed with the deconstruction of the myth surrounding such historical figures, and so dwells almost exclusively on the negative. This is no more accurate a portrait than the over-simplified portrayals of previous decades. Caesar was a great man and a complete bastard. He was a champion of the people and a poison to the democratic traditions of the Roman republic. He was a hero to the Roman empire and a genocidal madman to the Germanic tribes against whom he waged bloody war. Those who live on such an epic scale defy easy classification as good or bad, exist in a realm almost beyond the confines of human morality, and contain traits and tendencies that illustrate the soaring best and shameful worst of a human being and are often in complete contradiction with one another.
And though we in the United States may be (unless, perhaps, our parents were from India) ignorant of him, Asoka is a man that exists on such a scale. Asoka was the son of a regional emperor by the name of Bindusara and a queen named Dharma -- keeping in mind that the emperor had a multitude of wives. Dharma was a relatively low-ranking member of Bindusara's harem, and got hitched to the emperor purely because there was a prophecy about her bearing a son who would become a great leader. The son ended up being Asoka, and whether you believe that the prophecy came true or we tend to live lives that force prophecies in which we believe to come true, he did indeed become a great leader. Although another of Bindusara's sons, Susima, was the likeliest to inherit the throne, Asoka's skill as a general and increasing status as a hero caused fear in Susima that Asoka, rather than he, would be named heir to the throne. So he manipulated the emperor into sending Asoka into exile. The young prince spent his time in exile in the neighboring kingdom of Kalinga, famous for boasting a Greco-Roman style of government in which a king shared power with a democratic parliament (there was, at the time, a fair amount of idea swapping between Hellenistic Greece and the kingdoms that would become India). If there was another major superpower in India at the time, it was Kalinga. Their influence was widespread throughout northern India, the south of Asia, and because they were a seafaring race, may of the islands that would later become Malaysia and other South Asian island-countries. But the most notable aspect of Asoka's time in Kalinga, at least as it pertains to the movie, was his meeting with a young woman named Kaurwaki. I honestly don't know the extent of her role in actual history, but she's pretty important to the film, so I might as well mention her in this brief historical overview.
Asoka was eventually called back to Maurya in order to quell a rebellion in the kingdom of Ujjain. When he was wounded during that battle, Asoka was treated by Buddhist monks in secret for fear that Susima would send assassins to do Asoka in. Under the care of the monks, Asoka met and eventually married a woman named Devi. Eventually, Bindusara fell ill and, though he wanted to appoint Susima to the throne, a group of officials preferred Asoka, resulting in a familial and civil war that saw Asoka emerge victorious but with a new nickname: Chanda Ashoka, or Murderous and Heartless Asoka. He laid waste to the armies of his brother, and then laid waste to his brother, and from there launched a vast and reportedly quite bloodthirsty campaign to conquer -- or unite, depending on how you look at it -- all of India. Inevitably, this would bring him into direct conflict with Kalinga, and though Asoka was victorious in his war with Kalinga, the astounding bloodshed, slaughter, and devastation of the campaign forced Asoka into a revelation. It was, as the legends go, in the aftermath of the battles against Kalinga that Asoka the Evil was killed and Asoka the Great was born. Renouncing warfare and violence -- something that was much easier to do once he has already conquered everyone -- Asoka applied himself to the philosophy of Buddhism and sought to spread the teachings across and beyond his vast empire. It was under Asoka that the great Indian monuments of Buddhism were erected (though one can't imagine what the Buddha himself would have thought of such pointless grandeur). And it was because of Asoka that Buddhism eventually spread throughout Asia, including to a neighboring kingdom some people were calling China. Somewhere, someone might have studied whether or not the empire of Asoka (which is pegged with a start date of around 232 B.C.) influenced Qin Shi-huang at all; he unified China in much the same way (and with much the same reputation, though without the part where he renounces violence and seeks Buddhist enlightenment) only a decade or so after Asoka's rise to power. Certainly the empire of Alexander the Great that rose and fell a century before cast a long shadow over Asoka's India, not just because of the influence of Greek culture but also because, like Alexander's kingdom, Asoka's empire was very much a cult of personality. When Asoka died, the empire he had forged quickly fell apart. As with Alexander, once the towering figure was removed from the situation, it was discovered that what he had built could not sustain itself without him.
Still, Asoka's story is one of the great stories of civilization, and while much of it is undoubtedly myth and legend mixed with historical fact (what history isn't), it's power as a tale of the unification of India and one man's redemption from the depths of warfare and violence remains one of the most compelling tales in the world. Which brings us, finally, to 2001 and the movie that shares names with the first emperor of India. Directed by Santosh Sivan, one of the greatest cinematographers in the world, the big budget spectacle Asoka deals with the years between Prince Asoka's coming of age and his enlightenment at the end of the war with Kalinga. Much of what's in the movie serves as sort of "Asoka's greatest hits," though this being an epic, the historical facts and literary legends are augmented with plenty of speculative romance and dramatic fabrication, as well as assumptions that make good dramatic sense for a movie but apparently ruffled the feathers of many historians. Asoka is also a very accessible movie for people with no interest in Bollywood but who do have an interest in epic films. In fact, by epic film standards, Asoka is a very formulaic movie, and I don't say this as any sort of slight, because I love well-executed formula. And when it comes to executing formula, Asoka emerges as one of the great epics in the history of cinema. Everything that is familiar to fans of old epics from the 1960s is present here, and the one aspect of Bollywood filmmaking that remains a stumbling point for its being embraced by casual viewers in the West -- the musical numbers -- hardly seem out of place in a style of filmmaking that, even in the West, was always happy to take a break for a harem girl song and dance number in the palace. As a result, Asoka manages to be a very Indian film, but also a very Western film. In other words, it transcends nationality and becomes an epic.
Shahrukh Khan, the heir apparent to Amitabh Bachchan's throne of "God of Bollywood and Possible Ruler of India," plays the titular conqueror. Although Khan's pretty much the biggest name in Bollywood film these days (keeping in mind that Bollywood refers to a specific, albeit gigantic, portion of the Indian film landscape), since my interest has been in spy and action films from the 60s and 70s and crappy horror films from the 1980s, I was less familiar with him and his work than a billion other people. It's always nice to discover that a billion people know something you don't. The only other time I'd seen him is in the 1998 film Dil Se, on which Santosh Sivan worked as cinematographer, and a film I've been grappling with reviewing here for a long time now. I can't say he won me over with that film -- which is a very good film, but I was busy becoming as obsessed as Shahrukh's character with lead actress Manisha Koirala. Plus, SRK indulges in a pretty hefty bit of scenery chewing at the end in a performance that is just as compelling and disturbingly absurd as Jackie Cheung's freak-out at the end of John Woo's Bullet in the Head. It's not that I didn't like the guy, I just...well, I just didn't get it. Well, now that I've watched Asoka, you can rest assured that I get it. We actually first meet Asoka when he's a chubby little kid whose grandfather renounces the throne in order to seek peace and enlightenment. The young Asoka covets his grandfather's sword (read whatever Freudian subtext into sword coveting that you want -- Freudian interpretations always irritate me), but his grandfather insists that it's not just a sword, but is instead a demon whose only lust in life is to draw blood. It does not care from whom that blood is drawn. Asoka doesn't listen, though, and against his grandfather's wishes, he retrieves the sword from the river into which the old man threw it. While playing with it, however, he loses his grip and sends the sword flying into a bush, where it proceeds to bisect a baby bird Asoka had been admiring only moments before.
It's not subtle, of course. Epics may contain touches of subtlety, but their main themes and performances are bold and dramatic. This dramatic obviousness is not something unique to Bollywood, which is a cinema that rarely treasures the exceptionally subtle in any aspect; it is, instead, one of the global tropes of epic filmmaking. This is spectacle filmmaking in the classic sense of the phrase, and such filmmaking usually results in points being made rather heavy-handedly. I still think it's a nice moment, though, and an effective foreshadowing of the dark days that await the young prince. From there we flash forward to Shahrukh as the prince, a man who seems to divide his time evenly between quelling rebellions and taking baths. The general outline of the historical legends are touched upon, though I don't know if the original texts spent so much time watching Asoka pour water on himself. Whatever the case, there are worse ways to spend a few hours than watching a shirtless Shahrukh emerge from the water in slow motion. For instance, you could be watching a shirtless Superstar Rajnikanth emerge from the water in slow motion. Or a shirtless Steve Buscemi. Or a shirtless Kent Chang. Or me. The movie covers the basics of the story -- Asoka's prowess on the battlefield, his love for his mother (Subhashini Ali), his rivalry with Susima (Ajit Kumar, who looks like a cross between Lars Ulrich and that guy who played Robert the Bruce in Braveheart). Where the movie begins to diverge from history is when Asoka goes into exile and meets Kaurwaki, here played with grace and energy by Kareena Kapoor. I don't know a whole lot about how big her role was in history, but I do know she was one of three wives and doesn't seem as important to the Asoka story as Devi (and the third wife was generally referred to as his primary queen). In the movie, however, Kaurwaki is the main dame and the motivation behind all that Asoka does.
Journeying incognito, Asoka soon learns that Kaurwaki is a princess of Kalinga, traveling with her young brother Arya (Sooraj Balaji -- a surprisingly tolerable and decent child actor, especially compared to the last cinematic child-prince I had to deal with -- ernie Reyes Jr. in Red Sonja), destined to sit on the throne of Kalinga if he can keep from being assassinated by scheming officials. Protecting the both of them is the menacing General Bheema (Rahul Dev), who owns even fewer shirts than Asoka and might be up to something nefarious. Given that his first experience with Kaurwaki is watching her dance madly around the countryside then writhe about in a waterfall, Asoka falls madly in love with her and joins the band. He's having a good time flirting with the fiercely independent Kaurwaki and cutting up assassins, but when word comes that his mother has fallen ill, Asoka returns to his kingdom and ends up leading the army against a rebellion. When he is lead to believe that Arya and Kaurwaki were killed in an assassination attempt, he has a breakdown. It is during this period that he is wounded and meets Devi, played by newcomer Hrishitaa Bhatt. Now, I've maintained for a while that Manisha Koirala might be the most beautiful woman in the world, despite the insistence of others that the title belongs to Aishwarya Ray. I may have to revise my statements, because Hrishitaa Bhatt is so devastatingly beautiful that it almost causes one physical pain just to look at her. You know those old myths about goddesses who are so gorgeous that any mortal who gazes upon them is instantly driven mad by their beauty? Well, that's about the level of Hrishitaa Bhatt. I know Kareena Kapoor is supposed to be the main attraction here, but damn... Thinking his beloved Kaurwaki dead, Asoka marries Devi when she kills an assassin and thus becomes "spoiled goods" to her intended husband. The couple returns to Maurya, much to Susima's consternation. He is now convinced that Asoka plans to take the throne from him. When Susima orchestrates the murder of Asoka's mother, Evil Asoka is born. Yeah, you have a brother who is a proven master warrior and is foretold by destiny to become the greatest emperor in the history of India. So if you are a rival to his destiny, what do you do? Kill his beloved mother? Yeah, I don't think you really thought that one all the way through, Susima. That's like trying to teach Sho Kosugi a lesson my killing his son. You don't tame a ninja by killing his son, and you don't get Asoka off your case by killing his mother.
As Asoka takes the throne in bloody fashion then begins his violent campaign to conquer all of India, Kaurwaki and Arya manage to return to Kalinga and assume their rightful places as rulers of the kingdom. However, it soon becomes evident that Kalinga is the one mountain standing in the way of Asoka's aspirations of tyranny. Inevitably, because this is a movie, the war against Kalinga will bring Asoka back into contact with his beloved Kaurwaki, who he believes dead and who has no idea her beloved and rascally Pawan and the bloodthirsty Emperor Asoka are one and the same. Let's get the bad out of the way, because frankly, most of what's wrong with this film doesn't really bother me. As with just about any historical epic, one has to take the events portrayed with a grain of salt. The movie hits the key points in the life of Asoka, but in order to create a more human story, Sivan fills in the gaps with a romantic adventure extrapolated from the history. Personally, I'm not all that hung up on how historically accurate the romance between Asoka and Kaurwaki may or may not be. In the world of egregious digressions from fact, it ranks pretty far below Braveheart's "king of England secretly sired by Scottish dissident" subplot. Sivan feels the need, obviously, to give some sort of motivation for Asoka's transformation from "generally nice guy" to "slaughterer of thousands," and while what Sivan came up with may not be "the truth," it's still a damn good story, and ultimately that's what matters to me when I am watching a movie (William Wallace being the secret father of the future king of England -- not so much with the damn good story).
Similarly, the costuming is far more stylized than historically accurate -- I'm not sure how many people would ride into any sort of battle wearing Kareena Kapoor's slinky "warrior queen" number, but once again, this is a spectacle, not a historical recreation, and what's most important in an historical epic isn't accuracy so much as it is the appearance of accuracy. Epics rely on certain easily recognizable key components to create a feeling of historical authenticity, and around those they may layer on much that is stylized and wildly anachronistic so long as it works within the framework of the movie. While the world of Asoka the movie may not be a thoroughly authentic recreation of the world of Asoka, it is never the less a believable ancient world setting, and anyone who watches and enjoys historical epics should find Asoka as easy to buy as any o the great Hollywood or Italian epics. Both of these are superficial complaints lodged by some, though like I said, I don't find either of them the least bit distracting. I understand there may a fair amount that is anachronistic in the dialogue as well, but not being a speaker of Hindi, I'll leave that debate up to the Hindi linguists of the world. I don't know if they are all faking British accents, or how a British accent would sound in Hindi; but I do know these days, in the United states, if you want your historical epic to seem authentic, you have to fake a British accent, even if you are an American actor and even if the character you are playing is an ancient Greek or Macedonian. I'm sure if Asoka were being played by an American, he would have a British accent -- regardless of the colonial implications of giving the mightiest king in Indian history a British accent. Those are just some of the reasons you should be glad actual Indians made this movie. Also, if this was an American movie, it would star that dude from Harold and Kumar, since he is apparently the only employable Indian actor in the entire United States. Not that we wouldn't love to see Harold and Asoka Go to White Castles and Mount a Bloody Seige Against it which Eventually Results in the Unificiation of all Fast Food Restaurants Under the Banner of Asoka's Roaring Lion. Believe me, having had the task of putting the letters up on the marquee when I worked at a movie theater, no one wants to try and deal with a title like that. The other lingering fault in Asoka is that, while the film expertly details his evolution from a generally likeable guy into an ambitious monster, his journey back from monster to enlightened savior is extremely brief. Some criticism has been lodged that the movie doesn't tell the full story of Asoka, but I don't really think that's a particularly worthwhile criticism. His journey toward revelation is the compelling piece of his life; once he has his epiphany standing amid the slaughter of the battleground, it become the tale of a penitent man spreading a philosophy throughout India. I'm sure someone could make a great movie about that, but it wouldn't be the same kind of movie as Asoka. Also, it would expand the running time to something like six hours. I think the first half of Asoka's life is what this film needs to cover, and that's what it does. However, I also believe that a bit more time could have been spent developing the reunion on the battlefield between Asoka, Kaurwaki, and the young Kalingan emperor Arya. After such a detailed and beautifully realized development up until that point, the resolution seems a bit abrupt.
But overall, I have to say that Asoka is one of my very favorite films, and one of the best epics I have ever seen -- easily the equal of Spartacus and Ben Hur both in terms of the spectacle it mounts (though it's on-screen opulence never quite measures up to Cleopatra standards -- but then, what the hell ever has?) and the development of the characters and philosophy behind the film. The film I would say it compares most favorably to, however, is King Hu's A Touch of Zen, which is another film that deals with the journey from warrior to Buddhist and features a scene that is strikingly similar to the moment at which Asoka has his revelation. A Touch of Zen is about a group of heroic rebels who end up enlisting the aide of a brilliant young scholar in their crusade against oppressive government soldiers. Eventually faced with a seemingly unwinnable fight, the scholar suggests that they rely on wits as much as martial arts ability, and so devises a veritable "house of traps" by which they may even the odds somewhat. After the battle, in which they are victorious, the scholar strolls through the grounds of the castle and admires his own cleverness -- the many booby traps and automated weapons that laid waste to the enemy soldiers. He stops at each weapon, and the film cuts to a scene of that particular weapon being planned out on paper and tested against dummies. Then the scholar laughs in delight. This goes on for a bit, but then the scholar walks out into the courtyard and drops to his knees in horror as he is faced with a field covered in broken, bloody corpses. Lost in the details of his own designs, testing each weapon against dummies, the scholar never really makes the connection between his inventions and actual human suffering. It is only when he accidentally strolls onto the actual field of combat that the gory reality of what he has done sinks in. It's very similar to Asoka, which mounts a gigantic battle for its finale, full of swordsmen, bows and arrows, charging cavalry, and stampeding elephants, then follows that with a scene in which Asoka (bathing once again -- I'm not sure if this is symbolic of Asoka's need to obsessively cleanse himself from his atrocities or of it's just a desire to get Shahrukh Khan shirtless and wet as often as possible -- perhaps both) is confronted by a young Buddhist monk who chastises the victorious king for the destruction he has wrought. Asoka's description of conquest and victory fall on deaf ears, however, and as the monk leaves, Asoka stares at his triumphantly raised fist, unclenches it, and realizes it is empty. From there, he wanders through the aftermath of the grand battle -- broken bodies, crying widows, ravaged lands -- growing increasingly disconcerted until, at last, he stumbles upon his own horse, given by him to Kaurwaki when Asoka was in exile, and realizes both that she was still alive and that she may be dead now as a direct result of his bloody campaign. It's not an entirely unique narrative technique, this "wander through the carnage and witness what you have done," sort of revelation, but it's still powerful. Given how much he overplayed his acting last time I saw him, in Dil Se, I was expecting Shahrukh to once again launch into his flailing, over-the-top histrionics, but surprisingly, he keeps himself more reeled in, and the result is much more powerful. In fact, Khan's entire job of acting is brilliant throughout the movie, and he makes each of the various incarnations of Asoka believable. What's more, he makes the transformation from one Asoka to the next believable. And even though he's often seen in bad jackets doing jaunty dances in romantic comedies, he absolutely owns the character of Asoka in this movie, investing the legendary king with a perfect blend of enthusiasm, confusion, impish charm, and frightening anger. In short, he makes the legend into an actual, believable human being. For me, as someone who wasn't part of the cult of Shahrukh, it was easy to stop seeing the star and start seeing the character. Plus, you know, he gets to stay shirtless for almost the whole movie. he also gets to do "the look," or as I call it, simply the "Shahrukh." It's maybe a bit difficult to explain, though if you've see it, you know it. He does it a lot -- that thing he does where he sort of smirks, sort of half smiles with slightly puckered lips, raises his eyebrows a little bit, maybe wiggles his head ever so slightly -- you know, either when he's interested in a girl or just playing little games with her. I'm going to compare it to the "Roger Moore" -- when Moore, as James Bond, would affect the same smart-ass smirk, cock his head slightly, raise his eyebrows, and nod almost imperceptibly to whatever dame tickled his fancy -- sometimes with the added bonus of a drink he could raise slightly in her direction. Together, they are masters of the look. A shame no one has put them together yet in a movie where all they do is walk through rooms full of beautiful woman and make the ladies swoon (umm, ignoring the fact that Roger Moore is 137 years old now).
Matching him step for step is Kareena Kapoor as the fierce warrior-queen Kaurwaki. Kapoor had very little movie experience before her role here, but you wouldn't know it from watching her. She brings a great balance of able fighter and vulnerable woman to the role and blends them both into a very convincing character. Her initial meeting with Asoka -- during which she is dancing through the hills and then bathing in a waterfall -- shows a wonderful transition between her tomboyish fighter side (stomping about, flinging around a staff) and the sexier, more regal side (writhing about in the water, as royalty are wont to do, naturally). She's a perfect mix of independent and vulnerable, and a very believable "strong woman." She is strong without sacrificing the feminine aspects of her character. Anyone can cast a woman in a butch male role and claim that it's a strong female, but it's not. It's cheap, it dismisses the womanness of the performer, and ultimately, all you've done is make a character that is a guy but with boobs -- and we have Rahul Dev on hand to fill that role. Kareena Kapoor's Kaurwaki manages to be fierce and feminine, and a much more complex and admirable version of the "strong female" than were she just a foul-mouthed killing machine. Santosh Sivan relies heavily on the eyes of his two actors, frequently shooting them in extreme close-up, and Kapoor's eyes are incredibly expressive. She can do more with them than most actors can do with their whole bodies and all their vocal range. But the real revelation here is one of the supporting actors. Last time we saw Danny Denzongpa here at Teleport City, he was wearing a red satin ninja uniform and trying to kill Mithun. And although he filled the role of a ninja named Ninja well, it was hardly the sort of role from which one could judge his acting ability. Asoka allows him to showcase one of the great truths of movies: that no one in the world is as good a performer as a well-seasoned character actor. Denzongpa plays a loud-mouthed ruffian named Virat, who at first makes it his mission in life to punch Shahrukh in the face, but later becomes the king's most trusted and loyal friend and bodyguard. Looking a bit like Antonio Sabata, Sr., Denzongpa turns in an incredible performance that meanders effortlessly from drunken bravado to humility to horror at what his friend becomes. His role reminds me a bit of Oliver Reed doing a similar turn as the aging gladiator manager in Gladiator. As good as Kapoor and Khan are, whenever Denzongpa steps on the screen, he seems to be saying, Now this is good acting." Bravo, Ninja!
The rest of the supporting cast performs ably. Sivan has a nice mix of experienced vets (Denzongpa, Shahrukh Khan), relative newcomers (Kareena Kapoor, Rahul Dev), and complete neophytes (Hrishitaa Bhatt). None of them let the movie down. Rahul Dev is superb as the Kalingan general who may be a secret assassin (the film is subtle about making us suspicious of him, but it definitely makes us suspicious of him), and aside from being maybe the most beautiful woman alive, Hrishitaa Bhatt invests her character with a tremendous amount of strength and power. Her reaction to Asoka's descent into madness and violence is a powerful mix of horror and disappointment that she able conveys through facial expressions and without ever falling back on clumsy shrieking or other obvious methods. She is a Buddhist, raised to believe in peace, and one absolutely believes the convictions of her character. Despite how good the cast performs, the real star of Asoka is Santosh Sivan's direction. Sivan is, as I stated at some point a few decades ago when I started writing this long-winded review, probably one of the top cinematographers in the world. However, being a great cinematographer doesn't always translate into being a great director (as Peter Pau proved when he went from being a great cinematographer to being a wretched director with the Michelle Yeoh adventure film The Touch). Luckily, Sivan pulls it off with incredible skill. Every frame of Asoka is expertly rendered. Sets are gorgeously decorated and detailed. The whole movie is like a painting, with no detail left to randomness. He shoots a lot of close-ups, relying on Kapoor and Khan to tell the stories with their faces, and uses the whole of the widescreen format by placing the focus of attention at the far right and left of the shot. He also relies on a color palette that manages to be both over-saturated and lush as well as washed-out and bleak. As he proved with Dil Se, Sivan is a master of making the landscape one of the stars of the film, and he continues to do that with Asoka. Forests are vibrantly green and costumes burst with color, while the skies are relentlessly washed out and menacing. I don't think there's a blue sky in the entire film. The result is the creation of an almost fantastic world, warm and cold at the same time, as if the struggle between Asoka's warmth and love, and his violence and hatred, is being recreated in the forests and skies of the country. Sivan also knows how to pace the film well. Although the focus is on the romance and the personal evolution of Asoka over scenes of action and violence, he knows how long to stick with one before he shifts to the other, with musical numbers thrown in at just the right moment. Sivan handles action with the same sort of lyricism that he handles the romance. Although most of the action scenes are not very long, there are quite a few of them, with the highlights being Asoka's taming of an unruly rebel through use of a ridiculously painful looking weapon called a snake sword, Asoka's defense of Kaurwaki and Arya from a band of assassins, and then the final battle between the forces of Asoka and the kingdom of Kalinga -- a battle easily on the grandest epic battle scale. For the more intimate fights, Asoka employs a fighting style called Kalarippayat, one of the oldest martial arts in the world (predating even kungfu and tai bo). Experts were hired to train the stars of the film, and Khan (and it looks like Kapoor as well) perform most of their own fights. Sivan shoots action largely in slow motion in order to accentuate the grace and beauty of the fighting style. The snake sword is one of the signature weapons of the style, and I have to say that, while I'm not really keen on being attacked with any sort of a weapon, I'd especially like to avoid the snake sword. It's somewhere between one of those flimsy Chinese swords and a metal whip, with two long, razor-sharp tentacles of thin metal that can be used to whip and slice up an opponent. Heck, I wouldn't even want to handle such a weapon, let alone be handled by it. Finally -- yes, this review is going to eventually end -- there are the musical numbers. There are five (if I'm remembering correctly -- I did start writing this review in 1807, after all, and my memory is fading) numbers, with the dancing being shouldered by Kareena Kapoor for two of the numbers, a random gypsy woman in another, and Kapoor and another random beautiful woman for the final. Shahrukh does show up in two of the numbers to take his shirt off and get wet. Although the music is definitely modern, with a bit of a tribal flare similar to the music from Dil Se, and the dances are equally out of the time period, they somehow manage to work well. After all, the world of Asoka is only somewhat historical. It's also a stylized representation rather than straight-forward presentation, and keeping that in mind, the musical numbers work well. The musical aspect of Bollywood continues to be the one thing that keeps a lot of Western fans from embracing them, but like I said before, if you watch a lot of historical epics, you know they generally can't wait to have a scene where everyone sits around in an ornately decorated throne room while dancing girl flit about wearing next to nothing. In that sense, musical numbers might be a bit easier to accept in a film like Asoka than they would in a modern cops 'n' robbers film. And for the most part, they are woven into the fabric of the plot. The first song sees Asoka meeting and being smitten by Kaurwaki. The second is a throwaway number at a rowdy pub, or whatever the ancient Indian equivalent of a pub might have been. The other two both reflect the longing of one of the main characters for the other. And all of them are pretty drop-dead sexy. Which is one last thing I should say about this film. It's pretty hot. I mean, I know we're learning a valuable lesson about Buddhism, but there's no getting around that just as Sivan renders his sets and locations gorgeously, he turns equal attention to presenting his characters. As I said, I never really thought of Shahrukh as all that sexy. Charming, perhaps. Goofily endearing, maybe. But not sexy. That all changes here, though. Historical epics have always pushed the boundaries of the amount of flesh and sex they could get away with showing. Often times, historical settings seemed to be little more than an excuse to show off as much flesh as possible. It was easier to do it in a fantastical setting like ancient Rome or Egypt than in a modern setting, though censors weren't always fooled by the historic trappings. Whatever the case, sex appeal and even a bit of exploitation have always been a key ingredient to spectacle filmmaking. And since Asoka really is spectacle filmmaking formula executed with near perfection, it's no big surprise that everything is infused with a heady mix of lusty sexuality and romantic sensuality. Epics were also some of the first movies to hold the male form up for the same sort of objectification often reserved for females, and Asoka certainly doesn't disappoint in that respect, either (between the two of them, Shahrukh and Charlton Heston have hours upon hours of screen time in epics, and yet I bet neither of them keeps a shirt on for more than ten minutes, tops). Although Kareena Kapoor writhes and slinks about and wears revealing clothing even when she's going to war, it's the men who show off the most flesh, even more so than the item girls from the dance numbers. Khan never once puts a shirt on. Similarly, Rahul Dev may be a bit scary looking here, but he has abs and pecs no flimsy piece of cloth could ever hope to contain.
There's no such thing as a perfect film, but Asoka might be a perfect epic, so long as one considers that even a perfect epic is still a flawed film. It has a powerful cast that strikes the perfect blend of grandiose bombast and subtle contemplation. Santosh Sivan exploits every centimeter of the widescreen format to present a lavish, artistic painting of a film. There are heavy messages delivered with a heavy hand. Big battles, small conflicts. Terrifying wars, charming flirtation. It's all told with a sweeping sense of romance and adventure. And at the center of events that changed the world, there is a simple tale of doomed love. Like all epics, Asoka has it's flaws, but I would still place it without hesitation among the very best epics ever made, and among the very best Bollywood films I've ever seen. Some hardcore Bollywood fans may be turned off by the presentation or feel that the movie is too "Western," but as I am a fan of the globalization of cinema and the free flow of films and influences without regard for nation-state borders (call me the Asoka of film), such complaints hold no merit for me. Asoka is a damn fine film from any country, and definitely one you can show even to people who are normally turned off by Bollywood cinema. Labels: Bollywood, Director: Santosh Sivan, Historical Epics, Musicals, Stars: Danny Denzongpa, Stars: Kareena Kapoor, Stars: Shahrukh Khan, Year: 2001 posted by Keith at 4:49 PM | 14 Comments Friday, September 15, 2006Unleash the Hordes![]() Being a History of the Mongol Peoples and Their Most Famous Historical Figures as Portrayed by White People in Fake Eyelids THE CONQUEROR -- 1956, United States. Starring John Wayne, Susan Hayward, Pedro Armendariz, Agnes Moorehead, Thomas Gomez, John Hoyt, William Conrad, Ted de Corsia, Leslie Bradley, Lee Van Cleef, Peter Mamakos. Directed by Dick Powell. Written by Oscar Millard. Purchase from Amazon.com. THE MONGOLS -- 1961, Italy/France. Starring Jack Palance, Anita Ekberg, Franco Silva, Antonella Lualdi, Gabriele Antonini, Pierre Cressoy, Andrej Gardenin, Gianni Garko, Roldano Lupi. Directed by Andre De Toth, Leopoldo Savona, Riccardo Freda. Written by Ottavio Alessi, Alessandro Ferrau, Ernesto Gastaldi, Ugo Guerra, Luciano Martino. HERCULES VERSUS THE MONGOLS -- 1963, Italy. Starring Mark Forest, Maria Grazia Spina, Ken Clark, Jose Greci, Howard Ross, Tullio Altamura, Nadir Moretti, Fedele Gentile, Loris Loddi, Giuseppe Addobbati, Bianca Doria, Renato Terra, Bruno Scipioni. Directed by Domenico Paolella. Written by Alessandro Ferrau, Luciano Martino, and Domenico Paolella. Purchase from Amazon.com. HERCULES VERSUS THE BARBARIANS -- 1964, Italy. Starring Mark Forest, Jose Greci, Ken Clark, Gloria Milland, Howard Ross, Roldano Lupi, Mirko Ellis, Tullio Altamura, Renato Terra, Elisabetta Wu, Daniela Igliozzi, Bruno Scipioni. Directed by Domenico Paolella. Written by Alessandro Ferrau, Luciano Martino, and Domenico Paolella. SAMSON AND THE SEVEN MIRACLES OF THE WORLD -- 1961, Italy. Starring Gordon Scott, Yoko Tani, Helene Chanel, Dante DiPaolo, Gabriele Antonini, Leonardo Severini, Valery Inkijinoff. Directed by Riccardo Freda. Written by Oreste Biancoli and Duccio Tessari. Purchase from Amazon.com. Genghis Khan is certainly one of the great figures in the history of the world. When you say "Mongolia," he's the first person of whom you're likely to think. He conquered China, swept westward, and eventually had a chain of shopping mall formal wear rental stores named after him. Were it not for Genghis Khan's contributions to society, I would have been at a loss as to wear to rent my tux for the prom back in 1990. But aside from all that, he was one of the world's great conquerors, and whether he was a hero or a villain depends largely on whether or not he conquered in your name or just plain conquered you. Certainly as with all history's epic conquerors -- Ramses, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Vlad Tepes, and Bono from U2 -- Genghis Khan is a person who lends himself to having a sweeping, vast, and complex movie made about his life and influence. And like most of the conquerors throughout history, he's still waiting for that movie to be made. Not that there haven't been movies made about him. It's just that...well, let me put it this way. When you think, "leader of the Mongol hordes?" who's the first actor that comes to mind? Because if it isn't John Wayne, then you're not thinking like Howard Hughes, and since he's the one who made the Genghis Khan movie, that's who he cast. John Wayne? Really, it doesn't seem quite so silly after you've seen Susan Hayward cast as a pale-skinned, red-haired Tartar princess. And since the casting director himself was obviously aware of how ludicrous this was, they even throw in a line to the effect of, "I know. A red-haired Tartar princess? Can you believe it?" Well, no, not really. But honestly, if casting Caucasians -- especially extremely famous and recognizable Caucasians like Wayne and Hayward -- is a film's most grievous misstep, then I can forgive it. There are plenty of "fake Asian" movies I enjoy despite the loopy casting. Peter Lorre as the mysterious Mr. Moto, Boris Karloff as Mr. Wong, and Warner Oland as Charlie Chan -- despite the fact that these were all Caucasian leads in Asian roles, the movies were still often quite enjoyable, and the overall racial tone was generally Asian-positive, if delivered in something of a misguided way. At least they were the heroes. Charlie Chan spent almost his entire run of movies being goofily lovable and exposing insidious whities as the evil masterminds behind the various nefarious plots he foiled.
So I can forgive the fake eyelids and bad accents and "honorable grandparents say..." dialogue as long as the movie is enjoyable. Heck, I can even forgive those ridiculous Fu Manchu movies since, although he is the classic "inscrutable Oriental" villain, the movies are simply so utterly absurd that I can't see much point in getting all in a huff about them, especially now. I mean, how many people walk around after seeing a Fu Manchu film (how many people have even seen a Fu Manchu film?) and quake at the thought of ghoulish eight-foot-tall Chinese dudes who still dress like it's the Ming Dynasty stalking about with death rays and chambers of horrors and looking an awful lot like Christopher Lee with fake novelty store buckteeth? So no, although the famously awkward casting of John Wayne as the legendary Mongolian warlord is the most obvious foible The Conqueror makes (and let's not forget his Mongolian henchman, Lee Van Cleef, or William "Jake and the Fat man" Conrad), there is so much hilariously bad stuff about this disaster of an epic that you'll hardly even notice that the leads aren't Asian. From the promise of epic battles that never materialize to the wretched dialogue to the delivery of said dialogue, The Conqueror really takes every level of filmmaking to a level of badness that quite possibly attains the sublime. We first meet Genghis Khan when is but the lowly Temujin, looking to cause trouble with a fragile peace between warring Mongolian tribes by kidnapping the princess Bortai (Hayward). The film is on thin ice the moment Wayne starts spitting out the ridiculously stilted (even for an epic from the 1950s) dialogue in his classic John Wayne acting style. His Duke Manchu performance here demands to be placed on a pedestal right alongside William Shatner, Adam West, or Jack Palance at their most histrionic (Palance himself played a Mongol warlord in The Mongols, but we'll get to that some other day). Wayne was never what you would call a great actor, but like many men who weren't great at their chosen craft, he found a highly stylized way of delivering lines that worked remarkably well in certain settings and circumstances. Watch Wayne in a movie like The Searcher or True Grit or a host of other films, and you'll see that with the right material, his style can be very effective. Saddled with ham-fisted dialogue that sounds like a teenager trying to write in the style of a bloated 1950s epic, however, and Wayne seems like just about the worst thing to ever happen to movies. "I feel this Tartar woman...is for me...and my blood says...take her. There are...moments for wisdom...and moments...when I listen to...my blood; my blood says...take...this Tartar woman!" Wayne stammers in one of the ripest lines. I've seen plenty of bad acting and bad casting, but this one, folks...this one really blows me away. Of course, the worse he gets, the worse the dialogue gets, the more enjoyable the movie becomes. Wayne himself apparently loved the script, and producer Howard Hughes could imagine no one else in the world who would be better suited to inhabit the furry hat and armor of the Mongolian conqueror. "The Conqueror is a Western in some ways," John Wayne unsuccessfully argued. "The way the screenplay reads, it is a cowboy picture and that is how I am going to play Genghis Khan. I see him as a gunfighter." Which is why Wayne plays the Mongolian with his usual bowlegged swagger and Western movie drawl. I suppose, in reflection, things could have been a lot worse. It could have been an epic movie about ancient Troy or Alexander the Great where a bunch of American actors inexplicably fake British accents. Listening to Brad Pitt "British-up" his Greek character Achilles in Troy makes me miss the days when John Wayne played Genghis with all the sauntering "Well, hey, pilgrim" nonchalance for which he was known. Which is good, because besides John Wayne's shockingly wretched (he manages to be wooden and hammy at the same time, which is a state few actors can attain) reading of his lines, The Conqueror disappoints on all other levels. As one of the very first films made in CinemaScope -- that's widescreen, to you and me -- one expects it to be a lavish, opulent blowout on the grand scale of other CinemaScope pioneers like The Robe and The Egyptian. This was the dawn of the era of massive Hollywood epics, the grandeur and excess of which have to this day never been rivaled even in this age of CGI. These movies were huge. Everything about them seems to dwarf the common member of the audience, from the sets to the acting to the costumes. These movies were self-indulgent and bloated, but you can't deny that you pretty much see every single penny on the screen. This all came about as a result of the rise of television. Movies had to give audiences something they couldn't get on TV, and that meant exotic, TechniColor, CinemaScope blow-outs. the Conqueror is supposed to be one of these, but held up against contemporaries like the aforementioned The Robe, this tale of the young Khan's rise to power plays like a cut-rate wannabe that lacks even the cheap exotic opulence of some of the lesser peplum films of the 1960s. The blame for this seems to fall almost squarely on the shoulders of actor-turned director Dick Powell, who fails completely to capture any of the magnificence such a film demands. Powell was best known as a TV actor, and it's probably his experience with television production that lead to The Conqueror seeming like such a small-time affair when held up against a film like The Egyptian. It was only Powell's second job as a director (he would only have three more, before dying in 1963), and there's absolutely nothing in his filmography to suggest that he had any idea how to film an epic. Making matters worse, the film had four cinematographers, none of whom were able to capture the grand scale the film needed. On the one hand, the fact that this was one of the first CinemaScope widescreen movies meant that you couldn't really expect the guys (Joseph LaShelle, William E. Snyder, Leo Tover, and Harry Wild) to have experience photographing a widescreen movie. On the other hand, they should have spent a lot more time studying silent era epics and the Cecil DeMille films from the 1930s. They managed to look more sweeping and vast than The Conqueror despite their lack of widescreen, color, and in many cases, sound. At the very least, they should have closely studied Leon Shamroy's work in 1953's The Robe to see what the new widescreen format was capable of delivering. On the other hand, they may have shot tons of sweeping vistas and realized that it was easier to pass off the limited number of cast members as a horde if they just stuck with medium shots. As such, despite the fact that The Conqueror was shot widescreen, there's not much point to the format. Its ambition falls far short of its execution, and like director Dick Powell, the cinematographers ultimately turn in a film that feels like it was made for television despite the wide scope. Made at an expense of $8 million -- no small sum in 1956 -- the Conqueror plays like a high school adaptation of an epic. Nothing ever clicks. Epic battles are promised, but they never really materialize, and in wide shots (the bread and butter of early CinemaScope films) you can see that the cast of thousands is really a cast of about forty or fifty. The rugged Utah exteriors are never photographed in a way that captures their grandeur as John Ford would with the same lead actor in countless other films. And as a stand-in for Mongolia, the deserts of Utah are a pretty questionable choice anyway. But then, I figure in 1956, the look of Mongolia was still pretty foreign to most Americans, so no one was really going to nitpick the red rock and dirt standing in for grasslands and the Gobi Desert. When the action shifts indoors, and fans of epics expect huge sets draped in every piece of glittering finery the art department could stitch together, the film still fails to conjure that epic feel. Through the whole thing, all I could do (besides laugh myself silly at Wayne's acting) was think to myself, "They spent $8 million on this?" even the costumes look cheap and goofy. While other epics were putting a huge amount of effort into the perception (if not the reality) of realism, trying to create something that looked authentic even if it wasn't (the representation, rather than presentation, of history), everyone in The Conqueror rambles about in costumes that look like something a kid throws together the day before Halloween. I'm pretty sure Wayne's Genghis Khan outfit was assembled by the costume designer out of whatever was left over at the catering table. A metal bowl, a couple forks, and a tablecloth do not transform The Duke into a mighty 12th century Mongol warlord. In place of world conquest, or even very much Mongolian conquest, the movie spends most of its time on the "I hate you I love you" relationship between the tempestuous Tartar princess and her would-be conqueror. Once again, a crummy script is saved by the mind-blowing acting that takes place between Hayward and Wayne. You guys know I much prefer to compliment a movie that fall back on, "So bad it's good," but if ever there was a movie besides Zombie 3 that fit the "so bad it's good" bill to a T, this is it. Words can scarcely describe it, and suddenly, whatever apprehensions you may have had about Hayward and John Wayne being cast as Mongolians are dismissed. Given the poor script, the lack of action, the threadbare attempts at epic sumptuousness, the remarkable miscasting and hammy acting of John Wayne suddenly looks like the film's one stroke of pure genius. It's the only thing that makes the movie tolerable. Well, not the only thing. There are dancing girls, and some of the supporting cast -- though no more Mongolian than John Wayne -- are actually pretty good. Pedro Armendariz, beloved as Turkish secret agent Karim Bey from From Russia with Love, puts in a wonderful performance as Temujin's blood brother, Jamuga. He seems to be one of the only members of the cast that understands how to act in an epic. Epics demand that you ham it up a little and take things over the top. Witness Richard Burton in the previous year's The Robe. Charlton Heston had yet to come along and show everyone definitively, "THIS is how you act in an epic!" but Burton's performance was certainly not lacking in its lack of subtlety. It worked perfectly for the material and the colossal scale of the film. Wayne overacts, but not quite in the correct way. Armendariz nails it, but then, that's what he does with pretty much each of his characters. Lee Van Cleef doesn't really do much other than hang out by the campfire, but his presence is always welcome. And William Conrad is always all right. The rest of the cast, however, seems determined to give John Wayne a run for his money in the stilted delivery department. Yet again, we find that the screenwriter -- Oscar Millard -- is, like the director and the cinematographers, far more experienced with television than movie making. For all his billions, you'd think Hughes could have hired a core film crew with more cinema than television experience. Had he done that, it's likely that The Conqueror would have looked and read a lot better than it does. The only thing more notorious about this movie than Wayne's casting as Genghis Khan is the fact that it was shot in Utah's Escalante Desert, which in 1956 was the very recent site of atomic bomb testing. Exactly why producer Howard Hughes was so determined to use this location is something I don't know -- but then remember the guy did eventually start wearing Kleenex boxes on his feet -- but it was disastrous for the cast and crew of The Conqueror. Some ninety members of the cast and crew -- including Hayward, Armendariz, Agnes Moorehead (who plays John Wayne's mother and is best known as the meddlesome mother from television's Bewitched), director Dick Powell, and John Wayne himself -- died of cancer. High radiation levels at the locations for this film are one of the leading suspects, and with ninety people involved in this movie dying of cancer, it's hard to argue against the hypothesis. It's a damn goofy movie to have given your life for, even if you didn't know you were doing it at the time. Producer and eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes didn't get cancer, but he did go batshit insane not too long after this movie. The $8 million he spent producing the film pales in comparison to the reported $12 million he spent to buy up all the prints and take it off the market. It was the last film he would ever make. Although the movie was soundly panned by pretty much everyone, the spectacle of widescreen and bright colors and the mighty Mongol Horde of a couple dozen guys was enough to snare curious viewers, especially on the global market (though Wayne's plan to either repair or destroy relations with the USSR by premiering the movie there was given the "nyet thanks" by the Russians once they previewed the movie), and The Conqueror managed to turn a profit for Hughes' dying RKO Pictures. Hughes himself apparently loved the movie as much as I do (and make no mistake -- I love this movie), even arranging frequent screenings of it at his estate. Eventually, I guess that cost him his friends, so he became increasingly protective of the movie and would only watch it by himself, reportedly while in the nude -- though given his maniacal dedication to reclusiveness at this point, I'm not sure how anyone knew what he was or was not wearing while watching the movie. I know I watched it in the nude, so I could get a better feel for Howard Hughes' thought process, and I am a better man for it. Thus began his $12 million campaign to remove it entirely from the global marketplace. Anyone who sat in on one of these screenings probably should have recognized his adoration of the Conqueror as Hughes' mental tipping point. In 1974, Paramount Pictures secured the rights to the movie, and John Wayne and his mighty Mongol hordes could once again be unleashed upon the world. What the world discovered, or rediscovered, is that the movie is sort of cheap looking and kind of dull. It never delivers the majesty or thrills that people expected from an epic. It preoccupies itself with a chemistry-free but laugh-filled romance, and then it ends right as Temujin becomes Khan and starts thinking about conquering the world. In an era of mammoth sets, casts of thousands, and spectacles the likes of which no one had ever witnessed onscreen before (!), The Conqueror just looks sort of, well, half-assed. The fat that American icon John Wayne was cast as Genghis Khan, while initially the main thing that turns this film into a laughing stock, ends up being the only thing that really makes it tolerable, and luckily, Wayne's turn as the Khan is so phenomenally awful that it makes it pretty easy to coast through the movie. I don't think real Asians would get overly upset about a Caucasian being cast as one of the greatest figures in Asian -- and world -- history since the movie that results is so absurd. I would imagine they get as much of a kick out of watching The Duke swagger (actually, though no one wants to admit it, Wayne's trademark walk is actually more of a flamboyant sashay than a swagger) his way through such a mess of a film. You could really stitch yourself together a fine "history of the Mongol peoples" if you sit down for a day full of nothing but movies about Mongols in which white people play all the Mongolian leads. The peplum films from the 1960s produced several Mongol/Tartar themed adventures. Jack Palance, who starred as Attila the Hun in the 1954 epic The Sign of the Pagan gets to paste on a fake Fu Manchu moustache for 1961's The Mongols, in which he seems determined to teach John Wayne a thing or two about chewing the scenery. Palance, in his trademark style, hisses, spews, bellows, and blusters his way through this mini-epic as Ogatai, the ambitious son of Genghis Khan. Not to be outdone by Susan Hayward's red-haired Tartar princess, The Mongols features blonde Swedish beauty Anita Ekberg as Hulina. The Mongols tells the story of the Great Khan's attempts to forge a peace with the Polish knights with whom he has been warring. This irks his aggressive son Ogatai to no end, and Ogatai embarks on his own campaign or war-making and pillaging despite his father's softening. Lucky for Ogatai, Genghis was just a little ways away from falling off his horse and dying. The Mongols serves as sort of a prequel to three later peplum adventures (two of them featuring scripts by the same guys who wrote the Mongols), and starting with The Conqueror, then continuing with The Mongols, and finally going all out with the triple punch of Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World, Hercules Against the Mongols, and Hercules Against the Barbarians, you'd get a pretty solid understanding of history. Well, at least history as told by drunken filmmakers. It's fitting, however, that The Conqueror fits in so well with these later Italian productions, because it has much more in common with them than with the contemporary American epics with which it was attempting to compete when it was released. Heck, even some of these peplum films, made for a fraction of the price, contain more spectacle and scope than The Conqueror. And in case you were curious, no. Anita Ekberg and assorted Italian actors are no more convincing in their fake eyelids and Mongol make-up than Hayward and Wayne. In A.D. 1227, the mighty conqueror Genghis Khan was dead, leaving the bulk of his ever-expanding empire in the hands of his son Ogatai (who I assume is still Jack Palance, even though that movie technically has nothing to do with these -- I just like imaging that Jack Palance is the son of Genghis Khan). His other three sons were left squabble over the scraps and try to one up one another in hopes of hoarding another crumb from the vastly more powerful Ogatai. And that's when Hercules showed up to defend the honor of Poland after seeking wisdom from an oracle in China... History. Peplum films are, by their very nature, packed to the rim with history - almost all of it wildly inaccurate. Oh sure, it's true that the big bad Khan died in 1227 and left leadership to Ogatai. And it is indeed historical fact that Ogatai's less accomplished brothers spent a lot of time trying to stab one another in the back. Where exactly B.C. hero Hercules fits into the equation is anybody's guess. But there he is, in two separate films mind you, stymieing the Mongolian advance into Europe during the 13th Century -- a feat filmmakers almost could have gotten away with if they'd set the films during the first invasion of Europe during the 4th Century A.D. under the leadership of Attila the Hun (also Jack Palance if we keep stitching all these separate movies together into one fun-and-fact-filled history), during which the horde clashed with Roman legionnaires and a myriad of Europe's own barbarian tribes. One could almost buy Hercules, or at least some muscular guy in a tunic, handing out beatdowns. But we're in the Middle Ages now, well beyond the classical period when one expected demi-gods and centaurs to be mincing about meddling in the affairs of humans. Not that it's worth quibbling over. If we accept Hercules, or Maciste, or any of these mythological heroes as men so heroic that no single era in time could possibly hope to contain their derring-do, then accepting a guy in out-of-era garb helping out the Poles or popping up in any other epoch becomes less worrisome, if indeed anyone was worried about Hercules showing up in the Middle Ages. We can then turn our minds away from the trivialities of historical particulars and focus our thoughts on more important matters, like how much hell raising the peplum films managed to pack into their history. The historical hellraiser flavor of sword and sandal films fell into two basic categories - gladiator adventures and "hero liberates the masses" low-budget epics -- both of them more "realistic" than their more fantastical counterparts like Hercules, insofar as you consider a guy hurling around chariots and shaking the ground to cause an earthquake realistic. It's a relative term, after all. These films eschewed the world of gods and basilisks, harpies and magic spells. Although supernaturally strong, the heroes were never presented as anything other than mortal. Their enemies, likewise, were not demons and vampires, but regular men, often with some tenuous basis on actual people from history. Still, even within this subgenre, filmmakers liked to blend things together, resulting in plenty of "gladiators liberate the masses" type movies. The cheaper films, many of them coming at the tail end of the peplum genre's popularity, when the Italian film industry suffered a crippling blow when several extravagant big-budget costumed epics flopped at the box office -- among them Hollywood co-productions like Cleopatra starring Elizabeth Taylor and Sodom and Gomorrah -- were the gladiator films that drew inspiration, but not necessarily scale, from films like the 1959 epic Ben Hur starring Charlton Heston and the 1960 Stanley Kubrick epic Spartacus with Kirk Douglas. Because of the impact of the major flops, the b-level gladiator films found themselves harnessed with increasingly tiny budgets, though the lack of means to achieve their imagined scope didn't stop many of the films from being action-packed fun and often looking better than the relatively giant-budget The Conqueror. Italian directors mastered reducing the proverbial cast of thousands into a cast of a few dozen shot to look like a cast of thousands, which was more than Dick Powell was able to do. Many of the actors were extras and background characters with few, if any, lines and could thus be cast and recast in a variety of roles to save time and money. Take off that Roman helmet, slap on this mustache, and you're a whole new character. Directors didn't even need to hire professional actors. Since many of the scenes were high on fight scenes and stunts but low on talking and drama, they could flesh out the cast with stuntmen in various roles. "Hero liberates the masses" films were usually a tad more lavish, though even they could be on the sparse end of detail from time to time. These films compensated for rote plots by transporting the hero to exotic, far-away lands, though they were still lands more or less grounded in reality. Once again, the story was almost always the same: a tyrant brutally oppresses a population, often with some situation involving a forced marriage to a noble princess in order to legitimize his usurping of the throne, until the beefcake hero walks up, usually out of nowhere and completely at random, and joins the struggle against the villains even though he himself has no personal stake in the battle. In the words of Gordon Scott from Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World, in which our loincloth-sporting peplum hero liberates China from Mongol occupation of Kublai Khan, "I am not Chinese, but it doesn't matter anyway. I will always fight against injustice wherever it may be." The hero is motivated purely by a sense of altruism, a desire to oppose villainy and release the masses from the shackles of oppression. For the hero in these movies, the desire to do good and combat totalitarianism is motivation enough. Of course, the films usually threw in a love interest -- most likely the princess - to give the hero that extra push. Whatever historical accuracy might slip into the peplum films was still nothing more than a backdrop for the muscleman action, and famous names and places were bandied about wit the same disregard for reality as the mythological names had been thrown around without consideration for their actual role in the original stories. Hercules Against the Barbarians, for example, features Genghis Khan (John Wayne, remember) being murdered by his treacherous son, Kublai. In reality, Genghis died from injuries sustained after he fell from his horse, and Kublai was his grandson. But what can you do? Treachery in the Mongol throne room can't be bound by facts, and the Mongols seemed a particularly popular opponent for the hero in the historical hellraiser peplums. And while they may indeed have invaded both China and Eastern Europe, there seems to be a lack of verifiable evidence that their schemes and dreams of conquest were thwarted time and again by a glistening bodybuilder in a loincloth - twice by Mark Forest alone! Hercules Against the Mongols (1963) picks up the action immediately after the death of Genghis in 1227 and focuses on the backstabbing lesser sons of his who have to deal with Maciste as he comes to the aid of an embattled people, engages in a little Mongolian style wrestling, and swats a lot of people with tree trunks. It can also be seen as an almost legitimate sequel to The Mongols since the same writers -- Alessandro Ferrau and Luciano Martino -- penned both films. We first meet Maciste (yes, despite the title, the hero is Maciste) as he is strolling through 13th century China. In an opening that is pretty much de rigueur for a peplum film, he meets a woman, this time a cute Chinese fortuneteller, who informs him that he has long and difficult journeys ahead of him. Frankly, if Maciste has been trekking for over two thousand years, going from one arduous situation to the next, and he still needs an oracle to tell him that bad times are a-brewin', then he really is kind of dense. Genghis Khan's sons are busy trying to oppress the masses while, at the same time, secretly backstab each other to get more power. And then along comes Maciste, who I guess walked over from China or wherever he was. It would seem like a long walk, but maybe, you know, being muscular and all, he could do that thing like the Incredible Hulk used to do where he could jump really high and far to cover long distances in a short amount of time. Maciste kicks some Mongolian tail, and then befriends the beleaguered population of white people. The sons of the Khan are annoyed that this beefy Greek has strolled thousands of years into the future and across the largest continent in the world in a matter of days, but they are torn asunder over what to do with him. The obvious answer is "kill him." But going with the obvious answer is why you won't ever rule the world like the Mongols. One of the sons of Genghis, Sayan (played by Caucasian Ken Clark in the usual fake eyelids and wig) , decides it would be better if he tried to be all buddy-buddy with Hercules and get him on his side. After all, no one really ever failed to benefit from having a demigod behind their cause. Plus, you know, they're just two beefy tough guys with a lot to tell each other about protein shakes and the various "ab roller" type machines, which of course, is a subject that causes the mighty Maciste to stand with arms akimbo and laugh heartily. Real men don't use AbFlex. Real men do leg lifts and pull-ups. So they manage to capture Maciste, or rather, he sort of just walks up to them and gets captured after his tactic of going, "Hey, why not call off the conquest of the world?" doesn't pan out the way he planned. Of course, at this point in the life cycle of the peplum genre, we have a pretty good idea of what a brilliant strategist he was. If it's more complicated than hurling boulders or doing that stunt where a guy jumps at you really high and you just sort of help him arc over you and into his buddies, well then it's probably too complex for Maciste. Why do those guys always jump a foot above their target's head? I mean, even if Maciste didn't lift his arms up and sort of help them on over, they still weren't even close to hitting him. Sayan puts Maciste is chains but is generally pretty nice to him, hoping that Maciste will join him after the hero learns a little more about traditional Mongol puppet theater and throat singing. Maciste gets to fight in a tournament, because all peplum films must have a tournament. If he wins, he gets to choose either his own freedom or the freedom of a captured European princess, who of course, instantly falls madly in love with Maciste. Sayan's plan was for Maciste to kick ass on the first two evil brothers but then throw the fight for his friendly captor, thus making the others look like dolts while the other one looks all cool and tough. Maciste gets carried away though and just kicks everyone's ass, thereby winning the freedom of the princess but not winning any points with Sayan. It all results in a lot of spear throwing, hearty laughing a-plenty, and Maciste kicking a lot of Mongol tail and then strutting around heroically. There's plenty of action, and for once, Maciste's foil isn't a sniveling king who uses brains and cunning to thwart the forces of good. Ken Clark as Genghis' son, Sayan, is an imposing figure that looks every inch the match for Mark Forest. Likewise for Renato Rossini and his shaved head (looking sort of like that guy jean-Claude Van Damme fought in Kickboxer). Mark Forest movies, in fact, made a habit of casting their star against equally powerful looking villains rather than following the tried and true path of keeping everyone scrawny in order to make the hero look that much bigger. Everyone must have had a good time filming Hercules Versus the Mongols, because practically the entire cast, along with director Domenico Paolella, returned for Hercules Against the Barbarians. This film begins more or less where the previous one left off, with the Mongols in retreat and Mark Forest standing victorious over all. Since this isn't an actual sequel, a few things are out of place between the two films. For one, instead of the big shaggy guy being one of the naughty sons of Genghis Khan, he is now Kublai (is it possible that no famous Caucasian has ever played Kublai Khan? I must have just missed the movie). Second, Genghis is still alive and kicking, or at least alive and looking kind of old and gray. Kublai is now the son of Genghis rather than grandson, but that makes sense seeing how those Mongolian warlords were always ambitious and trying to move up in the ranks. Rather than have Genghis just fall off his horse and die, here he becomes the victim of the usual sword and sandal throne room scheming that requires men with beards to grab one another by the shoulder and whisper while lurking in the shadows. But if we ignore the names and pretend that, oh let's say the guy called Kublai is called Ogatai and the guy called Genghis is, I don't know, Steve, then it just about works as a sequel to Hercules Versus the Mongols, even if the history is still dubious. Ostensibly this film is about the Mongol plot to get revenge on Hercules (Maciste, as usual) by kidnapping his main squeeze, who also just happens to be the princess of the realm, and Maciste's quest to rescue her, perform impressive feats of strength while touring with a troupe of acrobats and magicians, and throw guys across the room. However, much of the film focuses on the machinations within the Mongol court as Kublai and his brother plot to overthrow their father. In case you were getting worried, yes there is indeed a treacherous princess who will be swayed by Maciste's manly charms, and yes there is a midget. Coming as it did in 1964, Hercules against the Barbarians was a relative latecomer to the peplum game, and the genre had just about run its course. Sets are a bit sparser, though the Mongols manage to drape themselves and their court in lots of fur. At the same time, however, being near the tail end of the parade means the film sports a lot of seasoned players. Mark Forest is really in the swing of things, and while this isn't his best film, he seems to be having fun. The action scenes continue to impress as once again, Forest squares off against opponents more or less his own size. Ken Clark and Renato Rossini both reprise their roles from the previous films, more or less. Technically they're different characters, but since they look, act, and dress the same as they did in Hercules Versus the Mongols, we can just let it slide. Gloria Miland, who stars as the lovely Arias, had already been in peplum such as Atlas Against the Czar, Goliath and the Rebel Slave, Fury of Achilles, and Goliath and the Giants. Hercules Against the Barbarians was her final sword and sandal film (as it would be for many of the cast). She spent the latter half of the 1960s appearing in a variety of spaghetti westerns, including 1967's Hate for Hate, which was directed by Domenico Paolella. Paolella himself turned in a final few peplum films before also making the switch to westerns, spy films, and a brief stint in the sexy nunsploitation arena in the early 1970s. Of course, the fact that so many people had so much experience with the genre by 1964 also means that Hercules Against the Barbarians can feel more than a tad paint by numbers at times. Most obvious among its many conventional moments and cut corners is the fact that they chose to take the same cast in the same costumes as the production everyone just finished. It's a move almost worthy or Roger Corman, like they wrapped Hercules Versus the Barbarians a few days early and decided to keep everyone around for those last few days under contract and make a new movie. Luckily, paint by numbers can still be fun. While the movie may not offer up much to the viewer in terms of originality or twist, it ably if unspectacularly handles the conventions and delivers on all the expectations. Forest has a natural charisma that makes you want to keep watching even if the events themselves are overly familiar. Although made before the two Mark Forest films, 1961's Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World takes place after them historically speaking. It also marks the debut sword and sandal mini-epic for Gordon Scott, perhaps the genre's most versatile performer. The action finds our hero Samson, who is of course originally called Maciste, wandering for no good reason through China, where he must join with the rebels to overthrow the right evil Mongols. Once again and as always, Maciste/Samson shows up in the thick of things completely at random. Some Mongolian soldiers are beating on some Chinese peasants, and Maciste simply walks up and starts kicking ass. Where did he come from? How did he get there? Wasn't he in Peru last week, battling the Sons of the Sun? These questions will never be answered with anything more than vague references such as, "I have wandered long and far." Maciste walks the earth forever in search of injustice, and he makes pretty good time. The Mongolian history as rulers of China was short and far from sweet. Marco Polo, who made his famed journey along the Silk Road with his father and arrived in the court of Kublai Khan during the days of the Yuan Dynasty, documented their one unified time of dominion over China in the West (though he failed to include any accounts of Maciste, which makes his work historically dubious). Marco Polo's account of his years in China is short on details regarding the actual Chinese. Keen to woo allies and trading partners in the West, Kublai kept his visitors steeped in the pageantry of upper echelon court life, so much so that in his entire exhaustive tome on the experience, Marco Polo hardly mentions the ethnic Chinese at all, leaving that particular historical avenue to be explored by Chinese scholars and Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World. While the Yuan Dynasty may have been short-lived, the role of China's rowdy neighbors to the north as perpetual thorns in the side of the Middle Kingdom stretches for centuries, and that wall they kept working on was only slightly more successful a deterrent to trouble-making than Hadrian's idea to construct a wall to contain those rambunctious Celts that were giving the Romans such a hard time up in the northern reaches of Britain. The later Sung Dynasty of China, dedicated as they were to the pursuit of art and intellectualism and the betterment of the human mind and soul, found their superior intellect no match for Mongolian weaponry. After losing bits and pieces of their country for so long and constantly attempting to control the Mongol hordes through acts of appeasement, the Chinese finally lost the whole enchilada with the sacking of Beijing and establishment of the Yuan Dynasty, the first foreign force to occupy the whole of the country and also the shortest dynasty in Chinese history, lasting only from 1271 to 1368. Ironically, it was the successful conquest of China that initiated the unraveling of the Mongolian empire thanks in part to the undermining of the Khan's standard operating procedure. The Mongolian approach had always been to slaughter the vanquished en masse, raze their cities, and transform everything into grazing lands for the vast Mongolian herd. You don't become the world' fiercest cavalry without a few horses, after all. Some people take over the world to increase their wealth and tax their base, others their power and sense of security, and still others as a way of obtaining a vast workforce of slaves. The Mongols, on the other hand, saw the world as one big pasture. China was a different creature, however, than say the steppes of Russia and chunks of Eastern Europe populated by disconnected fiefdoms and tribes. It was too vast, too populous, and though defeated on the field of combat, too crafty to allow itself to suffer such a fate. China couldn't be turned into grazing land, and to run China the Mongols would need the Chinese. As the Chinese official Yeh-lu Ch'u-tsai once told Genghis Khan when captured during one of the many Mongol raids into the country, "You can conquer China on horseback, but you have to dismount to rule her." Yeh-tu thus helped save Peking from the same slice-n-slaughter approach that decimated other cities, though some would also call him a collaborationist and traitor. It was his influence over the Khan, however, that convinced the warrior the Chinese were more valuable if spared, as their role as skilled craftsmen and taxable subjects would be of greater benefit to the Mongolian empire than any kicks they might get out of burning everything down and beheading all the people. When Kublai completed the conquest of China between 1272-1279 and established the Yuan Dynasty in 1277, he unwittingly set into motion a series of events that would prove to be the undoing of the whole empire. He moved the imperial capital from Karakorum to Peking. His own brother, hungry for power, conspired against him at every turn. Upon Kublai's death in 1295, the expanses of the empire refused to take orders from the new leader in Peking. Khanites in the west near Iran and Turkey, the officials of which had converted to Islam, regarded the Peking Khan as a religious infidel, himself having recently converted to Llamist Buddhism. With an empire so great and no particular religion of their own that they felt like imposing on people, the Mongols were famously cosmopolitan when it came to tolerance of foreign religions. It was simply easier not to give a damn. The adoption of certain "official" religions however, meant that the religious diversity of the empire was starting to work against itself, as one faction refused to be ruled by another of a different religion. In 1368, after an uprising by Chinese peasants who sensed Mongolian power was faltering, the Yuan Dynasty came to an unceremonious and bloody end. Mongols and their collaborators were chased out of the country or executed, and the newly formed Ming Dynasty, much like Warren Harding's campaign for U.S. president in the wake of World War I, promised a return to normalcy. The Mongols were then occupied with stitching together their homeland, giving the world a respite from their lust for territory until another Mongol leader arose, this time named Timor. He would forge a new Mongolian empire as vast as anything seen before, piling up the heads of his enemies in great warning towers, but since he never locked horns with Hercules, we'll leave it up to the history books to tell Timor's story. This whole era of turmoil serves as the backdrop for Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World starring a primed and fresh off his Tarzan movies Gordon Scott as Samson, a.k.a. Maciste, who has strolled to China in order to help put an end to the oppression. If we use this film as a basis for reality, and I can see no reason why we wouldn't, then the downfall of the Mongolian Empire was actually caused when Samson, after being buried by a dwarf, started punching the ground until he caused an earthquake, burst forth from his tomb, then lead the Chinese in revolt against their cruel masters. And oh yeah, he also rescued a beautiful princess, because that's what he does, and what's the point of overthrowing tyrants if you don't also get to liberate a beautiful princess? The princess in this case is Eurasian Yoko Tani (an actual Asian???), a familiar face to many fans of European fantasy and spy films from the 1960s. She had been working in film since 1953, primarily in French productions but also with one Japanese movie (Women in Prison, 1956) and the Eastern European sci-fi adventure First Spaceship on Venus (1959) and a couple scattered English language productions on her resume, including a small role in the 1958 version of The Quiet American. Although she'd gotten some sword and sandal-esque experience in France while making a comedic version of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Seven Miracles is her first turn in a true peplum. Her only other sword and sandal credits include 1961's Marco Polo directed by Witch's Curse director Piero Pierotti, and 1962's Ursus and the Tartar Princess directed by Remigo del Grosso, who went on to direct a whole slew of enjoyable spaghetti westerns and spy films during the remainder of the decade. Both films, as you might guess, deal in one way or another with more Mongolians (the Tartars being a particular tribe in Mongoila who endlessly irked and warred with Genghis Khan, getting the guy so mad that he eventually decided to conquer the world). I'[m sure I can fit them into the history of Mongolia as told by Caucasians in fake eyelids that I have managed to stitch together so far, but until I actually get to see those two movies, they'll remain missing links in my shockingly accurate look at Mongolian history. Tani herself made the transition to Eurospy films and starred in a number of slick mid- to low-budget espionage thrillers, including turns in two British espionage series: the obscure but interesting Man in a Suitcase and the highly acclaimed Patrick McGoohan show Secret Agent. She was active on and off through the decades until her death in 1999 after a bout with cancer. Also on hand are a slew of peplum regulars. Helene Chanel makes as convincing a Mongol princess as Susan Hayward and Anita Ekberg, but she carries herself with grace and beauty, so it's not worth complaining about. Considering her filmography contains some of the weirdest sword and sandal films ever made, including Witch's Curse and Conquerors of Atlantis, passing herself off as Asian is the least of her stretches. Eventually, Samson must tackle a careening chariot (a scene later used as a flashback in Witch's Curse) and, after seeking the counsel of a Buddhist monk, perform the seven miracles, some of which have apparently already been performed. It's never really made clear exactly what the miracles are, and I'm not certain even the monk remembers them all correctly. Thus is just sort of rambles on for a spell then says, "And umm, yeah. So the main miracle is to go ring the bell of freedom. If you do that one and, oh say, shake a mountain, then we'll just say all seven miracles have been performed." Samson rings the bell, gets buried alive beneath a mountain by a midget, and then causes an earthquake as he unleashes all his might and fury to break free! Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World benefits greatly from top-notch action scenes anchored by Gordon Scott, skilled direction by old hand Riccardo Freda (Giants of Thessaly, The Witch's Curse), and beautiful sets that look far more lavish than the budget should allow. The medieval Chinese towns and the mountain temple look thoroughly authentic, or at least as authentic as something you'd find in a Shaw Brothers kungfu film. Of course, there are a few missteps, the most obvious one being that there are apparently very few Asians in China, and there's not much attempt to hide he shortage of Chinese looking actors. A few Asian extras are sprinkled here and there amid a slew of Italians with Fu Manchu mustaches pasted on, which at least makes this more authentically Asian than The Conqueror. Actually, some of the mustaches don't even look like stereotypical Fu Manchu mustaches, leading one to wonder not so much why Maciste is in China, but instead why so many people in China look like Pancho Villa. Gabriele Antonini (last seen as Temujin alongside Jack Palance's Ogatai, though he wasn't the Temujin who became Ghengis Khan) plays our nominal local hero, Cho. Never has a Chinese hero looked so much like a cross between Frankie Avalon and Ray Romano. Someone apparently thought that people might find all these Caucasian looking Chinese to be a bit suspicious, so they threw in a line for Cho where he sort of off-handedly says, "You know, I'm only half Chinese." They didn't even spring for fake eyelids. There's almost an historical excuse for the film's lack of authentic Asians, however, since the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongolians surrounded itself with foreigners and employed officials from all over their empire. The film seems unconcerned with such trivialities, however, a disregard that is not all that important and is best exemplified by the scenes in which Maciste, towering over everyone else, clad in a loin cloth, and looking huge and Caucasian, "blends in" with the locals. As enjoyable as it is, and despite some names sounding familiar, I'd not depend entirely on this quintet of films to learn about the historical events depicted within (I think you'll have to see Ursus and the Tartar Prince and Marco Polo starring Yoko Tani before you can be fully informed about history). Whatever the case, you can't really, consider yourself to have in your possession a well-rounded knowledge of the Mongol invasions unless you watch The Conqueror starring John Wayne, The Mongols with Jack Palance, and the trio of peplum Mongol adventures. Get all of these under your belt, and then you can impress your pipe-smoking, spectacle-wearing intellectual friends in their tweed jackets with the suede patches on the elbows. Being the slaves to traditional learning that they are, those pointy-headed Poindexters are probably completely ignorant of the role Samson, Hercules, and Maciste played in liberating China and Eastern Europe from the iron grip of Mongol tyranny. At this point, one almost starts to wonder if a movie other than Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure has ever been made that fills the role of Genghis, Ogatai, or Kublai with an Asian. From John Wayne's cowboy Khan to Ken Clark's muscleman antics, from red-headed and blonde Tartar and Mongol princesses, to a lone actual Asian in Yoko Tani, all of these movies are so silly that there's no point in getting in a huff about the casting of Caucasians as Mongols. What's more shocking is that cheap Italian muscleman movies manage to be far more interesting, action-packed, sumptuous, and "epic" than the supposedly epic Howard Hughes-John Wayne fiasco. And so Genghis waits, sitting on his big-ass fur-covered throne, waiting for a proper movie to be made about his conquests (though I guess Al Leong in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure came pretty close). If nothing else, he can breathe a sigh of relief (just as we fans of bad movies mourn) that, although he was once portrayed by John Wayne, it seems the proposed modern epic about his life has died a quiet death before ever entering pre-production. And just as Hughes could imagine no one better than John Wayne to play Genghis Khan, whoever it was that was going to produce the new movie had a similar dedication, a vision of the one man in the world who could finally do the magnificent Khan justice. That man? Steven Seagal. Labels: Fantasy: Peplum, Historical Epics, Stars: Gordon Scott, Stars: Jack Palance, Stars: John Wayne, Stars: Mark Forest, Year: 1956, Year: 1961, Year: 1963, Year: 1964 posted by Keith at 3:04 PM | 6 Comments Friday, November 25, 2005Kara Murat: Olum Emri
If you're not familiar with the entire oeuvre of Cuneyt Arkin, it's probably because he's been in more movies than I ever thought existed. Seriously, if you want to see what's probably a relatively complete filmography, check out tr.wikipedia.org. In the '70s, he averaged more movies per year than a Pro-Bowl running back averages yards per carry. The man was a movie-making machine.
So I decided to gather up as many of his zany costume drama action films as I can find this winter. Lion Man (Kiliç Aslan) is perhaps the most famous of these films in the 'States, but in Turkey he's famous for the longer series like Battal Gazi, Malkocoglu, and Kara Murat, each of which seem to have at least five or six films. The earliest Kara Murat film which I've yet gotten my hands on is Kara Murat: Olum Emri, which seems to have come out in 1974, a year before Kilic Aslan. At this point in Cuneyt's career, he'd already been in a lot of movies spanning well over a decade, including dramas, comedies, westerns, and other action films like Kara Murat. Malkocoglu (pronounced "Mal-ko-Joe-loo," roughly, if you're not familiar with Turkish orthography) began in '66 if I'm not mistaken, and Battal Gazi began in '71. Since each film series basically came out with a new entry each year, this gives the other films a bit of a lead on Kara Murat. All three of these film serieses are pretty similar in a lot of respects. The title of the series is derived from the hero's name. The hero is Cüneyt Arkin. He's sometimes a weathered war veteran, and other times a dashing, um, war veteran, but he's always a guaranteed ass kicker and ladies' man. "Murat" is a very common Turkish name, and almost all of Cüneyt Arkin's characters seem to be named Murat, unless they're named Malkocoglu or Battal Gazi. If you're watching an Arkin movie which isn't part of a larger series, listen. You'll probably hear someone say "Murat" when they're looking at Cüneyt. Anyway, and "Kara" means "dark." So, a rough Anglicization would be something like "Dark John." Now, my Turkish was never strong and has gotten rusty. Making it stronger will be my spring project; for now, all I can do is offer the following for background... Most of these costume dramas seem to be set during the Byzantine empire. Cüneyt is always on the side of some sultan or sultanate, and the enemies are always a bunch of sadistic and underhanded Christians. Or, that's all I've seen so far, and I've seen examples of all three serieses, and a few other costume dramas besides. Usually, somehow the rightful Islamic rule needs to either be 1) reinstated because some Christians usurped the throne, or 2) saved, because some Christians want to usurp the throne. Sometimes it's both. And if the camera lingers on anything, it usually means that something underhanded is about to go down. Kara Murat: Ölüm Emri, which as near as I can tell translates to something along the lines of "Dark Murat: Death's Command/Death Command/Ordinance of Death" (but don't bet your life on it... or quote me), does not deviate from that basic formula. In brief, Murat, in his travels, seems to suspect some sort of Christian devilry afoot, and so sneaks into Constantinople with a couple of friends. Along the way, they have to say hello to a couple of the sultan's emissaries and kick a bunch of Byzantine ass. They get in, and his friends never seem to leave the local tavern, but Murat himself sleeps with the princess to get some of her secrets, and also seems to attract the attention of her handmaid, who also gives some secrets. His friends are eventually caught and he reveals himself to save them; with their cover blown, they kick some more Christian ass and then go riding around the countryside, kicking Christian ass, and eventually trying to warn the sultan that there is a plot on his life. Will they make it in time? Well, look... yes. This movie isn't about suspense, really. It's about upbeat ridiculous craziness. Kara Murat is perhaps the silliest of the Cüneyt Arkin action movies that I've seen so far. You might watch Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam and assume that they're playing it straight, and you might think perhaps that Kiliç Aslan is intended to be pretty serious, but there's no way that you can believe that Kara Murat isn't at least a little tongue-in-cheek. In what might be the best fight scene, the one which ensues after Kara Murat reveals himself, Murat punches two guys at once with one hand, trips people, knocks people over with what looked like water which he pours out of a big barrel, puts that barrel on one attacker's head and then keeps walking him into the wall and kicking him in the butt, then presses three guys to a wall with a table, then puts them under the table to get it moving across the room so their friends attack them, only to then take the table and smash it over their heads so that three of them are standing inside of the table, and then makes them march offscreen. This is fighting which is intended to make you smile, and don't go doubting it. Those of us who've seen the older Cüneyt performing his trademark, albeit silly, trampoline maneuvers in Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam will recognize them in Kara Murat as well, except that they're a lot crisper and sort of more effective-looking. He'll do flips over soldiers on horseback, hitting them both in the head as he goes and knocking them both from their horses, for instance. Another amusing bit: every time the one Christian captain attempts to attack him, Murat smacks his sword into the air, smacks him in the face, catches his sword, spins him around, pokes him in the ass with the sword, spins him again, and sticks the sword back in its scabbard, ad nauseam. For the most part, there's not a lot of blood in the movie, except for one scene in which there's some kind of brutal gladiator who can headbutt men and make their faces bleed (no, not just their noses), and then Murat handles him without much effort before gettin' it on with the princess. Truth told, there's not much that Murat can't handle. Even when enemies lasso him and his friends by the feet and hang them upside-down from a tree, they fight off all comers until Murat can flip up thirty feet onto the branch and cut them down. The film is also full of stunts, disguises, and tricks which might best be described as "daft." Or, in a more American turn of phrase, "pretty ridiculous." But realism was never the intent here. Complaining about the lack of verisimilitude in these movies is like complaining that Monet didn't connect the dots, or that Fulci used too much gore, or that your garlic bread has garlic and butter on it. Needless to say, I can't wait to watch the next one. Labels: Country: Turkey, Historical Epics, Stars: Cuneyt Arkin posted by Ryan at 12:32 PM | 2 Comments Monday, November 07, 2005Bang Rajan
2000, Thailand. Starring Jaran Ngamdee, Winai Kraibutr, Theerayut Pratyabamrung, Bin Bunluerit, Bongkoj Khongmalai, Chumphorn Thepphithak, Suntharee Maila-or, Phisate Sangsuwan, Theeranit Damrongwinijchai. Directed by Tanit Jitnukul. Written by Tanit Jitnukul, Kongkiat Khomsiri, Patikarn Phejmunee, Buinthin Thuaykaew. Purchase from Amazon.com
After concentrating October on reviewing Spanish horror films -- which was actually more fun than the poor reviews for many of the films may suggest -- I've found myself with a big stack of other stuff I'd watched throughout the month that needs mention. So forgive me if some of these comments are shorter than usual. It had been my intention to catch the Thai epic Bang Rajan when it was playing in extremely limited (as in, one theater) release in New York, but as with most things I plan, it didn't pan out that way. I was getting worried that no DVD release seemed forthcoming, which I thought was strange. So I rented the UK edition from Niche Flix, only to get it and discover that it was cracked and unplayable. I was just destined not to see this movie it seemed. Then all of a sudden, there it was on Netflix -- and only Netflix, in some sort of exclusive distribution deal with Oliver North's production company or something, which was in charge of bringing it to the United States, presumably to make up for how awful Alexander turned out to be. So at last, I was able to sit down for a night and watch hot Thai guys with big walrus moustaches beat the crap out of each other. Thai movies have been getting a lot of exposure in the past couple years. While not nearly as popular as Hong Kong, Japanese, Korea, or Bollywood films, Thai cinema has eeked out a substantial cult following in the West, thanks primarily to the sort of low-fi approach many of the films have. As films from most of Asia attempt to out-tech and out-glitz Hollywood (though to date, only the Koreans have really succeeded at this), Thai films are throwbacks to an era of cruder but more interesting special effects, CGI-free fight scenes, and a more down-to-earth approach to making films that, while often rough around the edges, are refreshing precisely because they are rough around the edges. They feel like movies actual people made, instead of being mass market researched products that seem to have been assembled by a machine. Hot on the heels of the international success of Ong Bak, which reminded people of how much fun it was to watch Jackie Chan and others during the 1980s before they got all old and broken down and reliant upon computers and gimmicks, Bang Rajan hit some screens around the United States. Like many recent Thai films, it concentrates on the period of war between the disparate fiefdoms of Thailand and the Burmese empire to the north -- a conflict which eventually led to the formation of the Siamese nation, and the last time Thailand was ever controlled or occupied by a foreign power (unless you count Japanese businessmen drunk on Heineken and looking for a cheap handjob). While some films have concentrated ont he complex political maneuvering that took place during the war, and others on the personality of the great Thai queen who eventually lent part of her name to the nation, Bang Rajan chooses to concentrate on lean, muscular guys in loin cloths beating the shit out of each other. The story of the village of Bang Rajan is one of the most famous in Thai history, and while it's easy to say the film Bang Rajan was inspired by films like The Seven Samurai, it's also easy to guess that The Seven Samurai might have found some kernel of inspiration in the true story of Bang Rajan. It was a tiny rural village which, despite being grossly outmatched by Burmese forces possessed of far superior technology, numbers, and training, managed to hold out against onslaught after onslaught, costing the Burmese dearly, not to mention delivering a major blow to Burmese morale before the town finally fell. Bang Rajan the movie takes this story and treats it with an epic feel, though there's very little truly original in the film and every hoary old chestnut of this type of war movie is served up. What makes Bang Rajan fun, however, is how gung-ho it is with its elements. I'd compare it to Shiri -- a completely by-the-numbers police thriller from Korea which, despite conforming to every single genre expectation, does it so well that it becomes tremendously fun to watch the old formula again. Bang Rajan has everything you'd expect in a movie where sassy villagers repel superior forces: the cool and calculating leader, the young hot shot, the drunken lout who will rise Toshiro Mifune style to the heights of glory and honor in battle -- nothing you haven't seen dozens of times before. But that familiarity didn't much matter to me, because Bang Rajan is full of energy and zest, not to mention solid acting, incredible cinematography, and some truly monumental moustaches. The battles are gory, informed obviously by Braveheart, but very effective, and for much of their running time, the director (Tanit Jitnukul, who helmed the similar historical battle epics Khunsuk and Khun Pan: Legend of the Warlord) manages to refrain from employing "in the thick of it" shaky cam, which I loathe so much these days. The leading cast of men continue the modern Thai tradition of loading their films with hot guys who can actually act. Jaran Ngamdee sports a moustache that would make Rollie Fingers fall down and weep at his feet. I guess it was a fake, but the fact that Thai men ever sported moustaches this fabulous is just one example of the undying flame that enabled them to defy the Burmese army for nearly half a year. Like the other characters, he is exactly what you expect of his character, but all of them are likeable, which is more than you can say in many other Seven Samurai-inspired movies. As the drunken, axe-wielding Nai Thongmen, Bin Bunluerit became the crowd favorite and took home a best acting award for that year. He proves that the Toshiro Mifune model can still be fun, exciting, and poignant even if you already know what to expect. The fact that the film invests real time in developing characters and familiarizing you with them, even within he confines of their cliches, makes the finale clash, when you know pretty much everyone has to die, all the more effective. And the scene of Jaran Ngamdee slashing his way across a lush green field littered with corpses, his majestic moustache flowing around him -- man, it's straight out of "dramatic war cinema 101," but it's still extremely effective. The film also sports some fine female supporting stars, but I'm just not familiar enough with hem to have much to say except that I really dig the Thai dress and hairstyle from the 1760s. I also enjoy comparing this to similar battles from generally the same time -- say, oh, I don't know, the American Revolution. Though I'd studied plenty about that in school, I never once had any idea what might have been happening in Thailand at the same time. I wouldn't exactly call Bang Rajan a solid historical lesson, but history and folk tales underline everything that goes into the story -- and in fact, that it is so similar to Seven Samurai and countless other war and siege films is a testament to how certain folk tales permeate all cultures, and certain traits and scenarios affect populations across varied cultures and geographies. My only real gripe about Bang Rajan are a few ill-advised forays into CGI explosions. Placed as they are amid actual actors and sword fighting and stampeding elephants, these clumsily-executed computer effects stick out like a sore thumb. But there are only a couple of them, and that's easy to overlook in the greater scheme of thing. Bang Rajan end sup being one of my favorite things: well-executed, energetic genre formula. You know what you're going to get, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still taste delicious. Labels: Country: Thailand, Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 2000 posted by Keith at 4:57 PM | 2 Comments Saturday, October 09, 2004The Vikings
1958, United States. Starring Kirk Douglas, Ernest Borgnine, Tony Randal, Janet Leigh, James Donald, Alexander Knox. Directed by Richard Fleischer. Available on DVD from Amazon
So Big Fish is full of heart and spirit and yes, even magic. It touches the soul and brings joy to the heart even of this tired man. But you know what else brings joy to my heart? Guys with swords yelling about Valhalla and pillaging the English coast. Although The Vikings has its core the story of a another family reconciliation - that of the relationship between two estranged brothers who, in fact, aren't even aware they're related - it opts to take the less tender route and unfold itself amid the carnage and gusto of the Viking raiding parties that plagues the English coasts during the middle ages. Yes, folks, it's time for big overblown epic theater again, and who better to star in it than Kirk Douglas and his craggy, inhumanly manly chin? Simply put, this is a movie that swaggers into the room and boisterously proclaims, "I'm gonna entertain the hell out of you!" then proceeds to go ahead and do just that. It probably says that to you in Kirk Douglas' voice, too, which is fine. That's the way it should be. While not entirely devoid of depth or message, such things exist in The Vikings almost by accident, or purely because they make the real point of the movie - which is testosterone-fuelled swashbuckling, hearty laughter, the waving of mead mugs in the smoky air, and sweeping romantic adventure - all the more delicious. Tony Curtis, who is sometimes confused with Tony Randal because they are both named Tony and young kids don't remember either of them, stars as Eric, the proverbial slave who grows up unaware of the fact that he is the true and rightful heir to some misty throne on the English coast. Years prior, he was sent away by a conniving relative so someone evil could inherit the throne -yeah, that old chestnut. Eric eventually wound up in the service of great Viking hero Einar (Douglas), who has a tendency to act all manly, jump up onto tables, that sort of thing. You know, macho hero stuff. Einar's father is Ragnar, played in hairy man-beast glory by Ernest Borgnine, casually ignoring the fact that Borgnine is actually a year younger than Douglas. Hey, who can tell when you slap wooly barbarian hair all over a guy and have him tearing away wildly at one of those gigantic King Henry's Feast turkey legs? What no one realizes is that Ragnar is also Eric's father, owing to some of that patented Viking raping and pillaging we heard so much about.
Although unaware of his royal lineage, Eric is still none to happy with the life of a slave. When some uppityness causes Einar's eye to be clawed out by a falcon, it would seem to be curtains for poor ol' Eric. Luckily, a British visitor to the court of Ragnar convinces the Vikings not to kill the young man, and your standard-issue cackling old crone and neighborhood soothsayer concurs. So what can they do? Stymied in their efforts to kill Eric, the Vikings return to cavorting and table-overturning and drinking, all the while laughing, laughing, laughing! Over the course of the film, the Vikings will decide to kidnap an English king's bride-to-be, which you know means Eric will meet her and fall in love with her, as well Einar, because it wasn't enough to have just the falcon thing between them. And Eric will escape his Viking captors only to discover the treachery of so-called civilized men. And will there be a big ol' battle at the end full of men dashing up walls and waving swords and flinging flaming balls of garbage from catapults? What? Haven't you seen one of these movies before? As you probably know by now, I'm a "cast of thousands" epic movie fiend, and The Vikings really is one of the rip-roaring best and most exciting of them all. It's fist-pounding, chest-beating adventure through and through, the kind that will and damn well should make modern folk ashamed that they are so pitiful and know not the glory and the laughter that echoes through the halls of Valhalla and the passions and hates and loves that all burn as brilliant as a thousand white-hot suns. As is always the case with a good epic, it is life on a grand scale, blown up to 70mm and taking the emotion with it on that grand scale. Nothing in The Vikings is small, nothing low-key. This is epic filmmaking at its most epic, and director Richard Fleischer deftly brings this grand vision of the bloody past to the screen amid a flurry of historical accuracy that was rare in a type of film that tended to cast Jesus as blond-haired and blue-eyed. Hollywood epics of the golden age from the 1950s to the 1960s weren't exactly history textbooks, though a few did try and raise the bar in being accurate with their depiction of the times. Earlier, we reviewed 300 Spartans, another Hollywood epic that strove for a high degree of historical accuracy. The primary difference between that movie and this one is that at times 300 Spartans felt almost like a reenactment of a tactical manual, so precise was it in presenting the military maneuvers in the Battle of Thermopolae. The Vikings maintains detailed historical settings and costumes and customs, but has a lot more fun with everything. Fleischer was already becoming an old salt at handling historic and fantastic settings, having staged large-scale period fantasies like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (also featuring Kirk Douglas). He'd go on to helm a number of fair to above-average epics and fantasy films, including Fantastic Voyage, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Barrabas, Solyant Green, and less respectably, Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonja. Teaming here with cinematographer Jack Cardiff, he's wrought a truly overwhelming vision of the past. Cardiff's career as a cinematographer dates as far back as the 1935 version of The Last Days of Pompeii, and his filmography includes some absolutely magnificent work: Scott of the Antarctic, The African Queen, War and Peace, and, umm, Rambo: First Blood Part II. As a director he also went on to helm his own big Viking epic a couple years after this film. His was entitled The Long Ships, and yes, we'll be coming to it soon enough. He also directed cult fave Girl on a Motorcycle. Filmed on location in Norway and other dramatic northern landscapes, The Vikings is an opulent visual feast, as all good epics should be. The landscapes are as big and rowdy and magnificent as the men sailing to and from around them, and the cinematography is simply gorgeous as it soars from mist-shrouded seas to craggy Scandinavian fjords - though none be so craggy as Kirk Douglas' chin. Color is vibrant, music is booming, and everything is on an immense scale. Viking abodes, clans, and ships were all painfully reconstructed from historical sources, and when inaccuracies do creep in, they go unnoticed by anyone who isn't the type of person to proclaim a movie worthless because it's set in the 8th or 9th century but clearly features 14th century English castles. So you have big places. You also need big actors, larger than life personalities who can thunder and chew scenery and go just enough over the top so as to be memorable and grandiose but not so over the top that you think you're watching William Shatner. Enter Kirk Douglas, a year after his spectacular turn in Paths of Glory and a couple years yet away from his biggest epic role in Spartacus. Douglas seethes and hisses and laughs as he engages in every type of ax-throwing manly action you can think of. Ostensibly set up as the villain of the piece and foil to the more noble (read: whimpier) Eric, The Vikings never proves quite so easy to peg down as to keep Einar as it's unquestioned villain. In fact, one of the film's best features is the bait and switch regarding the "good guys" of the piece. Following Douglas step for blustering step is Ernest Borgnine as the Viking chieftain Ragnar. His final scene, in which he leaps with a heroic shout and laugh into a pit of wild dogs, is one of the best in the movie, and really one of the best scenes in any epic. The English princess is played by Janet Leigh, and it's a coincidence that we mention her in a review so close to the date of her recent passing. To say the very least, Leigh is every bit as beautiful and breath-taking as Douglas is macho and swaggering, and certainly hers is an attractiveness grand enough for such a big film. She also gets to add a little feistiness to the role of damsel in distress, though if you think she's going to pick up a sword in the finale and start commanding troops, you'd best wait until we get our reviews of all those Joan of Arc movies (I think they're coming up before year's end). If there is a weak link in the cast, it's Tony Curtis, but isn't it always the hero who proves to be the least interesting character? That's the curse of the epic. The villains have to be larger than life and the assorted characters have to be larger than life, and that all includes untold amounts of mayhem and daring-do and manliness. The hero, unfortunately, has to be epically noble and heroic, which usually means staring off solemnly at the horizon while Kirk Douglas is doing circus tricks with an ax and Ernest Borgnine is hollerin' and jumping into pits full of crazed wolves. Really, who are you going to remember in the morning? The hardy Vikings with their songs and their ale and their Valkyrie or the guy who sat in the corner, polite enough, and made a compass? That Curtis is a weak link in the cast is by no fault of his own. It's just the unfortunate nature of the "epic nice guy hero." His performance is fine by any standards, but sandwiched in between sniveling English kings and sword-swinging Viking adventurers, he just sort of gets lost in the chaos.
One expects large-scale battle scenes in these types of movies, and The Vikings has some of the best. It was a huge hit at its time, proclaimed by some as the Braveheart of its day, though I tend to think more of Braveheart as The Vikings of its day, only with more mud and less cleft chin. The Vikings boasts several great battle scenes, but the best is always the last, and the assault on the treacherous English king's fortress is one for the record books. Great stuff, really, expertly edited and fast paced without, as I always have to point out, resulting to the irritating modern technique of swinging the camera wildly back and forth and up close to the action in an attempt to "make you feel like you're in the thick of things." All I can say to that is, when you are running or in the thick of anything, does your head jerk violently back and forth like these cameras? Do you ever run with your head flopping wildly about the way directors shake these cameras for "point of view realism?" No, so pull back and let us see the damn action next time. As I said in a previous paragraph, the thing that keeps this from being "just another Hollywood epic" is the twist it puts on expectations. You'd think with the Vikings introduced as pillagers and raiders along the English coast, as murderers, thieves, rapists, and Pagans preying on defenseless "civilized" Christians, that they'd be the bad guys. But The Vikings is smart enough to know that a wild bunch of Norsemen in furry vests are a lot more interesting than some guy with a little page boy haircut and silky purple robes, so the film quickly shifts focus to the bravery of the Vikings and the purity of their passion. They seize life and drink deep from its bountiful horn, or something to that effect, while the English king hides behind a mask of civility but is, in fact, a sniveling, backstabbing coward in need of a righteous Pagan ass-whuppin'. Christianity itself is never called entirely to task, which would have probably been just too much at the time, but we're certainly led to admire the wild, wooly Pagan way of life when Erik and Einar put aside their personal differences and team up to sock it to the wretched lord who needs socking. The final showdown, then, between the two brothers is action-packed, fast-paced, and even a little poignant. The Vikings isn't a subtle film. It has romance and love, sure, but it's that sweeping kind of romance that gets lost in the romance of adventure. This is big stuff, bigger than most, and perhaps the biggest ever made until Ben Hur the following year and Spartacus the year after that. If modern action cinema has you down, then grab this two-fisted, broadsword-swinging blast from the past and be happy. Grand melodrama, striking cinematography, awe-inspiring locations, and an all-star cast as giant as the world around them make for one hell of a good time at the movies. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary posted by Keith at 11:59 AM | 2 Comments Friday, August 27, 2004Flesh + Blood
1985, United States/Spain. Starring Rutger Hauer, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tom Burlinson, Jack Thompson, Fernando Hilbeck, Susan Tyrrell, Ronald Lacey, Brion James, John Dennis Johnston, Bruno Kirby, Kitty Courbois, Marina Saura, Hans Veerman, Jake Wood. Directed by Paul Verhoeven. Buy it from Amazon
Ah yes, Paul Verhoeven. What a director. Before he became famous/infamous with big budget sci-fi hits like Robocop and Total Recall or the low-concept, low-intelligence Showgirls that has somehow managed to become a cultural icon, he was plying his trade in this grim, gritty, and sometimes awkward medieval adventure that showcases all his favorite traits: political commentary surrounded by tons and tons of gratuitous nudity and gore. It also continues his knack for directing movies that tell you exactly what the film is full of. Robocop was full of Robocop. Showgirls was full of showgirls. And Flesh + Blood is full of flesh and blood. It's also full of some entirely ludicrous scenes, awful "ancient meets modern" dialogue, and Rutger Hauer's strange '80s hairdo. But these things only serve to ingratiate the film to the viewer, while the greater portion of the film remains a taut if extreme experience. Rutger Hauer -- Remember when he was the coolest actor on the face of the planet. I mean, he was never as big a name as previous coolest actors, and frankly he was never really as cool as we thought he was, but he still etched out his little niche thanks in large part to a quality turn as the determined and occasionally murderous android in Blade Runner. Then what happened to him? He made some films that disappeared quickly, gave C. Thomas Howell a bag of fries with human fingers in it, and then apparently discovered pie and started eating a lot of it with Steven Seagal, who was never the coolest actor on the face of the planet at any point in his career, though he could make some headway if he gave it up and started doing comedy (and I don't mean The Glimmer Man). Men loved Rutger Hauer because he was cool and would eventually get big and fat like them. Women loved him because he was hot and weird and dangerous and they didn't realize he was going to eat so much ham later on down the line.
He's on and off, as he often was, in this film as the leader of a ruthless and dirt-smeared band of mercenaries and whores in 1501. After helping lay siege to a castle, Hauer's Martin and his men find themselves betrayed, cheated out of their pay and spoils, and cast out into the rain. A good rule of thumb for kings and conquerors is that if the strongest part of your army consists of mercenaries, and they're the only reason you win a battle, you probably shouldn't just go and cast them out a couple days after the battle is won because chances are they'll take it hard and make trouble. It's hardly worth retaining the few silver pitchers and baubles you'll save. And sure enough, Martin and the gang ambush the king and his son shortly after the caravan has picked up the son's bride-to-be, played by a very young and frequently naked Jennifer Jason Leigh. Martin's band hole up inside a keep while Tom Burlingson as Steven lays siege to the castle in attempt to rescue the bride he'd only known for an hour or so before she was kidnapped. There are plenty of adjectives that readily lend themselves to an accurate description of this movie. Depraved. Bawdy. Mean-spirited and offensive. These are leap immediately to mind, as they tend to do with most any Verhoeven film. But the film is also intelligent, satirical, and lyrically beautiful in a sick and twisted sort of way. Verhoeven does, after all, possess a wicked sense of humor to match his overall pessimism about the nature of man, best represented here by the "storybook romance" scene in which Steven and Agnes discuss love and flirt with one another in a rolling, lush green field. Only here, they're doing their flirting beneath the hideous, graphically rendered rotting corpses of two hanged criminals. The thing that has always kept Verhoeven as something of an acquired taste, or more accurately an acquired tastelessness, is the fact that he takes perfectly intelligent and well-written scripts and drapes them in overwhelming amounts of sadism and perversion. What brain there is behind Flesh + Blood is often obscured by all the raping, nudity, and gore.
But this is the Middle Ages about which we're talking, and such things were as much a fact of life as they remain today, only without as much of the added social sensitivity about them. Verhoeven wallows gleefully in the filth of the era, and if his film is not entirely historically accurate, it is at least successful in accurately creating the atmosphere of the 16th century. A film that was willing to indulge in the grim realities of medieval life and warfare was still a rare thing in 1985. Boorman's Excalibur tread there to a degree but was still a movie steeped in hypnotic and fantastic poetry. Flesh + Blood is just harsh, gory reality, a move in the opposite direction perhaps as extreme as Camelot was in the musical dandyland direction, a snapshot of a world in which people were hardened beyond compassion and would do whatever they had to do, degrade others or themselves, to stay alive. There are basically no likable or sympathetic characters in the film. Martin is a certifiable scumbag and rapist, as are his men, but the king who betrays them and the captain he forces to abet him in the treachery are equally despicable. And yet, all of them showcase moments of tenderness and bravery. They are, in effect, humans. Dumb, mean, kind, hateful, emotionally stunted, forgiving, and prone to acts of unspeakable cruelty. The captain who betrays Martin does so against his will and ultimately only because he wants to be over and done with the business of war as quickly as possible so he can retire to a life of peace and penance. Martin is callous and vicious, but something inside him is brought out that makes him yearn to improve himself, to become the more heroic man he wants to be. Circumstance simply never allows it to blossom. Jennifer Jason Leigh's Agnes fares better, though one can't help but wince as she submits to every one of Martin's sexual whims in order to win his trust and save her own life. As Steven, Tom Burlinson is the closest thing the film has to a good-guy. He's a man of science, disgusted by his father's betrayal of the mercenaries but also quick to forgive him. His obsessive pursuit of Agnes seems born less out of love (they don't even know one another) than out of the sense that something that belongs to him has been taken. Still, he's generally an agreeable person, a voice of Renaissance reason amid people who are still steeped in the superstitions and cruelties of the Dark Ages. Of course, when a man gets blown up by one of his inventions, he seems less concerned about the life lost than he is about the fact that the fuse burned too quickly. But then, I guess when you're standing in the middle of a siege, that sort of thing can happen. The other "main" character in this grotesque Shakespearian play isn't an actual person, but its presence is felt in every scene and motivates much of the action, and that's our old friend the Black Death. Bubonic Plague. Call it what you will, you just don't want hairy warriors flinging pieces of dog infected with it over your castle walls and into your drinking water. The Plague exists as a specter looming over everything that happens in the film and represents the gulf between the old ways (as represented by a stubborn doctor who refuses to acknowledge advances in plague treatment simply because they come from Arabic research) and the enlightened (as represented by Steven, who understands how simple it is to treat the disease if only people would stop being so superstitious). As he often does in this film, Hauer's Martin stands somewhere in the middle. He understands something of the plague and the realities of what causes it, but he's also not completely divorced from the old way of thinking if for no other reason than he has used it so many times to his advantage. Where as most people in this film are stupid, Martin only pretends to be stupid, but sometimes you can engage in the masquerade so long that it starts to become reality.
Verhoeven's two biggest enemies in the world seem to be corporate greed and religion. He has stated, I believe, that he believes in God but not religion, and it's religion that is on the skewering end of Flesh + Blood's awl pike of criticism. Religious men are seen as either backwards and "so Dark Ages" or as charlatans using religion as a means to enrich themselves. Martin himself is a grand manipulator of religion and the superstitions of those around him. His advising cardinal is a true believer in Christianity, but to such a degree that he fails to question anything at all that is invested with supposed religious significance. To him, everything is a sign. The direction is tight. Even if you're not a fan of Verhoeven's films, at the very least you have to admit him to be a tight and competent director. He knows what he's doing back there, and he manages to make Flesh + Blood poetically gorgeous, lush, and hideous at the same time. His pacing is good, and his action scenes are what I'd call solidly 1980s. They lack the "cast of thousands" grandness of the 1960s but also lack the over-directed, over-choreographed, "everything must look absolutely cool" sickness of the post wire-fu/CGI era in which we currently reside. Fight scenes are not epic in scale, but they are realistic. Instead of slick and polished, they seem awkward, confused, and brutal. In other words, a lot more realistic. This was the film that introduced him to American audiences, and it must have been quite a shock. Distributor Orion was so appalled by the movie that they shuffled it in and out of theaters without a peep. It hardly even ever showed up on cable and was more or less MIA fromt he home video market for years, and even then only in a badly washed out transfer. Their gamble would pay off later, though, when Verhoeven started becoming a blockbuster machine, but they just couldn't see trumpeting Flesh + Blood, no matter how good it was, at a time when even Conan was being kinder and gentler. Realism as I said permeates this film, so it is that much more jarring when Verhoeven's script slips up. From time to time, dialogue sounds a little overly modern, less for what's being said than for the way it's said. When Bruno Kirby says anything at all, I can't hear anything but "that squeaky guy from City Slickers" or "that squeaky guy from Good Morning, Vietnam." A lot of the cast members can't seem to make up their minds whether or not they have accents, even though acting jobs beyond those inconsistencies are generally "workmanlike" to "above average." However, script credibility really takes a blow when, in what seems like a day, Steven and a small crew of men with no scientific background erect a siege machine of a complexity that would dazzle Leonardo De Vinci himself. It's utterly fantastic and absurd and feels completely out of place in a film that otherwise strives to maintain a high degree of period accuracy. But then, this is a Verhoeven film, so you sometimes just have to roll with the eccentricities. Luckily, the surrounding film is good enough to help you overlook the improbability of such a machine. And it does succeed in further the film's ongoing theme of the Renaissance versus the Dark Ages while keeping Martin as a man with one foot in both worlds. He's not smart enough, like Steven, to conceive of such a device, but he is smart enough to use something else Steven tried out. Barring the occasional awkward accent (or lack there of) and bit of over-ripe dialogue, peformances are uniformly grand. Jennifer Jason Leigh performs admirably in what was surely a difficult role made no easier by the fact that she does about half her screen time completely naked. Hauer remains one of the most underrated actors of the 1980s, probably because he starred in so many awful films. But the thing is he made so many awful films watchable. This seems almost to be his answer to his role in Ladyhawke, another medieval film but with more fantasy and a much friendlier cast. I think Hauer has some off lines here but on the whole he carries the film admirably and conveys a man who is enchanted by the notions of enlightened society but ultimately unable to divorce himself from the crudeness of the Dark Ages. The supporting cast includes a number of familiar faces and character actors, all of whom perform well. Brion James will be the most recognizable of the bunch, seeing as how he's made eleven million films and starred alongside Rutger Hauer in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner -- another violent film, incidentally, that was reviled upon release but has since become considered a modern classic. I don't know if I'd consider Flesh + Blood a classic, but it certainly deserves more recognition than it receives. Flesh + Blood is a smartly written, well-paced, well-directed piece of period action. It's not really an easy film to like because of the cruelty and sadism on display in certain scenes, but if you can get over that and accept that these things happened (and continue to happen), then you'll find a sharp adventure tale with a lot going on. It's not perfect, but it's well enough crafted to set it apart from the crowd, especially if you figure the crowd was mostly dim-witted sword and sorcery barbarian movies. As long as you don't mind the blood, gore, rape, nudity, festering boil lancing, and bloody chunks of dog meat being flung around, Flesh + Blood is one hell of a good film. Labels: Fantasy: Sword and Sorcery, Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 1985 posted by Keith at 6:40 PM | 1 Comments Sunday, August 15, 2004The Bible...In the Beginning
1966, United States/Italy. Starring Michael Parks, Ulla Bergryd, Richard Harris, John Huston, Stephen Boyd, George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Peter O'Toole, Zoe Sallis, Gabriele Ferzetti, Eleonora Rossi Drago, Franco Nero, Pupella Maggio, Robert Rietty, Peter Heinze. Directed by John Huston. Buy it from Amazon
Well, not every epic can be as fun as The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb. Although I'm not a Christian, I love Biblical epics and am fascinated by religious history. One would assume that when it comes to Biblical epics, nothing would be bigger and better than actually making an epic out of The Bible itself. The book is ripe for grandiose filmmaking, after all, full of betrayal and violence and love and warfare and sundry perversions that would have you branded a heretic if you made literal versions of them into films. The Good Book's not exactly what I would call well-written, but it manages to tell a compelling story never the less and regardless of your faith or lack there of. It's worth a film, anyway. It's worth a dozen films or more. And there in lies the initial problem with this movie. But we'll come to that soon enough. Right now we have to assume that this is going to be a breathtaking triumph. Not only is it a film adaptation of the Old Testament, it's being directed by one of the best directors in the history of film, one of my all-time favorites, John Huston. Heck, this should be just about the greatest film ever made. And hey! George C. Scott is Abraham! Okay, with that hope established, let's shine the beaming light of truth down upon our expectations and see what's really happening. And what's really happening is that this film isn't so much a testament of faith as it is a test of faith. Despite everything this film seems to have going for it, it's a chore, a bore, a snore, and just plain bad. At right around three hours, it's not nearly long enough to cover the entire Old Testament, and concentrates instead on teh Garden of Eden, the story of Cain and Abel, Noah and the Ark, and the trials of Abraham. No King David for me. No big Biblical battles. I guess we do get Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, and the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it's not enough. The Bible seems obsessed with the most boring stretches of its source material, recounted in the most horribly dull or laughable fashion possible. Whole swaths of film are shot without dialogue, with only John Huston reading from the Bible and bad Italian actors gesticulate wildly. It immediately makes the whole film feel cheap, like one of those Larry Buchanan quickies he used to shoot without synch sound so he could save money. This is particularly painful for the story of Cain and Abel, itself a great tale of the first murder and, perhaps, even the imperfection of God himself. Of course, nothing of that nature will be read into this version, which is simply Huston reading to us while two guys wave their arms at the camera until one of them hits the other with a jawbone. See here, I love Huston's voice. He had one of the great voices in the history of the world. And I'll always think of him as Gandalf thanks to those Rankin-Bass cartoons. As good as Ian McKellan is in the Peter Jackson movie, every time he speaks I automatically convert his voice into John "The Lawgiver" Huston's. I even always assumed God sounded like John Huston, so it's convenient that he voices God in this movie. But as much as I like the guy's voice, I don't necessarily want to listen to him read the Bible to me for three hours. But, of course, it all gets much worse. Much, much worse. Huston, who was as much an actor as he was director, appears as Noah in the film's most drawn-out and painful sequence. Someone decided that we couldn't just tell the story of Noah, not after we just watched some guy hit another guy with a jawbone. No, we have to give the world "wacky Noah!" Haw haw haw! Guffaw as he putters about and falls down to the accompaniment of Three Stooges sound effects and music, mere minutes before a wrathful God slaughters the whole of humanity with a violent flood. See! It's funny! I bet a monkey will grab his beard! And whimsical woodwind and string music will play as we watch ducks waddle up the ramp onto the Ark. As if to do penance for the Noah segment, the film trudges on with an even greater somberness as we watch the rise of man and the story of Abraham, another challenging and complicated Biblical tale. Abraham strikes many as a certifiable nutcase with his, "God told me to sacrifice my son" routine. It's supposed to be an uplifting story of one man's faith in The Lord, but the tale always creeped me out. Abraham comes across as some insane old man hearing voices that tell him to kill. Ont he other hand, it can also be seen as the moment God abolishes the practice of human sacrifice, thus being a good thing. Whatever the case, it's so utterly dry in this movie that no philosophical implications whatsoever are communicated beyond the puzzling question of, "How often can George C. Scott furrow and clutch at his brow?" Things threaten to pick up and become interesting when we get to Nimrod and to Sodom, but those are little more than asides really, and for the remainder of the film George C. Scott seems totally lifeless, falling into the trap that tangles up so many actors in Biblical epics. He's too afraid to act. The desire to be "reverent" to the story is so intense that it becomes tedium, boredom, anything and everything not worth watching. Charlton Heston - now there was a man who knew what to do with a Biblical character. Put him on a mountain and let the man bellow and over-act. That's what the story demands. The Old Testament is a lot of things, but subtle is rarely one of them. Biblical epics demand larger-than-life hamminess and scenery chewing. Yet George C. Scott, a man we know can overact with the best of them, practically sleepwalks through the role and, in an attempt to be "serious" about it, just makes it dull. Even in the end, when he has his son on a sacrificial altar and a knife above his head, his emotion is so listless, so false, that only the most easily moved of Christians could be touched by the scene, to say nothing of those of us who just wanted a good film. Scott's performance is indicative of the movie as a whole. It has no energy, no glory, no spirit. It has none of the guts and gusto of the Old Testament. And it gets worse still. The original rolls of film were apparently mishandled during shooting, and heat and other environmental factors wreaked havoc with them. The result was that huge chunks of the film are washed out, discolored, flicker, or are just plain too dark to see. The damage to the film was devastating, and it made what was already an intolerably dull film even worse. You weren't even afforded the simple pleasure of colorful spectacle and nice scenery. It's as if the film itself became a heavy-handed punishment sent down from God. "Watch this boring movie about my Creation." I know self-denial is a big part of religion, but come on! All I want is something, anything, in this movie to like. Is that so much to ask, O Lord? Mind you, I went into this film determined to like it. I'd already read plenty of bad things before I saw it, but I also read lots of bad things about other movies I ended up liking. I held out hope, had faith in Huston and in the stories he could tell from The Bible. My faith was unrewarded. After three-hours of mind-numbing dreariness, I found myself hard-pressed to say anything positive about the movie. "It was kind of a chore" is about the best I can come up with. The pacing is terrible. The acting is beyond terrible, and from people we know can deliver knockout performances. Even Huston's direction is plodding and uninspired. Genesis takes forever -- it seems to run the actual full six days it took God to create the universe -- and Noah's sequence is simply one of the worst things I've ever had to watch. Have they no self-respect? Nimrod and Sodom are maybe worth skipping ahead to, but that's it. And here I come to the big problem to which I alluded in the beginning (get it? In the beginning? Heh...well, it was funnier than Noah's antics, anyway): The Bible is simply too big to fit into a single movie. Even half the Old Testament is too big. Each figure can pretty much do with their own movie. To try and compress it all, then to utterly drain the life from it, is just a train wreck of a movie waiting to happen. I wanted epic stories and epic struggles and acting of the caliber of Hestona nd Yul Brynner doing a Biblical story proper. The words "A Dino De Laurentiis Production" don't help matters. Man, who ever thought that The Bible would become a Dino De Laurentiis production? The man who would later give us Barbarella and Conan? Bringing The Bible to life? What a world. Well, I guess you can hardly say he brings it to life, considering the quality of acting and storytelling on display. I think Dino's problem is that his knack is making big budget versions of small-budget ideas. I love both Conan the Barbarian and Barbarella, but they're both B-movies that got A-movie funding. It seems that when De Laurentiis has A-movie material for his A-movie budget, he just can't make the thing happen. Or maybe he was just thrown off by the lack of barbarians and Jane Fonda doing a zero gravity striptease. Dino should have taken his money and just made versions of various Bible stories instead of trying to tackle so much in one go. Preferably Biblical stories with Flash Gordon art design. Now that would be something. The Bible...In the Beginning isn't going to convert anyone, not to Christianity and not to thinking it's a good movie. The whole thing is embarrassingly shoddy, doubly so given the talent involved. De Laurentiis producing meant the film used a lot of Italian actors, and the language gap is probably another reason so much of the film skips out on dialogue, further adding to the threadbare and cheap feeling. As lame as it may be for me say it, The Bible is a disaster of Biblical proportions. Labels: Director: John Huston, Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 1966 posted by Keith at 2:52 PM | 0 Comments Fritz Lang's Indian Epic
THE TIGER OF ESCHNAPUR & THE INDIAN TOMB: 1959, Germany. Starring Debra Paget, Paul Hubschmid, Walter Reyer, Claus Holm, Luciana Paluzzi, Valéry Inkijinoff, Sabine Bethmann, René Deltgen, Jochen Brockmann, Richard Lauffen, Jochen Blume. Directed by Fritz Lang. Buy it from Amazon
Yeah, I know we've maybe been laying on the Hammer horror films a bit thick lately, but it's only because we love them. But let's take a break and dive into something a little different. Now, as you have perhaps gathered if you've been with us since the beginning of this viewing blog (did I just call it a blog?), I love a good epic. I also tend to love bad epics, and epics that fall somewhere in between. Basically, as long as it contains people in tunics stabbing each other and racing chariots or simply parading across vast open landscapes accompanied by sweeping music, I'm probably going to be at least somewhat satisfied with the results. Generally, when one thinks of an epic, one thinks of Hollywood and their gloriously overblown historical productions of the 1960s. Those were good times, full of men in Roman armor, men proclaiming things from atop mountains, and lavishly choreographed scenes of scantily clad dancing girls. Hollywood has attempted a return to the epic, though with less vibrant color and no dancing girls, which is a big mistake if you ask me. And in recent years, China has made some headway when it comes to being considered a force for epics, with films like Emperor and the Assassin, Hero, and Warriors of Heaven and Earth matching the best Hollywood has to offer.
But when one thinks of the golden age of the epic, one might forget that other countries got in on the game as well. Germany, for instance. And it is from Germany that we get the sweeping two-part film known collectively as "Fritz Lang's Indian Epic." Lang's name should be familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in film, though it's almost always solely in connection with the silent era sci-fi masterpiece Metropolis. A fine film, but hardly his only contribution to the medium. Lang had tons of films to his name, very few of which beyond perhaps M and some of his American noirs ever get mentioned. Lang left his native Germany in protest and for a long time worked in America. Upon his return to his home and to German film making, his films became increasingly obscure in America. His first film after his return to German, a lavish, color-saturated epic set in India, was thought all but lost. Originally divided into two films -- The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb -- Lang's movie played in America only in a severely edited form courtesy of AIP that combined the two films into one incomprehensible mess called Journey to the Lost City. Lang's original version was thought lost to time until very recently, when a complete print of both films was discovered.
The adventure begins in The Tiger of Eschnapur, in which we meet intrepid German architect Harold Berger (Paul Hubschmid), newly arrived in India to undertake the building of a temple for Maharahaja Chandra (Walter Reyer). En route to the palace, he encounters a gorgeous half-breed dancer named Seetha (Debra Paget) who had an Irish mother and Indian father. When Harold faces down a man-eating tiger with the help of a little gift of the gods we call fire, he becomes a local hero and close friends with Chandra. This being an epic, it's obvious from the get-go that the woman will come between the two men, that they will have a falling out, and much running about will ensue. Sure enough, it happens. Seetha performs her alluring ritual dance, and all I can say is any religion that features as its holiest rite a mostly naked bombshell seductively dancing around and writing about the statue of their big-bosomed God can consider me a convert. I went briefly to a Methodist church as a kid, and I recall no such ritual. We just had to hear about bake sells. Well maybe I would have gone to the bake sell if the pastor had said, "And by the way, the local raven-haired beauty will strip down to a sparkling bikini and perform an undulating dance for the glory of God and Mrs. Miller's famous Brown Betty." The dance is more than enough to snare the love of Chandra and Harold, who was forbidden to watch the dance but did it anyway. Scheming palace ne'er-do-wells see this as an opportunity to turn Chandra against his friend, and against Seetha, and eventually discredit him enough so that they can seize control. Harold is forced to fight a tiger in a secret arena, and is later banished to the desert. When he takes Seetha with her, Chandra swears revenge. Another set of German architects, one of whom is Harold's lovely sister, arrive just in time to be told they're now going to be building a tomb. Harold and Seetha are chased into the desert, collapse, and...
Hey! It was conceived to be a big-budget, color version of the old serials, kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark decades later, but since it was made by Germans, without scenes of Nazis with exploding heads. The Tiger of Eschnapur ends on a cliffhanger, and since like those Lord of the Rings movies this is really one long movie split into separate films, The Indian Tomb picks up immediately where the action left off as Seetha and Harold are rescued from certain death and Harold's sister becomes increasingly suspicious that Chandra isn't telling her the truth about her brother's absence. Eventually, after hiding out in a cave for a while, Harold and Seetha are recaptured by Chandra's men, and the final confrontation draws nigh as the two former friends face off and Chandra faces the treachery of his devious advisers. Seetha performs another dance, even longer, sexier, and with even fewer clothes as she is forced to charm a snake or die by its bite. Really, you know, Seetha's two dance scenes are just about the greatest scenes filmed in the entire 1950s and most of the 1960s. Though she lacks the large number of backing dancers that got involved in other epic dancing girl numbers, what she does on screen will simply make your jaw drop, man or woman. It's a bit surprising that they could get away with skirting this close to nudity in the 1950s, but I guess, you know, Germany. They're weird over there. Still, it's not just the flesh; it's what you do with it, and Debra Paget knows exactly what to do with it. If there is a sexier scene fifteen years before or after, I've yet to see it. But umm, where was I? There is more to these movies than Paget's dancing, though that will probably be the most memorable part. Working in color for one of his first times, Lang holds nothing back. India is possibly the most colorful country in the world anyway, and Lang brings that to the screen by bathing every scene in a super-saturated, hyper-vivid candy coating. Bava and Argento could only hope to soak their films in this much color. I sure do miss the days when not every film had to be shot in washed out blue and muted yellow-brown. Both The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb drip with color and are among the most gorgeous films ever shot. Lang handles every scene, every frame, like a painting, and leaves no detail unattended. These films are, in every sense of the word and then some, opulent. Set decoration and costuming is no less flamboyant. I can't comment exactly on how totally historically accurate everything is, but it sure is pretty to look at. Some of the sets, particularly those underground in the secret caves and catacombs, border on surreal and hearken back to the days of silent-era expressionism Lang himself helped pioneer.
What's really remarkable is that Lang seems to fill the screen with so much, yet his sets are generally wide open and rather sparsely decorated. It's how he shoots it, and how he uses color, lighting, and shadow as a prop, that fills in the air. Not everything is perfect -- tiger attack scenes do have a tendency to feature a rather unconvincing fake tiger or man in a tiger suit, but who really cares? Watching this giant two-part epic is like having the best and most exotic of Les Baxter albums acted out in your living room. It's not so much the realism that we're craving; it's grand spectacle, and Lang delivers this in spades. Plotwise, Lang takes the age-old story of two men torn asunder by love of a woman and molds a perfect epic around it, full of all the sweeping social upheaval and revolution one expects from such a film. Though neither film features one of those "cast of thousands" battle scenes, there is still a cast of thousands on hand to make everything huge. And he throws everything in on top of the central love triangle. Tiger attacks, tiger hunts, fist fights, knife fights, sword fights, secret catacombs, secret doors, lusty dancing, elephants (but not lusty dancing elephants), sandstorms, assassins, intrigue, even an eerie underground leper colony. I mean, there's not much that the two films don't throw into the mix. At the end of day, they want nothing more than to be rollicking, old-fashioned adventure movies, and thanks to Lang for pulling it off on a grand and grandly enjoyable scale.
The sticking point for many people is going to be the fact that most of the actors are Germans or Germans in brownface. Well, why should they be any different than any other country? Around the same time, America was pasting fake eyelids onto Caucasians and calling them Chinese. And why be any more phased by the fact that all these Indians speak fluent German than you would by the same Indians speaking fluent English, albeit with the inevitable British accent everyone affects for historical epics? I think Lang's use of German actors in Indian roles is far more excusable than the same American practice. Although hearing them speak German reminds you how silly it is to impose our language on a people then find it funny when someone else does the same, the fact is that no one in Germany probably wanted to sit through a German movie acted out almost entirely in Hindi or Tamil. And frankly, Chinese American actors with good English weren't that hard to find in the 1950s, but we still didn't use them. Conversely, I bet that Indian actors fluent in German weren't exactly overflowing in the streets of Berlin.
In the end, what counts is that it doesn't much matter because each of the Germans in Indianface go about their task with such respect, and in such earnestness, that you quickly forget about both the face paint and the language. It doesn't take long before you forget that Chandra is being played by a guy named Walter and just start thinking of him as Chandra. That's what happens when actors are so committed to a role and invest their heart in it. The supporting cast is just as successful at making you forget they aren't really Indian. As for the non-Indians who are really supposed to be non-Indian, they acquit themselves fantastically as well. Paul Hubschmid is brilliant as Harold the two-fisted adventuring architect - an occupation that is probably symptomatic of Fritz Lang's own fascination with architects and draughtsmen and men who use compasses and protractors. Hey, a fightin' architect is no less a stretch than all those know-it-all fightin' scientists from sci-fi films. Our supporting Germans, Claus Holm and Sabine Bethmann, are fine too, though they really have very little to do than stumble around slack-jawed as the palace intrigue slowly reveals itself to them. Bethmann is a world-class beauty, but since she keeps her clothes on and never once wriggles about in the giant hand of a naked goddess statue, she's easier to overlook than Debra Paget's Seetha. Paget's acting job must be judges solely by her expressions and movements. In both the German language original and English track, she was dubbed by a different actress. Never the less, her performance is captivating, and her dancing - well, we've covered that, though I don't think one could ever overstate how glorious it is. It's pretty obvious that I love this German Indian epic. Boasting sweeping Indian locations, sumptuous sets, fine performances, and imaginative direction, they're some of my favorite epics of all time. Lang nails the feel of old serial adventures in exotic lands perfectly, only bigger, more beautiful, and more breathtaking. It's the kind of filmmaking that makes you glad to be a film fan; the kind of storytelling that makes you want to jump up and cheer. So, bravo! Labels: Bollywood, Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 1959 posted by Keith at 2:42 PM | 1 Comments Sunday, August 01, 2004300 Spartans
1962, United States. Starring Richard Egan, Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, Barry Coe, David Farrar, Donald Houston, Anna Synodinou, Kieron Moore, John Crawford, Robert Brown, Laurence Naismith, Anne Wakefield, Ivan Triesault, Charles Fawcett, Michalis Nikolinakos. Directed by Rudolph Mate. Buy it from Amazon
Ahh, the big historical epic. I can't get enough of 'em. Line up a bunch of guys in clothing people stopped wearing a couple thousand years ago, and I'm a happy lad. And wouldn't you know it, two of my favorite ancient world tales are the story of Alexander the Great, soon to be a major motion picture I sure hope doesn't stink, and the tale of the small garrison of three-hundred Spartan soldiers who held off a Persian army of nearly a million men and may very well have ended an entire war between Greece and the invading Persian Empire had they not been betrayed by a spy. I always wondered why such a great tale, so tailor-made for the heroic epic treatment had never been made. And then I discovered it had been made, and I was just an idiot. Anyway, in an attempt to make up for my cinematic ignorance, allow to lay upon ye a little bit of history. Frankly, I expect you to already know this. It is world history, after all, and you should have studied that. I've said it time and again and shall continue to repeat it until someone opens a book, Teleport City is a big fan of history, of knowledge and of knowin' stuff. There is no excuse for not brushing up on a few basic facts about the history of the world in which you dwell, and while Teleport City is no match for a good history book, a learned professor, or the song "Alexander the Great" by Iron Maiden, we'll do our part for the cause and teach you a little about something. See, it all started back around 499 B.C. The Persian Empire was having some serious trouble with their territories along the Greek coast. The city-state of Miletus lead a revolt against the Persian conquerors, but their hope that the famously fierce Sparta would come to their aid did not come to fruition. Sparta was having enough trouble just keeping its serfs from revolting and didn't have time to go helping other cats in a revolt of their own. The rebel city-states did find aid from Athens, however. A victory in the provincial capitol of Sardis encouraged other conquered Greek cities to rise up as well, and before they knew it, Persia was looking at a good chunk of its empire suddenly breaking away. The key to sustaining the empire was in whuppin' the Greek mainland, specifically, in whuppin' Athens. Sparta was a major threat as well, but their hesitance to travel very far out of their own territory meant Athens was in the bullseye. Unfortunately, there seems to be a historical rule that goes something to the effect of the larger the army, the less effective they are. Look at Russia during World War One. Everyone figured they would steamroll over Germany and end the war in a month. In fact, their millions upon millions of men were sadly trained, poorly equipped, and routinely thrashed by better disciplined, better commanded, and better outfitted German armies of a much smaller size, and you can bet each one of those German armies, upon facing that massive wave of Russians, was getting a speech from some commander about the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae.
The Greeks launched a surprise offensive against the Persians and scored a major victory. This defeat was compounded by the death of Persian King Darius (his descendant would have his hands full with yet another Greek, round about 334 B.C.) and a similar revolt in the Persian territory of Egypt, who would also have their hands full with that other Greek guy a few decades later. That's why they have the city of Alexandria, after all. Xerxes ascended to the throne of Persia and soon relaunched the campaign against the Greeks. And this is where, in 481 B.C., the film picks up the action, covering the meeting in Athens of the Greek city-states to form the League of Hellenes, lead by warrior-state Sparta, to repel the Persian invaders. In 480 B.C., the Persian fleet arrived, and the war was on. Well, sort of. Sparta, apart from being one of the fiercest warrior societies in the entire world, was also a deeply religious and superstitious city-state. And unluckily for the rest of Greece, the Persians had scheduled their invasion at a very inconvenient time, as the greatest warriors in Greece refused to fight until after an upcoming religious festival. Not very good form for the leaders of Greece and for the League of Hellenes, which most of the city-states joined only because they believed undefeatable Sparta would be leading them into combat.
Apparently the king of Sparta, Leonidas, felt the same way. He led a small army of 300 - his personal guard, basically - to join Athens and the rest of Greece in the battle, with the promise that the greater portion of the Spartan army would be allowed to leave as soon as the religious council said it was okay. The Spartans took up a position in the Pass of Thermopylae, a narrow mountain way that the Persians had to travel through and that would render their massive numbers a deadly hindrance while the Spartans, hopelessly outnumbered, would be able to sprint about and rather easily beat thousands upon thousands of their enemies. 300 Spartans picks up the story at the council in Athens and spends some time introducing us to a few characters who will have more to do than run at each other with spears. Richard Egan stars as Leonidas, the lion of Sparta, the king willing to die alongside his men while the Athenian king said that was okay, he'd stay in Athens and set his spear against the charge. We get some very brief glances at his relationship with his wife, Gorgo (not the monster that terrorized the British Isles, but Anna Synodinou) and a relationship between a disgraced Spartan warrior and a young farm woman, but really the story here is derived almost entirely from the detailed, more or less historically accurate, depiction of the clash between the Spartans and the Persians.
The battle scenes are suitably huge in that "cast of thousands" way that was so exciting before the advent of CGI and computer-rendered battle scenes. The choreography of the fights isn't like what people are used to today, where everything looks very slick, fast, and cool. This looks more like what might happen if a lot of guys in tunics started poking spears at one another. It's chaotic and confused but still breathtaking thanks to the sheer scope of the spectacle on display. The film strives for historical accuracy almost to a fault. If you don't have a passion for history and for Greek (or Persian) history in general, then this film could seem a little draggy in spots, I suppose. It adheres tot he historic accounts almost tot he point of becoming a docudrama. Boredom never occurred to me, though, and I found the whole thing a thoroughly rousing adventure. Still, there are reasons this film is less well known than its brethren like Ben-Hur and Spartacus. In fact, it's the attention to historical detail (minus paying attention to the fact that Spartan warriors often launched into battle wearing their trademark red cloaks, armor, helmets, and shields but often left the...umm, other sword, dangling free and open. I think you can figure out which one I'm taking about. Someone must have figured pants just got in the way, but as for me, that's the one place I'd probably want a little extra armor) that keeps this film in the lower tier of 1960s epics. Being a military history, it allows for very little character development. Most of the acting rests upon the shoulders of Egan as Leonidas and David Farrar as Xerxes. Farrar gets to villain it up good and chew a little scenery as he reclines in his tent surrounded by his beautiful mistress and, as was required in every sword and sandal epic ever made, a harem of dancing girls. He's over the top, but that fits in a film of this scale. Egan, on the other hand, is given less with which to work. His job is mostly to wear armor and be steady of voice. You hardly even notice when he dies (oh come on, that can't be a spoiler! The story's over two-thousand years old!). Some of the dialogue is over-ripe. You could hear Heston or Douglas pulling it off because they projected such booming, larger-than-life characters, but Egan comes across as just a regular Joe more than the leader of an army comprised of the best warriors the world had ever seen. He needed to be more over-the-top, to bellow more, to posture and be the hero. Instead, he seems like a guy you might actually meet, and the overwrought epic dialogue sounds wooden and, at times, just a tad silly. But no worries. The history of the event is more than enough to carry the film, and any sub-plots are throwaway afterthoughts that get lost amid the grandiose scale of the battle. And some of the lines are actually quite good, my favorite being when a Persian general informs Leonidas that "Our arrows will blot out the sun," to which Leonidas simply replies, "Good. Then we will fight in the shade." The scope cinematography is also beautiful, taking full advantage of the sweeping Greek locations.
Costumes and other details seem decently accurate, excepting if you will the whole "naked Spartan warrior" thing. Needless to say, this being a big 1960s epic, they don't feel particularly compelled to delve into the bisexual nature of most Greek warriors, but frankly, I couldn't care less who's gay, bi, straight, or whatever. The love subplots here take up hardly any time, and that's because we didn't come here to see some intense study of Greek sexuality; We came here to see 300 Spartans kick some ass and make grand speeches as they survey the insurmountable odds before them. So even if you don't know the history - and shame on you if you don't - you can probably figure out what happens. The narrow mountain pass is the Spartans' greatest weapon, and the Persian army finds themselves bottlenecking, unable to maneuver, and crippled by their own size. Every Persian attempt to defeat the Spartans is met by crippling defeat that threatens to throw the entire army into mutiny. It is only when a Greek traitor alerts the Persians to a secret trail that they are able to beat the small army they outnumber 3300 to one. The Spartans are killed and the Persians pour into Greece only to find that while they were stuck in Thermopylae, the Athenians had been building a mighty armada of ships. The two navies would clash in the Battle of Salamis, a decisive battle that would end the war and send the Persian empire into a tailspin from which they'd not even have time to recover before Alexander the Great came knocking on their door. The tale of the 300 Spartans (and let's not forget that some Thespians and Thebians stayed behind as well), then, became one of the greatest legends of inspiration ever told, and even if it has some clunky dialogue and stiff acting, it's more than enough story to make for a damn enjoyable film. It's not as historically important as the actual event, but it's still a lot of fun. Incidentally, I would imagine "fun" is not a way anyone would have described the actual event. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary posted by Keith at 5:33 PM | 2 Comments Sunday, July 25, 2004Macbeth
1971, United States/Britain. Starring Jon Finch, Francesca Annis, Martin Shaw, Terence Bayler, John Stride, Nicholas Selby, Stephen Chase, Paul Shelley, Maisie MacFarquhar, Elsie Taylor, Noelle Rimmington. Directed by Roman Polanski. Buy it from Amazon
So this is what a Playboy-produced film used to look like. You know, back before they modeled themselves after their brainless FHM style spawns and were still at the very least attempting to inject some cutting edge material in between the shots of naked women with badly feathered 1970s hair. I know the joke is old and tired, but you know there used to even be something worth reading in that magazine. Not so much these days, from what I can tell. I have many vices, but Playboy ceased to be one of them round about the time it forsook that dapper jet-set lifestyle and became just another frat boy publication. And Playboy films? Don't even get me started. Yeah, I've seen one or two. They're awful, brainless, completely uninteresting erotic thrillers full of silicone-swollen blondes, inane plots, and no artistic value whatsoever, which I know seems like a silly criticism to level at Playboy films until you consider for a moment that there, for a brief spell in the 1970s, Hugh Hefner decided to throw the Playboy name and money at Roman Polanski's stylish, intelligent, and brutally grim adaptation of Shakespeare second bloodiest play. So what's happened? Well, the death of any desire to better ourselves, for the most part. We'd rather wallow in the lowest common denominator, and those who supply us with our swill see no reason to challenge a population that doesn't want to be challenged. So Playboy becomes Maxim with pubic hair shots and Playboy films become chintzy erotic thrillers. So let's pretend, as we so often do here, that the present never happened. I have no idea what moved Playboy to finance Polanski's dark vision of Shakespeare, but we're all the better for their temporary foray into the world of gory arthouse cinema. Macbeth is a dazzling film, one of the best in the filmography of a director who seems to have an inordinate number of high points in his cinematic career, even if his personal life has been somewhat, shall we say, more questionable. This particular film comes fast on the heels of Polanski's then-wife Sharon Tate being murdered by that crazed bunch of hippies calling themselves the Manson family. I think we've mentioned this somewhere before. Oh yeah, most likely in our review of Wrecking Crew the Dean Martin spy caper that starred Sharon Tate. If you don't know the basics of the story, get yourself to a library (they still have those, right?) and look up the facts. All-around madcap guy Charles Manson sends a bunch of his freaks out to commit some murder, and it would seem when you string everything together, that they got the wrong people. That's what happens when you send a bunch of blessed-out hippies to do your murderin'. Manson's grudge was against music producer Terry Melcher, who aside from being the son of Doris Day, was a music producer who had rejected a bunch of demo recordings Manson sent out to him when Chuck was trying to become a musician. The house in which Sharon Tate and other party guests were attacked by Manson's band of loonies had belonged to him up until just a few months prior, so the general idea is that Manson was looking for some artistic revenge and just didn't know the guy had moved. So it's pretty obvious that when Roman Polanski started working on Macbeth a short time after his wife's murder, he wasn't in the best of moods. It certainly shows in the final product, a film so relentlessly grim, bleak, and full of corruption and evil that it almost crushes the viewer with its gloomy weight. Even Shakespeare's original play, itself already a macabre and darkly violent tale, pales in comparison to the ferocity of Polanski's version. Beneath the grimy, enraged exterior lurks what may be the director's best film, however, a movie of shocking brilliance and beauty despite the ugliness on parade. Polanski sticks closely to the source material, or closer than is usual for an adaptation of a Shakespearean play. Jon Finch stars as Macbeth, the Scottish warrior who receives a telling prediction about his future as ruler of the land and so is driven into an increasingly violent cycle of madness as his own ambitions result in a self-fulfilling prophecy he does not even understand until it is far too late. Really, you should have read the thing by now. I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Shakespeare, but the man did pen some wonderful tales and Macbeth is one of his best. If you haven't read it, then all I have to say is, "How the heck did you graduate from high school?" Teleport City is a firm supporter of literature and the classics, just as we are a supporter of the classics of film. So get thee to the bookstore and pick up a copy, and get A Midsummer Night's Dream and Titus Andronicus while you're there. The latter isn't exactly good, but you'll simply revel in what has to be one of the most shockingly violent and over-indulgent plays of its time. When he encounters a group of witches one fine, rain-soaked and overcast Scottish day, Macbeth is told he will become king. When predictions start coming true, Macbeth is encouraged by his equally ambitious wife (Francesca Annis) to help fate along a bit by murdering the current king of Scotland, Duncan. One murder becomes several as Macbeth attempts to use bloodshed to control the increasingly out-of-control spiral into madness that consumes both him and his wife. Before too long, his own madness results in a revolt being mounted by the rightful heir to the throne and Macbeth's one-time friend MacDuff (Terence Bayler). But since the coven of witches ensure Macbeth that no man born of a woman can harm him, he remains as cocky as he is stark raving mad even as armies amass outside his castle walls. Cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare are often tricky. People tend to either want to "adapt it to modern times" a la the ten billion or so adaptations of Romeo and Juliet, or they stick so slavishly to the play that they might as well just have made a play instead of a film. Polanski was one of the first directors to really find that balance between play and film (Franco Zeffirelli had accomplished much the same thing in 1968 with his wonderful true-to-the-source adaptation of Romeo and Juliet). He sticks to the proper setting and costumes, and the dialogue is from the play. But he also makes terrific use of the scope format, only his second time working with a widescreen presentation. The windswept, overcast landscapes are suitably gloomy and overwhelming. The bubble with mist and menace and almost become a character unto themselves. Desolate beaches, muddy moors, decaying castles - the Dark Ages never quite looked so dark. But just as Polanski is really sinking into all this bleakness, he'll do something unexpected with a vibrant splash of color and a rich purple-orange sunset which, combined with the medieval-meets-experimental music of the Third Ear Band, lends the film the surreal, macabre atmosphere that is imperative to its success. But hey, we're not talking Roger Vadim here, who was all visual and nothing else. Polanski not only commands the visual composition of his film; he turns in a superb script and some incredible performances from his cast, lead most notably by Jon Finch as Macbeth. He allows his character to teeter on then plunge into madness without ever allowing him to go over the top or chew the scenery. His performance lacks any sense of the cartoony or ham-fisted. He is, instead, desperate, lusty, and increasingly frantic and detached from reality. Matching him step for step is Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth, and the supporting cast though sometimes difficult to keep track of (owing to the armor, bushy hair, and dirt all over everyone) is wonderful. But then, they've given a near flawless script with which to work, one that manages to deliver pure Shakespeare without sounding stilted or phony. Even the more flowery passages of prose that they have to deliver sound completely natural. And viewed within the context of the year in which it was made, Macbeth's reoccurring criticism of the corruption of political power, of cover-ups and deceit and the suffering of the people so a few bigwigs can extend their overlong period of political power, seem especially potent. 1971 was, after all, the year Watergate broke, and the violent, almost apocalyptic turn the so-called Summer of Love took must have also influenced Polanski's approach to the film just as it was reflected on a microcosmic scale by Manson's murderous hippies. Luckily, our politicians these days are much more forthcoming and open and honest, and so I'm sure the biting and angry political commentary of Macbeth is outdated and even quaint. Umm, right? Sets and costumes are also wonderful. Perhaps someone more informed about such things could point at a particular piece of armor and scoff at the fact that a Scottish king of this particular era would never have worn that particular breastplate, but for my money, everything was absolutely stunning. The castles and landscapes are as gorgeous as they are monstrous, and Polanski's attention to detail is admirable. Nnote, for example, the opening scene of the witches on the beach. As they walk away, they leave no footprints. It's almost something you don't notice, but is ultimately another fine example of the amount of work Polanksi and his crew put into creating this sinister and supernatural nightmare. And, to be frank, one can't help but see shades of Macbeth's look and feel in 1975's Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It was there, however, used for creating a slightly less intense and dark atmosphere. Just, you know, slightly. Being Macbeth and all, it's a fairly violent affair. There's a fair amount of gore on display, and for once, no one can trot out that "tame by today's standards," especially given how bloodless so many modern films have become, addicted as they are to flashy MTV visuals and cartoon style violence and CGI trickery. Macbeth's bloodshed packs an impact even today, and although influenced not just by the play but also by Polanski's own foul mood, this level of violence was just part of a greater pushing of the envelope for both sex and violence in a mainstream, intelligent film that occurred in 1971. It was the same year we saw the release of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, among others. Macbeth isn't exactly full of violent conflict, but violence remains a character constantly onscreen even when it isn't overtly exerting itself. There are, as in the play, several gruesome murders and Polanski's lens does not flinch in showing the deeds. It must have been almost cathartic for the man in a way. And the ghastly finale as Macbeth and Macduff hack mercilessly away at one another (but then, is there a merciful way to hack away at someone?) culminates in some truly grisly stuff, but you have to expect that in both the play and this movie. Sexually speaking, Polanski's film is quite tame. Perhaps having Playboy and Hugh Hefner as executive producer required him to inject some naked female flesh into the proceedings, but given the way in which he accomplishes this possible contractual obligation, those looking for cheap titillation will be confounded. Of the film's two nude scenes, one involves a coven of dirty, aged, and often deformed witch hags. The other involves a nude sleepwalking/dream scene with Lady Macbeth, who for the most part remains artfully cloaked in her own long hair. Then, I guess the nudity wasn't all that out of the ordinary. Zeffirelli had shown rear nudity in Romeo and Juliet much to the delight of me and my entire 8th grade English class when our teacher showed us the film and forgot about the nudity. Of course, nowadays that would be national news and various blowhards would have "Talking Points" soundbites about it. Back then, it was just sort of, well, it's a well-respected film and work of art so who cares about a bare bum? I think of things like this any time people trot out that "tame by modern standards" nonsense, since we're far more restrictive and timid now than we were in the 1970s and even 1980s. From what I've read, some English classes also watched Macbeth in school, and that must have really traumatized the kids, more because of the violence than the sight of a bunch of naked old women. Maybe this movie is why Playboy decided from now on they'd stick to thrilling films like, The Girls of Spring Break, 2002. Macbeth was a box office failure upon its initial release, but subsequent audiences have revisited the film and found it to be, as I found it to be, a breathtaking masterpiece. Polanski's career as a director cuts across several genres, and here in a single film seems to be his entire career. Macbeth is an historical drama, an action film, an art film, and a horror film, and it is all these things without seeming schizophrenic or disjointed. Thank the original author for part of that phenomenon, but thank Polanski for knowing how to stitch it all together so seamlessly. Macbeth is a play that deserves to be read (or better yet, see performed), but in my admittedly skewed opinion, even more so it is a movie you absolutely must view. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 1971 posted by Keith at 11:26 PM | 0 Comments Tuesday, July 06, 2004Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
United States, 2003. Starring Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, James D'Arcy, Edward Woodall, Chris Larkin, Max Pirkis, Jack Randall, Max Benitz, Lee Ingleby, Richard Pates, Robert Pugh, Richard McCabe, Ian Mercer, Tony Dolan, David Threlfall. Directed by Peter Weir. Available on DVD from Amazon.
Again, though Teleport City is best known (if indeed it is known at all) for scouring the globe for obscure madness or films that have simply been ignored by large swathes of the world's population, that doesn't mean we don't like a big film every now and then. Master and Commander is without a doubt one of my favorites. Russell Crowe once again brings the big screen a macho, swaggering old-fashioned hero who tempers his bravado with a sense of dignity, intelligence, and philosophy. Can anyone out there do this better than Crowe these days? Not that I've seen, and it's made all the sweeter by the fact that, by all accounts, Crowe is a boorish lout. I like him all the more for it, and I think perhaps some of the stories about him are blown out of proportion simply because the Hollywood elite is insulted by the fact that he couldn't give a rat's ass about them or see why he should treat them with reverence. He's a prick, it seems, and even if everything is true, I still admire a man whose basic reaction to fellow celebrities is to belch and say, "Fuck off." This time around, Crowe is Captain - or Cap'n if you prefer - Jack Aubrey, commander of the ship of the line HMS Surprise in grand ol' 1805. I'm not at all familiar with the books upon which the movie is based (though I plan on becoming so), so I'll leave any comparisons between the two to people with some credibility in that field. I believe the major change between the novel and the movie is that in the book our heroic British crew is chasing after an American privateer, where as in the movie it's a French vessel they're after. As an amateur historian, I quite like the fact that this movie got us cheering for the Brits, when in fact they would have been villains to the Americans of the time, sitting as we were on the verge of the War of 1812, which flared up in large part because British naval vessels like the HMS Surprise were wreaking havoc with American shipping. But heck, that was a long time ago, and we all get along pretty well now, so let's let it slide. As you should have gathered from that idiotic last paragraph, Cap'n Jack is taking his ship out in pursuit of a French ship called the Acheron. The French boat is bigger, faster, and better equipped, but the Surprise has a secret weapon: Russell Crowe's ability to climb up into the rigging and strike heroic, manly poses as his ship rockets across the wide open seas. His bold posing will lead the crew down the coast of South America, around the Cape, and into the Pacific in pursuit of the dastardly Napoleonic ship.
That's about it for plot. More of a situation really, but this is not a plot-driven film. Certainly it is an exuberant, swashbuckling sea adventure, but it is carried by personality rather than nonstop action (the action actually stops quite frequently) told with well-crafted intelligence. It is primarily equal parts character drama and historical examination. Where as Gladiator uses history as little more than a rack upon which to hang it's fictional drama, Master and Commander goes to great lengths to accurately recreate the realities of British navy life at the turn of that particular century. Almost the entire film is contained within the bows of the ship, making it in a way a slightly larger version of the film that kicked this journal off, Aguirre, The Wrath of God, only without all the insanity. At the focal point of the story are our two main characters. Three, actually. Captain Jack Aubrey, ship's doctor Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany, one of the coolest actors in Britain), and young midshipman Blakeney (Max Pirkis). Together, they form a philosophical triangle. Aubrey is the career military man motivated by his love for king, country, and a wild day at sea. Maturin is the humanist; a man who fulfills his duties admirably as ship's doctor but sees a larger world than is defined by patriotism and the glory of battle. For him, the expansion of empire is less about military dominance and more about increasing the understanding of the world. Situated between the two is Blakeney. He is mesmerized by the firm but fair captain and admires the man's brilliance in battle. At the same time, he is equally enthralled by the world of the naturalist and of science as represented by Maturin. Both men want to guide him down their own path.
Although Stephen and Aubrey are opposites, neither man is a black and white caricature. The captain, for all his seafaring bravado, is also a man of culture. An enlightened warrior, if you will. And the doctor, despite his streak of compassion and humanism, isn't afraid or unwilling to whip out the pistol and sword and do some ass kicking when the time comes. Both men are friends, have been for quite some time, despite their differences. From what I understand of the books, they are equal characters, and Stephen has a particularly complex background as an anti-British Irish freedom fighter who joins the Royal Navy because he considers Napoleonic tyranny an even greater evil (a character revelation that makes the whimsical "lesser of two weevils" scene in the movie all the more meaningful). The cinematic version of Maturin gets slighted to some degree, and none of this information regarding his background is divulged. At the same time, however, it is his story that provides most of the film's philosophy, and to a lesser degree the story of Blakeney. Crowe's Jack Aubrey is charismatic, energetic, even fun to be around, but he is also the character who changes the least throughout their journey. Aubrey begs comparison again to Aguirre, as both films are about obsessed captains in pursuit of a prize that seems out of their reach. The big difference, of course, is that Klaus Kinski's Aguirre was stark raving mad. Lucky Jack is obsessed, perhaps to a fault, but he's also a realist. He never loses touch with what's going on around him, and he never becomes abusive of his men (except for one scene where discipline calls for such behavior). For my movie-buying dollar, it's Crowe's best performance. He makes this captain someone you can admire, and it's easy to understand why his men are willing to follow him, as the title says, to the far side of the world. Would that Jeffery Hunter had this sort of charisma back when we watched King of Kings. You shouldn't find a British sea captain more charismatic and deserving of loyalty than, say, the Son of God.
As the doctor, Stephen Bettany has less to work with and a more difficult task. It's always easy to cheer for the gung-ho captain who climbs the rigging and does that "looking out across the horizon" pose. It's more difficult to get worked up about the guy with a walking stick who sets out to collect lizards on the Galapagos. But Bettany is one of the finest young actors working today, and he manages to make the doctor more than just an intellectual foil or irritating nag. Although not as strong a character as he is in the books, Bettany's Stephen Maturin is a man who is also easy to respect, and you can see why young Blakeney is entranced by the doctor's pursuit of the natural sciences. But this is no pansy, predictable sort of intellectual character, the ones who constantly bitch about everything. Maturin is, in his own way, every bit as tough as Aubrey, and just as the captain is no cannon-crazy buffoon, neither is the doctor a cowardly sniveler. When battle erupts, the doctor either goes about the grim business of sawing off arms and legs, or he picks up arms and joins the fray. When he is accidentally wounded, the man lies back and performs surgery on himself. Fleshing out the crew is a stock of standard characters that are no less compelling because of being standard. There's the cranky cook, the crazy old salt, the incompetent officer, and a hobbit. Yes, poor Billy Boyd, destined to forever inspire the reaction, "Hey, it's that hobbit!" We spend a lot of time with the crew, drinking grog and dancing to folk medleys when we're not loading cannons, making Popeye faces, and shouting at the French. The depictions of the crew are as historically accurate as everything else. Contrary to what was sometimes seen in movies, British sailors at the time were the most skilled in the world and took great pride in what they did. And many of them were barely into their teenage years, if that.
When battle scenes do come along, and part of what I like so much about this film is that they don't come that often, they are made to count. Sound plays a major role in the film, from the classical duets for violin and cello the doctor and captain play together to the creaking of the ships. And when the cannons begin to fire the sound is appropriately thunderous. Making old style naval battles exciting is not an easy task, as much of it is simply two ships sailing past one another and launching volleys of cannonballs across the way as sailors peek out of cannon doors and snarl at each other. Master and Commander is wise enough not to rely on the battles themselves, but rather stays in close to make the battles personal in much the same was as was done in Gladiator. Still, they are explosive and exciting, partially because you actually care about a lot of the people who are getting blown up. And I guess it's worth mentioning that there are no women at all. Well, there's one, who is on screen for a few seconds during a brief trading exchange with some locals. Other than that, this is a testosterone-fuelled film, but like Esquire, it's meant to show man at his best. Bravery, sacrifice, intellectual inquiry, philosophy, music - a far cry from what might be the first thing that pops into mind when you think of a manly movie. But then, it's not the men of old who are responsible for the modern man being such a simp. In today's climate, Master and Commander was something of a risky movie. A film that uses action scenes sparingly and relies instead on characters? A film that is comprised primarily of two adventurous men playing classical music and debating the meaning of duty and the purpose of exploration? Not exactly what modern audiences seem to want, but then, modern audiences make some awful movies into gigantic hits, so you can't trust modern audiences. Peter Weir has put together one of the best movies of recent years, something that dares to make action an exclamation point rather than the entire sentence and relies instead on two of the best actors around (not to mention some incredibly polished young actors) to create an exchange of ideas and dialogue that sustains the movie as it rounds the cape for a final showdown with the French. Master and Commander is, to be short about it, an uncommonly great film. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 2003 posted by Keith at 6:08 PM | 0 Comments Gladiator
United States, 2000. Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana, Ralf Moeller, Spencer Treat Clark, David Hemmings, Tommy Flanagan, Sven-Ole Thorsen. Directed by Ridley Scott. Available on DVD from Amazon.)
I'm still tinkering with the format for these viewing journals, trying to determine which way best suits my needs, and I think what I'm deciding on is that I'm not really going to worry about a set format. Whatever works best on any particular day is how things will be. Sometimes that means just a series of separate reviews, and other days it will mean something where a couple films all get mixed I together - or some combination of those two, and whatever else pops up along the way. It is, after all, a journal and not a dissertation. But enough of that uninteresting and largely unrelated stuff. We're here to watch some movies, right? So let's move on down, move on down, move on down the road to the next little pile of films coming to us through the miracle of the modern postal system. As I said just a few days ago when talking about King of Kings, and as I've no doubt said several times before in some place or other, I love big historical epics. For that matter, I love little historical epics. And big and little films that might not necessarily be considered epics. A good epic - and mind you, despite the budget and cast of CGI thousands, there have been precious few good epics in the past twenty years - has more to it than just a lot of money and eye candy thrown up on screen to dazzle. There has to be a thread of intelligence weaving its way through the grand proceedings, something emotional and human and philosophical. If you slap a bunch of people fighting each other and blowing stuff up on screen and forget to add some element of humanity, of intellectual discourse, then you've done nothing but make a big, dumb movie. The best epics have famous action sequences - the burning of Atlanta in Gone With the Wind, the chariot race in Ben Hur, the battles in the desert with the Turks from Lawrence of Arabia - but these action scenes are relatively few and far between and are remembered partly because they were so grand and sweeping in design, but also because surrounding them is a story worth remembering. At the heart of any good epic, no matter how vast the scope of its setting, is often the story of one or two human beings. A romance, a crisis of faith, a quest for redemption - these small, human elements are what make the grand epics worth rewatching decades later. Because these movies make an effort to engage you emotionally, they carry more weight than their fluffier counterparts. This is not to say they need be oppressively talky and weighed down by their own sense of importance. No, a good, rousing epic must figure a way to balance itself between emotion and plot and breathtaking action. They must, in every traditional sense of the word, be romantic. In our modern era of filmmaking, the trend has been toward bigger, louder action sequences and less and less characterization or thought. Thus we have the $200 million action blockbuster, but without any vestige of humanity these films are nothing more than a light confectionary, perhaps nice to look at for a hundred or so minutes but hardly warranting a second viewing in the future, and certainly they are not demanding of any manner of discussion beyond the very basics to match their simplistic approach to telling a story. We are not without hope, however. In the first half of the new millennium, there seems to be renewed interest in the art of epic filmmaking. There have been many failures and many more still will come, but there have also been a satisfying number of successes, films that have managed to do more than parade a lot of money and technical wizardry across the screen, that have remembered that at the heart of every quality epic there must be just that: a heart. Peter Jackson's monumental Lord of the Rings trilogy is without a doubt the most obvious example. They are films that feature immense battle scenes and countless special effects, but they also never forget to take time out for a quiet scene of two main characters lying back in a field for a smoke. And the film's most memorable special effect - Gollum - is memorable only in part because he is realized with such a high degree of photo realism in so many scenes; he is memorable more because there is an engrossing human performance and conflict behind his façade. And there have been others lately, and despite some missteps (Troy being the biggest and most disappointing) there seem to be a lot of potentially wonderful films on the horizon. We may not yet be matching the golden age of the epic that came during the 1960s, but all things considered and in light of how little most people seem to demand from their films, that we have anything at all worth celebrating is itself worth celebrating. The modern epics more or less got their start in 1995 with Mel Gibson's Braveheart, but the ball really got rolling in 2000 when visionary director Ridley Scott gave the world... Although out of fashion for decades, Scott decided it was high time that someone dusted off all those old tunics and golden helmets and gave the world a gusto-filled ancient world epic again, and God bless 'im for it. Ancient world epics are probably my favorites, and I'll gleefully sit through even the most threadbare of old Italian productions so long as it has some guys in togas and armor throwing each other around. Gladiator, for all its visual flare and state-of-the-art special effects is, at its heart, nothing more than a rousing resurrection of the old sword and sandal actioners that thrilled audiences throughout the 1960s. In this sense and as a gladiator film, it does pretty much everything right. It gives you everything you demand from such a film and manages to make them seem fresh and reinvented without turning them into something unrecognizable or mocking. Russell Crowe, looking the best he's ever looked and probably the best he ever will look, plays Maximus, legendary general of the Roman legions campaigning against the Germanic hordes in 108 AD. As befits a gladiator epic, he is betrayed by a deceitful man of power (in this case the dying emperor's son Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix), finds his family murdered, his home destroyed, and his freedom taken from him when he escapes death only to find himself a slave forced to participate in brutal gladiatorial games in the less developed reaches of the empire. He is the archetypal wronged hero who must lead the oppressed masses against men who have been corrupted by power, lust, and greed. Crowe's performance is exactly what it should be. On the surface, his character is simple enough for anyone to understand and relate to, but inside he is a much more complexly drawn figure. A farmer by birth, he discovers a knack for becoming one of the greatest generals the Roman army has ever seen, a fearless fighter who, unlike some generals, leads his men into battle and risks death alongside them. But his dream is not of glory or fame. He simply wants to one day return to his wife and child and harvest his wheat. Crowe strikes the perfect balance between swaggering, sexy manliness and simple emotion and depth. Maximus is not a philosopher or a poet or a man prone to eloquent speeches and poetic waxing. But he is no dumb, violent slab of meat, either. He is an everyman who, as is often the case in epics, finds himself caught up in sweeping social upheaval and political machination. His opposite number, the Emperor Commodus, is an equally complex character. Simple cartoon villains are easy, as are people who are evil simply for the sake of being evil. Joaquin Phoenix lends Commodus a tortured a soul, a powerful portrayal that is equal parts despicable and pitiable as we watch his most earnest of efforts rejected by his father until it drives Commodus to patricide and an illegitimate ascension to the throne. He is, at his core, desperate to be loved by someone, anyone, and his desperation has twisted him into a creature both monstrous and tragic. The supporting cast rounds the film out wonderfully and is buoyed by three of the great legendary British actors - Richard Harris, David Hemmings, and Oliver Reed. Reed as the sympathetic slavemaster and gladiator owner Proximo gives one of the best and most moving performances of his career. Connie Nielson is wonderful as Lucilla, the sister of Commodus who is torn between loyalty to her brother, disgust for what she knows he has done, greed for the power that comes with her position, and love for the disgraced Maxiums. As with all the characters in the film, Gladiator takes a simple archetype and invests it with depth and emotion. Historically, of course, this is a movie. If you want to learn about the actualities of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and the path of the Roman empire, you really should be reading books. Gladiator is, after all, entertainment and not a documentary about the Roman Empire. True, Emperor Commodus wasn't slain in the gladiatorial arena by a disgraced general, thus opening the door to the reestablishment of the Roman Republic. But you know what? It makes for good cinema. At this point, anyone who goes into a big Hollywood epic and is disappointed by the fact that it plays fast and loose with history is probably the same person that is flabbergasted by the fact that there's a movie in which Hercules fights monsters from the moon. I'm a history buff myself, which is part of the reason I love these epics, but I would never be so foolish as to regard them as history themselves. That's what, as I said, books are for. They should, instead, be regarded as modern-day legends. A hearty helping of credit should go to the terrific score by Hans Zimmer, easily one of the best movie composers in the business. His score, like the movie, strikes that perfect balance between thundering bombast and introspection. Parterning with former Dead Can Dance songstress Lisa Gerrard (with whom he also worked on the soundtrack for Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down), Zimmer conjures up the perfect gladiator score. An adventure film soundtrack this rousing has not been heard since the great scores for Raiders of the Lost Ark and Conan the Barbarian -- and funny enough, the theme song from Conan was used in the trailer for Gladiator. Actionwise, the film is remarkable for taking very small scenes and making them seem vast. The opening battle between Maximus and his legions against the Germanic armies is as grand and giant as any battle scene in an epic, and a wonderful way to kick things off. But it is also the only large-scale action scene. Subsequent clashes are between no more than a few men in the Coliseum, and it is the combination of Ridley Scott's visual prowess and the script's emotional impact that make them huge. Although Ben Hur's chariot race remains, I believe, the greatest of all gladiator film action pieces (and simply one of the best scenes of any type, period), the fights in Gladiator are absolutely stunning. Gory, brutal, and bone crunching. Where as large-scale battle scenes wow you with their scope, the fights here are personal. You could call them small if they weren't so pumped full of macho energy and gusto. But never zeal, if you know what I mean. The violence is there, yes, as a spectacle, as it was thousands of years ago, but also as a way to illustrate the point that good men and great men are often forced to kill one another for the most trivial of matters. There is no doubt that Maximus feeds off the crowd, that their cheers give him a glimmer in the eye, but he is never enthralled by the violence. Early in his career as a gladiator, he reacts with disgust as the bloodlust of those around him even as he dispatches his foes with relentless precision. On the grand stage of Rome's Coliseum, the crowd is less an inspiration that it is a means to an end, a weapon for him to use against Commodus when all other weapons would fail. But never does he embrace the violence, and always does he dream simply of personal peace and a return to his simple life. And once again, it's these emotional flourishes that make Gladiator such a rousing experience. It is what big moviemaking should be. There is plenty of grim machismo and sex appeal on parade, but it's not the sort of big dumb machismo one would get from, say, a generic action flick where everyone is just obnoxious and loud and blustering. It is manliness tempered with philosophy and compassion, honor and heart, as it should be. I know Oscar award-winning films are hardly our forte here, and that many of our readers are predisposed to dislike or avoid a film that garners such accolades. But Gladiator is the rare film that is worthy of its hype. Any fan of epics, of war films, of old sword and sandal movies, of good old-fashioned movie making, should give it a try. Personally, I love it. I love it for exactly what it is - a big, gigantic gladiator film. Nothing unexpected happens, and yeah, everything is predictable, but no more so than in any other film and especially in any other gladiator film. Did it deserve to win Best Picture of the year? Who really cares? The Oscars only have any real credibility these days when compared to, say, the MTV Movie Awards or The Grammies. I don't think a movie getting such an award is a reason to see it or not to see it. Gladiator appeals to me, though, and neither in spite of or because of the pomp and circumstance surrounding it. Is it the best picture of that year? One of the best of all time? Let me just say this: I really liked it. That's pretty much all that matters to me. And speaking of manliness tempered with philosophy, the next film in our line up is another of my favorite big epics, and once again it stars Russell Crowe. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 2000 posted by Keith at 6:02 PM | 0 Comments Friday, June 25, 2004King of Kings Release Year: 1961Country: United States Starring: effrey Hunter, Siobhan McKenna, Hurd Hatfield, Ron Randell, Viveca Lindfors, Rita Gam, Carmen Sevilla, Brigid Bazlen, Harry Guardino, Rip Torn, Frank Thring, Guy Rolfe, Royal Dano, Robert Ryan, Edric Connor. Writer: Philip Yordan Director: Nicholas Ray Cinematographer: Manuel Berenguer, Milton Krasner, Franz Planer Music: Miklos Rozsa Producer: Samuel Bronston Availability: Buy it from Amazon From the wrath of God to the son of God we go, but before I launch into the discussion proper of this film, I think it might help if I indulge in a little bit of personal religious explanation, since this is after all, a religious movie, or at least it is a movie about a religious subject and thus, I think no discussion of the film can happen without one's personal opinions on religion coloring one's perception. I'm no Christian. This is probably pretty obvious to anyone who's been with us for a while. I don't believe in God. Not any of them. Well, maybe the God of Gamblers, but that's about it. However, while this would place me firmly in the camp of the atheists, I'm much happier not camping with anyone based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. Atheist too often is synonymous with those people who love to get foaming-at-the-mouth worked up over debating the existence of God or detailing the sundry contradictions in The Bible. Where I confuse people is that I like to discuss religion and religious evens, the sociology and history of religion, religious and Biblical archaeology, but I have absolutely zero interest in debating the existence of God. It bores me to tears utterly and completely. I don't want to be argued at by people trying to convert me any more or less than I want to hear atheists hurling their arguments at believers. I'm a laid-back kind of non-believer who doesn't care what you dig, at least not up until the point where you start flying planes into buildings or executing people for religious reasons, but then in my opinion that has less to do with you being religious and more to do with you being a fucking madman. My interests in religion are not theological. They are, as a said, historical, archaeological, social, and literary. I'm probably one of the few young non-believers who has read The Bible. Or well, parts of it. And I didn't do it to be converted, nor did I do it so I could document all the holes in the plot. I was simply interested in the story as a story, in the metaphors and meanings behind the action, in the revolutionary humanism of the New Testament and the guts and gore action and warfare in the Old. I read the Bhagavad-Gita for the same reasons. I bear no religion a grudge, though there are some organized churches and sects I could do without. So maybe I'm not your typical atheist. Chalk it up to spending some fun time at church camp when I was little, and then going to those youth group meetings with friends when there was nothing better to do. That said, I should also confess another fact some of you might already know: I love me a big overblown epic. Especially big overblown ancient-world epics. Give me a cast of thousands in tunics stabbing each other and careening about in chariots, and I'll probably be a happy viewer. So obviously, throw all these tastes together, and you can guess that I really love big, lavish Biblical productions. Charlton Heston standing in front of special effects and throwing stone tablets down at people, things like that. As a fan of these films, I've always been struck by how few of them are about Jesus. He does, after all, play something of a large role in the whole Christianity thing. And yet, few and far between are the films about the man. You'd think there would be hundreds. Perhaps it's simply too daunting a task. After all, it's a long and complex story possessed of much depth that might be difficult to translate to screen, especially in a way that would be intelligible to the so-called uninitiated (actually, I don't know if they're called that at all). Plus, the man is a gigantic, larger-than-life character who must radiate charisma, compassion, emotion, and majesty on a grand scale. That's a tall order for an actor to fill, to be told, "try and act just like the son of God." So it is, then, that most directors stuck to other stories from The Bible, and John Huston tried to do the entire thing with disastrous results (we'll come to that one soon enough). Jesus would stroll in from time to time, but he was never the central figure. And curiously, he's not exactly the central figure in King of Kings, one of the first grand-scale retellings of the life of Christ. It's not really important, at least to me, whether or not Jesus was the Son of God. Personally, not believing in God, I find it difficult to believe he had a son. So that's a pretty easy one, as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not he was a true historical figure is a thornier issue, but I figure yeah, there probably was a Jesus or someone very much like him, and the events of his life are more or less based on fact. Regardless of whether or not he's your homeboy, there's little point in arguing against the notion that, at the very least, he's a compelling historic and/or literary character, not to mention being one of the most influential men of all time, regardless of who or what he was or was not. So a movie about him is a pretty big undertaking, and King of Kings goes about this Herculean task primarily by not focusing on Jesus. We do get to see his greatest hits and usual highlights reel: the three wisemen and the manger, the meeting of John the Baptist, the pilgrimage into the desert, Sermon on the Mount, and needless to say, the Last Supper, crucifixion, and resurrection (but he doesn't get to show off his wtar-to-wine or water walking skills). If none of this means anything to you, you really should bone up a bit on your history regardless of your beliefs. It does all play rather a major role in the world in which we live, so it can't hurt to know what's up, at least partially. Maybe you can just watch this movie and get the gist of things. But these are exactly how I describe them - highlights. With the exception of the Sermon on the Mount, they don't take up much screen time and aren't delved into too deeply. It's almost as if the movie doesn't know exactly what to do with Christ, like he's too big and too intimidating a character to tackle. So we skip around with only a cursory touching on the big moments. Heck, other than being born, Jesus hardly even shows up for the full first third of the film, which deals more with King Herod, the Roman governor of Judea Pontius Pilate, and the Roman general (I think he was a general) Lucius. When Jesus show sup to do some preaching or work some miracles, it's rarely shown in much detail. More often than not, narrator Orson Welles come son and something more or less along the lines of, "And then Jesus did show up and perform some miracles and preach a spell." On the other hand, we get long looks at the court of King Herod, at Brigit Bazlan as Salome doing her seductive dance (thank you, Satan, or whoever was responsible for that sequence), and at Judeaic freedom fighter and political agitator Barabbas (Harry Guardino) making plots and launching guerilla attack son the Roman legions. Barabbas, in fact, becomes one of the two most interesting characters in the whole film, the other being the compassionate Roman soldier Lucius (Ron Randell). See the problem there? Yeah, in a movie about Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ really should be your most interesting character. Instead, Jesus Christ is Jeffery Hunter, the very spitting image of the blue-eyed, blond-haired messiah that dominated the West for so long, before we finally fessed up to the fact that he probably much more tan. Hunter is definitely the hottest Jesus in film history, but hot doesn't make for interesting, and it looks like poor Hunter was simply overwhelmed by the role. Rather than trying to conjure up any of the fire or charisma or passion (not that passion) that made Jesus the sort of man who could move thousands, Hunter simply glides glassy-eyed from one big set to the next. He's not so much playing Jesus as he is wearing a robe and showing up on set to read passages from The Bible in a dull monotone. If you didn't know who the character was already, you'd be utterly baffled as to why anyone would follow him. He's non-dimension, completely devoid of charm or spark or anything that might make you think this Jesus guy, he's something special all right. The only reason anyone would follow this king of kings is because the story demands it of them. Frankly, the fact that Jeffery Hunter looks like he walked straight down from Sweden to become the Messiah of the dusty Middle East is unimportant. Look, this is a Hollywood epic circa the 1960s. I can roll with the piercing blue eyes and all, or I could if the man behind them was compelling in any way. Jesus was a radical, a rebel, an agitator, and a leader of men. None of that is communicated in Hunter's lack of a performance, and it makes it easier to just pick on him for being such a white guy. I think another part of the problem is the movie is simply too scared to play it straight with Jesus. They err on the side of reverence to the point of dullness. He speaks without emotion. He seems to have nothing inside, because the script seems to think it's safer to portray him in this otherworldly fashion than to deal with his humanity and passion (not that passion). Or maybe they're of that group that considers Christ entirely divine and not human. What were they called? It caused a lot of problems for Justinian and Theodora in Byzantium. Remember? Unfortunately, my history falters at the name, and my book on Byzantine history is all the way across the room. Oh what the heck? There, are you happy? I got up and walked all the way across the room to look the term up, only to find out that that was my book on The Crusades. I don't know where my Byzantium books are right now. The place is a bit of a jumble. Anyway, you had the Orthodox Byzantine church that maintained Christ was human then divine, which makes sense to me and makes his story more compelling. The other faction believed he was entirely divine, which again in my opinion, makes his story less moving. A divine being on the cross almost seems like he's only pretending to be in pain, while a human up there speaks more to my human sign. I don't know, though. I've never tried to crucify a god, and I'm not looking to have the experience any time soon. So the people who made King of Kings either believed Christ was entirely divine and thus should show no human charisma and emotion, that the mere fact of his divinity is what sways people, or they simply believed that divinity was dull. As much as the film falters in the story of Christ, if succeeds in many other areas, and is quite more effective if you think of it not as the story of the life of Christ, but the story of the times of the life of Christ. The movie is not without its wonderful moments and engrossing characters, chief among them as I said Lucius and Barabbas. Herod is there only to cower and simper, while Pontius Pilate is there only to be smug and condescending. Lucius, however, is a more complex character. A soldier in the service of Caesar, charged with maintaining the peace in volatile Judea, Lucius still shows interest in and compassion for the locals. His belief, and indeed that of Rome in general, is that Judea should be administrated without interfering with the local religions. Frankly, as long as they're paying their taxes, the Jews can believe whatever they want to about Jehovah and Jupiter. As Lucius' position bring shim into contact with John the Baptist, and later with Jesus himself, he grows to admire Christ and the message of peace and understanding. He never betrays Rome, never takes up arms against the emperor, but he does eventually defend Christ with vigor at the sham of a trial before the crucifixion. He's not a Christian, but he believes in the rights of others to be Christians. On the other side of the conflict is Barabbas, who eventually got himself his own movie starring Anthony Quinn (and yeah, we'll get to that one as well). Barabbas is a freedom fighter, a Jewish rebel who thinks Christ's sermons are eloquent, but that freedom from oppression at the hands of the Romans will come only through armed insurrection. He is Bose Chandra to Jesus' Gandhi (or rather, I suppose, Bose Chandra is Barabbas to Gandhi's Jesus. Or something. You know what I mean). He sees Christ as a man with the same goal but different methods, and ultimately, as a convenient distraction to the Romans that will allow Barabbas and his men to launch a really pathetic little rebellion. Scenes with Barabbas lend the film a political tone, but just as it never seems to trust Jeffery Hunter with the role of Christ, neither does it trust itself to deeply explore the political struggles in Judea that serve as the backdrop to Christ's story. It is perhaps Ray's most daring move to cast Barabbas not as a thief and criminal as is so often done, but as a rebel and warrior. To me, as one interested more in history than theology, I would have been happy to see it dig more in this direction. Other characters fare well also. Rip Torn plays Judas, who here I think gets a fare shake. It's common among people who don't sit around thinking about this stuff to simply see Judas as the great villain of Christ's life, when the way I see it, he was actually the great facilitator who allowed Christ to become the messiah and martyr that changed the world. Certain groups of theologians even feel that Christ himself instructed Judas to betray him so that he may fulfill his destiny. In King of Kings, we see a Judas who believes that the key to Judea's freedom lies somewhere in between the gung-ho war-waging of Barabbas and the peace and compassion of Jesus. He believes totally and without doubt in the power of Jesus, and thinks that if he can orchestrate a situation in which Jesus "feels the blade of a Roman sword against his neck," then the Savior will finally break down and use his powers to free Judea from the yoke of Roman rule. As we all know, it doesn't quite work out that way. Other incidental cast members leave a little to be desired, and some are downright awful. But that happens. In particular, the portrayal of Mary (with her lilting Irish accent, no less) is puzzling. Like Hunter, she plays her part with a lack of emotion that borders on tedium. We get it, Mary. You're holy. You think you could at least show a little emotion while your son is being nailed to a cross? Production-wise, King of Kings manages to be an epic without an epic budget. Sets are big and opulent, the cast is large, and the scenery is sweeping - though it's certainly more American West than it is Middle East. Miklos Rosza's score is typically bombastic and epic and moving. The man was the final word on epic soundtracks, and he's in fine form here, though not quite top form. The writing is, as you can ascertain, uneven, and it takes liberties with The Bible when it has to, or when it departs from the source material and includes bits and pieces taken from Catholicism and other Biblical dramas. But all in all, it stitches together a story that is perhaps too big for the big screen, and does a decent job if you're less interested in Biblical accuracy than you are in just getting a halfway decent epic. Still, meandering aside, Nicholas Ray has assembled a thoughtful film that manages, I think, to pay proper if slightly boring respects to the source material while also giving the increasingly socially and politically aware audiences a little something more thoughtful to chew on. Not subversive, by any means, but also not rote repitition of existing ideals. Costumes are so-so, and another problem pestering this movie is that everything is so spotless and clean. Jesus' robes look like they just came back from the drycleaners, even after he comes in from his pilgrimage to the wilderness. A lot of other costumes have a stiffness to them that makes them look like, well, costumes, and not actual clothes. And while I don't have the lust for blood and misery in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus that Mel Gibson seems to have, I'd still have to say this is the cleanest, least painful scene of a guy getting nailed to a cross that I've ever witnessed. Once again, chalk it up to the ratings code, Hunter's weakness as an actor, or the film's own timidness about really sinking its teeth into the meat of the story. In the end, though, this is less a movie about his death than his life, and less about his life than his times, if you know what I mean. Problems abound, but in the end, I still found this a plenty pleasing epic tale where the best parts are in the least epic moments and within not the story of Jesus, but in the many subplots and supporting schemers anchored by director Ray's cunning but not obvious look at power and the quest for direction in life. King of Kings, despite the weak portrayal of the actual king of kings, is still big, impressive, and possessed of enough multi-dimensional supporting characters to keep me both interested and entertained. And as far as cinematic Christs have gone, not many - if indeed anyone - have gotten it right, so we can forgive King of Kings its rather naïve, outdated, and somewhat dull approach to the man. You don't have to be Christian, or particularly religious in any way, to be interested in the story. If you dig a good overblown Biblical epic, King of Kings isn't the best, but it's not a bad way to spend some time. Monophysites! Those were the cats in Byzantium who didn't believe Christ had a human portion, that he was entirely divine. There. That was going to bug me all night. Labels: Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Year: 1961 posted by Keith at 5:52 PM | 0 Comments Aguirre, The Wrath of God Release Year: 1972Country: Germany Starring: Klaus Kinski, Daniel Ades, Peter Berling, Alejandro Chavez, Daniel Farfán, Justo González, Ruy Guerra, Julio E. Martínez, Del Negro, Armando Polanah, Alejandro Repulles, Cecilia Rivera, Helena Rojo, Edward Roland. Writer: Werner Herzog Director: Werner Herzog Cinematographer: Thomas Mauch Music: Popol Vuh Producer: Werner Herzog and Hans Prescher Original Title: Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes Availability: Buy it from Amazon There are a lot of directors who work with that special someone of an actor forging a partnership that becomes legendary within the cinematic world. Martin Scorsese had Robert DeNiro. Spielberg seems to have Tom Hanks. John Ford had John Wayne. And German director Werner Herzog had Klaus Kinski. If you know anything about Klaus Kinski, this may seem a bit of a raw deal for Herzog. After all, as far as anyone knows, Tom Hanks has never tried to knife Steven Spielberg to death on the set of a movie, and John Wayne never insisted to Ford that he was the reincarnation of Jesus or the famed violin virtuoso Paganini. On the other hand, it's equally unlikely that Spielberg has ever returned a knife fight with his own conspiracies to murder his favorite leading man. Although one has to question the authenticity of some of the wilder tales about the working relationship between the two men, there's no doubt that some of it was indeed true and they had the sort of relationship that could be described, if one wanted to be tactful about it, as "dynamic." The defining factor in the relationship between Herzog and Kinski was that Kinski was, to use a scientific term, bat-shit crazy while Herzog, in turn, was crazy as a shithouse bat. Yet somehow, you throw the two together, and the result was sheer brilliance etched from utter lunacy. For my money, and I'll admit up front to being no big Herzog expert, they are at their finest in the raving study of greed, madness, and the lust for power that is Aguirre, The Wrath of God. Thrown together in the jungles of South America to make a film about the spiraling madness of a Spanish Conquistador hell-bent on finding the fabled city of gold, El Dorado, Kinski and Herzog drove each other and those around them so berserk that the locals hired as extras were even offering to discreetly murder Kinski, who they completely and totally despised with every inch of their being. To the benefit of the film, these boiling emotions of hatred, frustration, and madness were exactly what the script called for, and thanks to Kinski's raving insanity, it's likely those around him had very little acting to do to push themselves to the point at which they needed to arrive. Beginning on Christmas day (though this doesn't necessarily mean you'd want to consider this a Christmas movie), in the year of our Lord 1560, Aguirre is told more or less through the journals of a monk accompanying a band of Conquistadors on their march across the South American continent. Finding themselves subjugated and mercilessly slaughtered by these men from across the ocean, the Incas formulate the only sort of revenge they have at their disposal and concoct a story about the lost city of El Dorado, where gold practically flows through the fountains and there are amassed piles of riches beyond the dreams of even the greediest Spanish invader. To the Incas' credit, they place El Dorado, "somewhere over yonder" in a general direction that will take any would-be glory-hunters through the most treacherous terrain in perhaps the whole of the world. So, though defeated and humiliated, it must have provided at least some small degree of satisfaction to the Incas to watch groups of Conquistadors head down the mountains to the Amazon to die agonizing deaths and the hands of hunger, disease, and violent jungle Indians. One such expedition is that of Aguirre, a commander whose lust not so much for gold as for power and dreams of establishing an empire that dwarfs that of his native Spain drives him first to mutiny and then to a veritable "death march on the river" as he drives his men deeper and deeper into the inescapable heart of the Amazon. It's not unlike Heart of Darkness, except that instead of traveling down the river to madness, madness comes along for the whole ride. It would seem, also, that Aguirre would have been a major influence on Walter Hill's Southern Comfort (1981) or Francis Ford Coppola and Apocalypse Now (1979), which might be one of those things that is common knowledge if I ever sat down and watched Hearts of Darkness. Actually, the better comparison is to Samuel Fuller's Big Red One, which takes the whole of the European theater in World War II and shrinks it down to a microscopic size. With Aguirre, Herzog creates a sort of anti-epic. Certainly the story of a doomed Spanish expedition through the jungles of the Amazon in search of a city of gold that does not exist is the sort of plotline that could easily expand to the size of an epic, but Herzog, partially constrained as always by budget but primarily for artistic reasons, restricts the story to a claustrophobic size. The vastness of the Amazon jungle is whittled away until all that remains is a world as large as the raft on which the Conquistadors prop up themselves as easy targets for natives concealed in the lush greenness rising up like walls around them. Most of the movie takes place on this raft, with only tenuous forays onto the banks, and never then very far for as much as the Spaniards hate being trapped on the raft, they fear the jungle that much more. Confined to such a small space, and with no voice of reason to reel him back in to reality, Aguirre's passion for conquest, his unrelenting desire for grandeur and power, pushes his far over the edge, until even as the last of his men lie starving and bleeding to death on the crumbling decks of the raft, he still imagines that he will rule the whole of the South American continent and launch an armada to seize territories now held by the Spanish crown, establishing himself as the greatest ruler of the largest empire of all time. It is darkly ironic, tragic, and almost comedic in the blackest sense of the word that his delusions of glory just around the next river bend reach their apex as he stands alone, aimlessly adrift on a raft covered by cavorting monkeys. Although Kinski's Aguirre is at the center of the tempest, this is not a story of one man's quest for glory and victory at the expense of his protesting men. Indeed his men are all too willing to follow him into the jungle and straight into madness in pursuit of the promise of wealth and power. When the wiser Ursua (Ruy Guerra), ostensibly the leader of the band, decides that it is a doomed expedition and all should turn back to meet up again with the greater body of the Spanish army and return to civilization, Aguirre's soldiers are all too willing to comply in mutiny against Ursua. Even as they find themselves picked off one by one by natives or simply dying of starvation, none but a very few of the soldiers recognize the insurmountable madness that assures their failure. Even the clergyman Carvajal defers to Aguirre, partially out of fear but mostly because he, too, dreams of glory. Where the men's glory is gold and Aguirre's is power, Carvajal's glory is the glory of God and in the conversion of the South American savages to Christianity. Though everyone is guilty aboard the raft, the film is obviously commanded by Kinski, who is allowed to channel all his bug-eyed insanity into his damned and unsympathetic character, though never so much as to push it wildly over the top. Herzog and and Kinski may be two insane men making a movie about insane men, but Herzog keeps the film tightly focused and controlled, slowly paced and never prone to scene-chewing explosions of craziness. Never does Kinski outright rant and rave and knock things over. He is, rather, far more reserved with his insanity, and far more chilling. When action scenes do come, they are exceptionally brief. This is, after all, not a sprawling war epic but a character study and exploration of the power of greed to corrupt, blind, and drive mad. Herzog's conclusion is hazy, as the film leaves Aguirre in total defeat but still very much alive. He has lost everything and everyone around him, but still he goes on, certain that his destiny leads to nowhere but fame and power and immortality. He has learned nothing, enjoyed no moment of revelation or repentance or realization. Even the death of his own daughter, the one potential moment for the audience to perhaps feel a pang of sympathy for this madman, seems to affect Aguirre not in the least, or at least not enough to shake him from his delusions. Like the drunk driver who causes a car wreck in which everyone is killed yet he himself walks away unscathed, Aguirre remains. I believe some people mistakenly go into Aguirre thinking it an adventure film. Such a notion is certain to result in disappointment. Herzog is, after all, something of an arthouse director, and he works on a low budget. Instead, this is a deconstruction of the adventure film, a psychological dissection of a larger-than-life character whose aspirations and dreams soar to the heights of what might be achieved even by a madman in an epic, even while he himself is mired in the hopelessness of the reality of the situation. There is no moment of heroism, no rousing rescue or battle. There are, instead, long, deliberate takes and beautiful cinematography. There are pauses, slow pacing, and an almost total lack of a musical score. A single dreamlike synthesizer theme occurs from time to time, but other than that the only music in the movie is the pipe playing of one of the native slaves. Herzog doesn't want to excite you; he wants to engage you, or more accurately, to ensnare you and drag you along on this expedition. His narrative, although slowly paced, also keeps the viewer off-balance and unable to completely collect one's thoughts. Characters are killed without comment by silent assassins from within the jungle. There is no fanfare, no death scene. We simply see them alive one minute and dead a few minutes later. Carvajal's journal entries, which serve as the basis for the structure of the story, become more random and eventually cease altogether and he himself succumbs to jungle fever. Never has hard, edgy realism seemed so surreal. Kinski is, it goes without saying, superb. Who better to play a megalomaniacal madman than an actual megalomaniacal madman? Apparently, at some point Kinski was being his usual difficult self, and Herzog got a decent performance out of him by pointing a gun at Kinski's head and threatening to blow his brains out. There was no doubt in Kinski's mind that Herzog would do it, and for that matter, there was no intention in Herzog's mind not to do it if Klaus didn't do his job. Much of the remainder of the cast is comprised of locals who were hired more or less off the street, though the part of Ursua was played by Ruy Guerra, a prominent director in South American cinema. Herzog's in-close direction works well with the overall story and creates the necessary atmosphere of claustrophobia and irritation. It's no small feat that Thomas Mauch's cinematography drags so much beauty out of such a confined space. Though he allows himself some sweeping shots of the river and the raft traveling down it toward its unsavory fate, his true gift is for staying close and using people and small moments as sources for brilliant, beautiful, and often frightening images. Something as gigantic as the Amazon River and the jungles around it beg for indulgent helicopter shots of lush green canopies with craggy mountain peaks jutting up from them, of great gorges and valleys and waterfalls. But Mauch never lets you see more than what the men themselves can see: the impenetrable jungle-choked banks, the muddy water, fleeting glimpses of bow-toting natives, and each other. What he does with such a reserved palette is astounding. Aguirre, in short, is a trip straight to hell. It is a dip in the pool of lunacy. And as far as "arthouse adventure" goes, you'll find no film finer. All the pieces, cracked as they may have been behind the camera, fall into place to create a lush, haunting tapestry. The separate madnesses of Herzog and Kinski may have driven them to the brink of murder, but the film is all the better for it, and somehow they manage, as they often did, to turn that friction, that hatred and lunacy and love, into a breathtaking work of art. Labels: Director: Werner Herzog, Historical Epics, Netflix Diary, Stars: Klaus Kinski, Year: 1972 posted by Keith at 3:23 PM | 2 Comments Thursday, September 20, 2001A Touch of Zen
1969, Taiwan. Starring Ping-Yu Chang, Roy Chiao, Shih Chun, Hsu Feng, Hsue Han, Ying-chieh Han, Tien Miao, Peng Tien, Cien Tsao, Pai Ying, Sammo Hung. Directed by King Hu. Available on DVD (Amazon).
Sometimes, a movie is so big that getting a grasp on exactly where you should begin a mere review is intimidating. King Hu's 1969 masterpiece, A Touch of Zen definitely falls into this classification, an elite spot held by only a precious few films in my pantheon. Needless to say, among fans of both Hong Kong cinema and cinema in general, this film has garnered a tremendous reputation, even taking an award at the Canne's Film Festival (a feat that used to actually mean something). And in every way, A Touch of Zen lives up to it's monumental rep. Although the action focuses on a limited number of characters and locations, it drums up an overwhelming, epic feel, thanks in part to amazing cinematography. Every technical aspect of this film is damn near perfect: the camera work, the acting, the sound effects and music. And beyond the conventional aspects of film-making, the script is simply astounding. King Hu takes a fairly conventional martial arts plot and expands it to a grand scope, both physically and spiritually. For those of us trying to see the film now, the task is even more daunting than writing a meaningful review. Upon it's completion, the film reportedly ran some 400 or so minutes long (!), and was cut down to just under three hours for Cannes Film Festival. Currently, I've never found anywhere offering the entire mammoth thing either on videotape or film. But even at it's chopped 187 minute running time (the most common one, it seems), this "lost film" is a mesmerizing classic, and whatever edits were made do not hurt the overall flow of action or plot. I might also add that this is one of those films that absolutely must be viewed in it's full, widescreen format. King Hu uses every inch of the screen. No space is left ignored, and to see a pan and scan, cropped version of this film would devastate the effort that went into making it. There are plenty of films out there that are not really hurt by the cropping that happens to transfer it to video/television. This film is simply not one of them. You literally miss half the film if you don't see this letterboxed. Set during the Ming Dynasty, A Touch of Zen begins with a young scholar named Ku who seems to lack ambition or direction in life. He meets a mysterious swordsman one day, and from that point on, life gets increasingly strange. The abandoned fort in which he and his mother live (abandoned because it is supposed to be haunted) soon sees a new tenant arrive, a young woman named Yang (Hsu Feng). Everyone seems to take an avid interest in the comings and goings around the haunted fort. Before long, Ku discovers that Yang is a wanted fugitive and masterful swordswoman. The mysterious swordsman is there to bring her in, dead or alive (preferably dead). It turns out that she was a member of an honest noble family that had uncovered all sorts of treachery within the ranks of a government faction known as the Eastern Group. Before the report could be made, the Eastern Group, lead by an evil Eunuch, murdered her family. Only she, a good general, and one other man escaped. Like King Hu's Dragon Inn, the film revolves around a central location and the various attempts by each party to outwit and outmaneuver one another. Ku joins the rebels, lending them his knowledge of military tactics and other scholarly advice. he also falls in love with Yang, who seems to want to return his affections but cannot, and does not want to endanger Ku's life by entangling him in the ever-growing web. The action choreography is great, and much like the entire film, sits firmly in between the Shaw Brothers style of swordplay popular in films like One-Armed Swordsman and Trail of the Broken Blade, and the Japanese style of martial arts film-making popular in samurai films. Of the two, samurai films have always been the more technically adept films, with even many of the best Shaw Brothers swordsman epics having a haphazard look to them. A Touch of Zen definitely ranks up there with absolute best film sin term of the actual construction, easily on par with Kurosawa at his best. The second half of the film takes a far more spiritual turn, as Yang and the heroic General seek the protection of a group of monks who, like most monks in martial arts films, are allowed to kick ass but still be all into peace and harmony. A striking finale ensues with some of the most inspired film-making I have ever witnessed. A surrealist wave overcomes the film, and in the end, those who are in tune with nature are still standing, and those aren't have died. The quick of eye will spot Sammo Hung as one of the right-hand men of the General of the Eastern Group. I should also point out that the whole "evil Eunuch" thing is very much grounded in factual history. In the latter days of the Ming Dynasty, Imperial Eunuchs were given a tremendous amount of power, and many of them abused it mercilessly. Eventually, the government of China decayed into a state of madness, chaos, and confusion, which allowed the Ch'ings from Manchuria to sweep through the country and set up one of the longest foreign-controlled dynasty in the history of the country. The other foreign-controlled Dynasty was the Yuan, which was founded by invading Mongolians but barely lasted over a quarter of a century. It makes for interesting "revisionist" history in many films where the heroes are Ming patriots and the Ming Dynasty is viewed as heroic and virtuous. Certainly, no one in China wanted the Ch'ings to roll in and take things over, but the Ming Dynasty was so bloated with insanity and corruption that it was hardly worth fighting for. But I guess you'll take what you can get. Better to have domestic madmen controlling your life than foreign ones. And after all, the Mings made those nice vases. King Hu creates one classic scene after another, meticulously rendered and delivered like an epic poem. The sword fight in the bamboo forest is brilliant, but my favorite scene comes after one of the big showdowns with the Eastern Group. Having used a variety of tricks and traps, the small band of heroic rebels slaughter a whole legion of soldiers. After the battle, Scholar Ku walks from trap to trap, laughing with joy at the ingenuity he has show, remembering how each weapon and trap was tested on a collection of stuffed dummies. And then, all of a sudden, he steps into the overgrown courtyard, which is choked with the corpses of the men slain in the fight. The transformation of his demeanor from joviality to utter terror as he realizes the true cost of their fight, and that these are not dummies, but actual human beings, is staggering in its power, partly because it's handled in such a subtle way. A lesser director, or a lesser actor, would have gone for a sudden collapse into crying madness and fear. Here, however, the effect of Ku's revelation is more subtle, and much more powerful. Only a few actors understand and can use the power of subtlety. A Touch of Zen would find itself on the top of any list of favorites I could ever come up with. It is a landmark piece of work, and I think, quite possibly, the greatest film to come out of the Hong Kong/Taiwan/China area. Hell, it's one of the greatest films to have come out anywhere in the world. The end had me just sitting wide-eyed in the dark, thinking about the final moments, final images, for quite some time before finally moving to turn the television off. Labels: Director: King Hu, Historical Epics, Martial Arts: Wu Xia, Year: 1969 posted by Keith at 10:26 PM | 0 Comments |
|
![]() |