The Great March HTF Historical Drama/Epic Challenge (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

Although this has been discussed many times, and even though I know that most of these historical dramas take (often needed) liberties with the facts (especially including the one I just saw), U-571 does so more than most.

It was the British, not the Americans that pulled this off (although the Americans did capture a sub with an Enigma machine in 1944.

 

[Malcolm R]

Which is why it's a movie and not a documentary. I don't get why people are so touchy about this as it is, obviously, a fictional movie for entertainment purposes.

Indiana Jones did not really find the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant, and the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were not real, either.

 

[PatW]

I can remember watching this one with my brother when it first came out. I enjoyed it for what it was but my brother was so upset with the distortion of facts that I had to turn it off and watch it at a latter date. Both my husband and brother get bent out of shape over inaccuracies when the subject matter is well known to them. As for myself, I know maybe a given movie may be inaccurate but I can still enjoy it without getting hung up on facts.

 

[SteveGon]

Hiroshima (1995)

Viewed 3/15/2008 (first viewing)

Solid docudrama chronicling Harry S. Truman's ascension to the presidency, his introduction to the Manhattan Project, and the events leading up to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

:star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Mario Gauci]

03/11/08: THE BATTLE OF NERETVA (Veljko Bulajic, 1969) :star::star::star:

There exist various versions of this film – running anywhere between 102 and 175 minutes; the one I watched, dubbed in Italian, was itself around 142 – although the official Italian print is actually 134 minutes long! Over the years, I had missed out on a couple of occasions to watch this – both on Italian and local TV, as well as a VHS rental. Given its title and roster of established international movie stars – Yul Brynner, Curd Jurgens, Sylva Koscina, Hardy Kruger, Franco Nero and Orson Welles – one could be forgiven for mistaking it as yet another WWII-set Hollywood epic a` la THE LONGEST DAY (1962) and BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1965). Consequently, its eventual nomination for Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award proves at first suspect and highly surprising but, in hindsight, well deserved since the film is actually a big-budget co-production between Yugoslavia, West Germany, Italy and even the U.S.A.

While the film is mostly distinguished by the fact that it features an impressive array of battle sequences which must surely be counted among the most spectacular of its era, it must also be said that it takes care and time to show the effects that constant warfare has on the behavior of human beings: an explosives expert (Brynner) is renounced and spat at by his own people when he is forced to destroy their only way back home to stop the advancing troops; two blind men leading each other during an airborne attack are led by the sound of another man’s voice already taking cover; a partisan is driven crazy when stricken by typhus; a proud Italian general (Anthony Dawson) commits suicide in a shabby room where he is held in captivity by the partisans; an Italian captain (Nero) deserts his side to join the ranks of the partisans and is taken under his wing by an artillery officer (Sergei Bondarchuk); a brother and a sister (Koscina), both members of the Yugoslav partisans, die together when hugely outnumbered during a deadly encounter with a band of long-haired renegade Chetniks led by a hesitant senator (Welles)!; a German captain (Kruger) comes to respect the determination of his enemies during combat, etc.

Despite the various strands of plot touched upon and the multitude of major and minor characters involved, the unknown director weaves a clear and expansive picture of the river Neretva conflict – at least in the version I saw; one can only wonder what an incoherent mess the shorter versions (some of them accompanied by a new score by Bernard Herrmann, no less) must have been! Incidentally, in spite of that afore-mentioned Oscar nod, THE BATTLE OF NERETVA is still highly undervalued today – no doubt, its reputation is lost among the countless WWII actioners made both by Hollywood and Euro-Cult film-makers during the 1960s and 1970s.


03/13/08: JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN (Irving Rapper and Luciano Ricci, 1960) :star::star:

In the wake of the adoption of the Widescreen process and the consequent increase in popularity of the Biblical subgenre within the realm of the Epic, stories from the Old and New Testament became a much-raided Hollywood commodity during the 1950s and 1960s. It was only a matter of time before the ultra-Catholic Italians got onto the bandwagon and grew another branch into their own in-house brand of the epic that was renamed the peplum.

As would eventually became the custom, veteran Hollywood film-makers – among them Frank Borzage, Raoul Walsh, Jacques Tourneur and Edgar G. Ulmer – were engaged to supervise the production of these cheaper Italian epics and so it is that Irving Rapper – best-known for the schmaltzy but solid Bette Davis vehicles NOW, VOYAGER (1942) and DECEPTION (1946) – became involved with bringing to the big-screen the story of Joseph; subsequently, he would be employed in a similar capacity on PONTIUS PILATE (1962). While the co-director here was one Luciano Ricci – who would later (under the alias of Herbert Wise) be the officially credited director of THE CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD (1964) despite the reported intervention of two others! – the actors who came on board JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN were far better known. Chief among them were Robert Morley (ludicrously hamming it up as Potiphar) and genre staple Finlay Currie (as a dignified Jacob), while the younger roles were entrusted to an eclectic bunch: Geoffrey Horne (in the title role), Belinda Lee (as Potiphar’s deceitful wife, she featured in several of these Italian cheapies and would eventually die tragically within a year in a road accident), Arturo Domenici (as Potiphar’s ambitious counsellor), Terence Hill (as Joseph’s younger brother Benjamin) and Dante Di Paolo (as the main schemer among Joseph’s jealous brothers).

One may wonder why I’m talking about everything else but the film and, unfortunately, that’s because it is no great shakes. While the story was good enough to be remade thrice on celluloid – as a 1974 TV movie by Michael Cacoyannis, yet again for TV in 1995 and as a Dreamworks animated feature in 2000 – not to mention revamped as a musical extravaganza on the stage, the version under review is dreary, dull and unmemorable. Small wonder, then that the film has fallen into public domain and is available on various budget DVDs in an English-dubbed, pan-and-scan, washed out print which further serves to alienate the viewer.


03/15/08: SAUL AND DAVID (Marcello Baldi, 1964) :star::star:1/2

Much of the same comments I made in connection with JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN (1960; see above) apply here as well; in fact this is a Biblical peplum also found on the same 3-Disc 10 film collection I rented in time for Good Friday. Luckily, this is slightly superior in that one gets to see re-enacted events with which one is not much familiar (unless he is a staunch Bible reader or theologian). In fact, although the film opens with the perennial David and Goliath confrontation (which while swift is also remarkably bloody), it mostly concerns itself with the embittered and ever worsening relationship between renounced Israelite sovereign Saul and his champion warrior David who regularly makes mincemeat of legions of Philistines.

Saul is portrayed as a pitiful weakling by Norman Wooland (a surprising but not ineffective bit of casting) while blond-haired Gianni Garko is suitably imposing as the psalmist-harpist-warrior David of Bethlehem. As the story goes here, Saul’s persection of David is so long drawn-out that the latter almost joins the Philistine ranks against his own people! While the handling of the material is insufficiently inspired to sustain one’s interest for two hours, as I said the main thrust of the narrative is fresh enough to distinguish itself from other cinematic versions of the Biblical tale I am familiar with: DAVID AND BATHSHEBA (1951; with Gregory Peck as David), DAVID AND GOLIATH (1960; another Italian costumer with Orson Welles as Saul) and KING DAVID (1985; with Edward Woodward and Richard Gere as, respectively, Saul and David).

 

[Lew Crippen]

I suppose that it is a matter of degree. As I wrote in my comment, I know that historical inaccuracies are often needed, but for me, to ignore something so fundamental as the difference between England and America, smacks not of needed (or even convenient) changing of history, but of hubris.

Sort of like making a movie about a WWII general who was in North Africa and Sicily, was removed from his command because of slapping a solider, who was then resurrected by Ike, raced across France, crossed the Rhine—and then casting Alec Guinness instead of George C. Scott in the title role of Montgomery.

Put another way, I’m OK with changing the characters of individuals in any movie about the Alamo, changing the numbers of defenders, of attackers, making either side (and any person) more or less heroic, but I would bristle if the Alamo were not in San Antonio.

 

[PatW]

Man in the Iron Mask (1998) :star: :star: :star: 1/2

This man was a prisoner at the time of the reign of Louis XIV and there has been much speculation as to his identity. This is one version of that story. Leonardo DiCaprio surprised me in this movie. What I at first thought was a pretty boy role turned out to be some complex acting because he was able to convey the complexities that was inherent in each brother. Superb acting by Leo. Also of special note was Gabriel Byrne as D'Artagnon and Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu as the three Musketeers. Great performances from all of them. This was a fun movie and I enjoyed watching it again.


Rio Grande (1950) :star: :star: 1/2

My least favourite of the John Wayne westerns that I've seen so far. There didn't seem to be much going on here with long segments of uninteresting material. I guess they filled the gaps in the story with some songs which became annoying after awhile. The cinematography was impressive but little else in the film was, and I found it mostly boring.

 

[PatW]

Vera Drake (2004) :star: :star: :star: :star:

Set in London in 1950, Vera who works as a domestic is a kind soul who tries to help anyone who may need her which includes performing abortions which she does free of charge. One of the young women that she helps becomes ill and consequently Vera is brought to the attention of police who arrest and charge her.

Imelda Staunton gives such a heartbreaking and emotional performance as Vera, that sometimes I feel she was robbed at the Academy Awards. The screenplay presents its story without taking sides in the issue of Abortion and no matter your stand, this is a difficult film to watch not because of the issue but the emotional intensity of its players. Superb acting.


Pony Soldier (1952) :star: 1/2

I wish as much care was taken with this story. Stereotypical characters in a rather dull movie, with some pretty scenery of southwestern US that we are suppose to believe is northern US/Canada.

 

[JohnRice]

19) September Dawn (2006) - BOMB
It was clear this would be a smirch piece against a particular American Church, and that was enough to get me interested, for reasons this forum doesn't permit me to explain. The problem is, what started out as a poorly done, childish and painfully transparent After School Special level feature descended even lower than I could have ever imagined. The brother turning savage and the horribly overlong, melodramatic death scene at the end were positively puke inducing. I was hoping to get a perverse thrill from this one. I ended up needing something to cleanse it from my mind...

20) Sweet Land (2005) - [/url]
I wanted to get one Reese movie in, and this is the only one which qualifies, since the time difference with The Man in the Moon is only about 35+ years. In the Depression deep South a young girl (Reese Witherspoon) discovers a deaf, epileptic girl (Patricia Arquette) locked up in a neighbor's shed and decides to help her. This is just a cable TV movie, but it is nicely written and executed.

 

[PatW]

John, Vanity Fair is also a Reese Witherspoon movie which does qualify. You might want to check it out.

 

[JohnRice]

Heh, and I have Vanity Fair. I just forgot about it. No matter how much of a Reese fan as I have been, I would have preferred Romola Garai, who played Amelia, to play the lead instead.

I might as well point out that I am pretty much being an idiot, because The Importance of Being Earnest also qualifies.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Exit Peter the Third—enter Catherine


So begins the third act of Josef von Sternberg’s The Scarlet Empress with Marlene Dietrich in the title role of Catherine the Great. Von Sternberg cast Dietrich several times in roles where strong women struggle against a world dominated by men, and this, penultimate collaboration is the most ambiguous (as to sex and power) and by far the most excessive. Excessive in terms of cast (listed as 1,000), sets (elaborate and massive—so much so that it takes several (usually women) to simply open a door), bad acting, poor writing, overt (and hidden) sexuality, music (integrating Wagner into the expected Tchaikovsky), political intrigue and stunning, gorgeous cinematography.

I like this movie a bit more every time I watch it, but still there are too many flaws (as I see them) for me to place it in the highest rank. Still a must-see, if for nothing else Von Sternberg’s obsessive examination of sex and power.

 

[JohnRice]

I need to watch The Scarlet Empress. It's been years.

 

[Lew Crippen]

A nice thing about this challenge John—the chance to see a few that I recently ignored and the chance to re-watch a few old favorites, such as my last for this challenge, a David Lean.

 

[PatW]

The Last Legion (2007) :star: :star: 1/2

This is no work of art by any means but despite it, I found it somewhat entertaining if you ignore certain things. This movie is based on legend and not fact and is an interesting take on the beginnings of the Arthur legend or more to the point Excalibur. I adore Colin Firth but whatever possessed the casting director to hire him for this role. Even though he does do some credible acting, his hiring for this movie wouldn't have even crossed my mind. Another terrible casting choice was Ben Kingsley in the role of Ambrosinus who looks like he wished he was elsewhere. I'm a bit torn about this movie since I love everything about the King Arthur legend. This could have been so much better. Now what I would love to see is the Crystal Cave brought to the screen. That would be something to see.

 

[SteveGon]

Heh. I'm trying to figure out a way to shoehorn a zombie movie in here.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm wondering if I dare include Van Helsing.

Was also thinking of the werewolf film, Ginger Snaps 3.

 

[JohnRice]

My official judgment, which you are free to ignore, is...

Van Helsing: NO
Ginger Snaps 3: YES

 

[PatW]

Silk (2007) :star: :star:

An exquisite looking movie that is directed by French Canadian Francois Girard whose splendid The Red Violin remains my favourite by this artist.

This movie tells its story at a slow snail-like pace and by the time it was over I just didn't care anymore. Keira Knightley was fine in the part, but Michael Pitt as Herve left me mostly cold. I didn't sense any fire or passion in the character and frankly by his third trip to Japan, I didn't care whether he lived or died. Though Red Violin remains one of my favourites, this movie was a big disappointment.


Stage Beauty (2004) :star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2

I love this story and the period of time it's set. In some ways, it's more satisfying than Shakespeare in Love another film I love. Ned Kynaston was such a fascinating character and he is played brilliantly by Billy Crudup. Crudup has the Shakespeare acting experience and with those delicate features was very convincing in the role. I like Claire Danes but I don't think she is anywhere near the caliber of an actor that Crudup is. This film is filled with wonderful British actors the best being Rupert Everett who was hysterical as King Charles. This is a fascinating look at a period of history just after the Restoration when the King decreed that women could act on the stage. The only thing I objected too was some of the modern expletives that were used but that's a very small nit-picky point.

 

[Lew Crippen]

If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.


The Beadle rails at the end of David Lean’s Oliver Twist, one of several comic moments in an otherwise bleak tale (with a happy ending) with characters as black and white as the expressionistic, high-contrast cinematography that depicts the slums of London and the workhouses of the provinces.

Fittingly the last time I watched this movie was for a John Rice discussion (on cinematography). And always a treat to revisit this Lean gem.

Watch for a young Anthony Newly as the Artful Dodger.