1066: A Year to Conquer England (2017)

 

                I decided to watch a movie to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. Unfortunately, there is no good feature film on the battle. However, my search uncovered this docudrama produced by the BBC. It’s alternate title is “Europe’s Last Warrior Kings” which is certainly not an accurate title (speaking for Henry V), so why they changed it is beyond me. It covers the Norman Conquest leading up to the Battle of Hastings and beyond. But it also covers the lesser known invasion by the Norsemen from Norway that same year. It can be seen in its three 60-minute episodes on YouTube.

                The miniseries is akin to other BBC productions like “Colosseum” and “Rome’s Worst Nightmare” (on Hannibal). These use a format of mixing scenes acted out by actors with historical narration and interviews with historians. In this case, the docudrama covers the year 1066 from Jan. 1 to Christmas Day (when William was crowned). The scenes are identified by the date and how many days until the Battle of Hastings. It starts with an actor portraying King Edward the Confessor on his deathbed. His death initiates a power struggle between three (four if you count Edward’s traitorous brother Tostig) men, each of whom claims the throne. Harold Godwinson (Adam James) is an English noble who takes the crown because of proximity to the king, who he is brother-in-law and advisor to. Plus, being native born, he is the clear choice of the nobility, of whom he is the most powerful. Unfortunately, it is not going to be that simple. Across the North Sea, King Harald Hardrada of Norway (Clive Russell) decides two crowns are better than one. He forms a partnership with Tostig. Meanwhile, across the English Channel in Normandy, Duke William (Ed Stoppard) is incensed because he claims that Edward promised the throne to him and plus Harold had sworn allegiance to him. The series intertwines their three stories.

                “1066” blends several docudrama elements. It uses actors and reenactors to show key events and battles in the story. It has a narrator to give background. It also has popular television historian/host Dan Snow who adds scenes that put history in perspective. These little minidocumentaries cover aspects like medieval weapons and tactics. He brings in an expert to show the effects medieval bows and swords have on a pig carcass, for instance. He has a high school class reenact a shield wall with half the class interlocking shields and the other half trying to push it back by ramming it with their bodies. He goes to actual locations in the narrative and has local historians describe the site at the time of 1066. He also includes a segment on logistics, a branch that is often overlooked in military history. He goes to a bakery to show the type of bread William’s men subsisted on and points out the staggering amount that had to be provided each day. On a similar note, he uses a stable as a backdrop for a discussion on the problem of horse and human waste in an extended encampment.

The series includes the usual talking head historians, but these documentary mainstays are kept at a minimum because of the variety of elements used to tell the tale. One thing I had not seen in other docudramas is it uses three historians who role-play the three claimants. One of them is Tom Holland (I am currently reading his Persian Fire). He gets into the head of William. Harold is played by a female historian (Janina Ramirez).  The trio stand by an animated map which they use to supplement what their character is discussing. It is especially well-used for the battles. It is enlightening to hear what the trio might have been thinking. Some of it is conjecture, of course, but the historians’ interpretations seem logical. For instance, it seems reasonable that William was very frustrated when ill-winds postponed his invasion by months. Naturally, the three historians are emphatic in justifying their man’s actions. This interplay does a good job humanizing the three and allows the production to not take sides. None of the three are without their flaws and frankly they are all dislikeable.  The series uses medieval sources like the Bayeux Tapestry and the recently discovered “Song of the Battle of Hastings” (the earliest surviving account) to highlight different versions of what happened and challenge long held beliefs.

The highlights are the two battles – Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Both use reenactors dressed and armed appropriately. Because of budget constraints, you can not expect “Braveheart”. However, the Battle of Stamford Bridge does have a bridge. CGI is used for larger formations and fleets, but the fighting is the usual humans clanging away. It’s typical slo-mo and bloodless. Both battles start with shield walls, but as in most ancient or medieval movies, this quickly devolves into a more entertaining melee. Even documentaries can’t avoid this, apparently. The series builds to the Battle of Hastings. Curiously, it has some  flaws. Up till this point, the writers had thrown in all the famous anecdotes (like the berserker defending Stamford Bridge by himself), but now some fairly well-known incidents from the battle are left out (e.g., the minstrel who juggled his sword as he made a suicidal attack) and some versions are omitted (e.g., William’s archers being ordered to fire in high arcs). The battle is simplified too much.

People often wonder why there has not been a major motion picture about the Norman Conquest. Good question. It seems that we might be getting one in the next few years as a movie entitled “The Conquest” is in preproduction and a series called “King and Conqueror” is slated for the BBC. We can thank the popularity of “Game of Thrones” for both of those. Better late than never. Until then, you can do worse than watch “1066: A Year to Conquer England” if you want to learn about the Norman Conquest in an entertaining, but factually accurate way.

GRADE  =  A

 

Medieval (2022)

 

            “Medieval” is the most expensive Czech movie ever made.  It was directed by Petr Jaki.  His last movie had been seven years earlier.  He co-wrote the screenplay.  He wanted to explore a different period of Jan Zizka’s life. Being one of the greatest Czech heroes, there were already films of his life as one of the greatest generals in history.  He never lost a battle and he was a tactical genius.  The goal of the movie was to show how he got there.  The advantage Jaki had in his approach is little is known of Zizka’s early days.  This allowed Jaki to sleep at night as he crafted a medieval thriller with plenty of killing, political scheming, and romance.

            The narrative begins after the death of Charles IV.  He was both Holy Roman Empire and King of Bohemia, which means his succession was going to be disputed.  His official heir was his son Wenceslas IV.  Unfortunately, as often happened when you based your leader on whose womb they came out of, Wenceslas was a weak ruler.  He’s automatically the king because he is the oldest son, but the real power is held by Henry of Rosenburg (Til Schweiger).  To add to the chaos, the Pope and the French king balk at him being Holy Roman Emperor.  The movie begins in 1402 Italy.  Jan is the leader of a merry band of mercenaries.  They save the only good noble in the film, Lord Boresh (Michael Caine), in a combat porn battle that proves Jan is in command of his band because he is the best killer among good killers.  If you keep count, that is 20 splatter fodder and one expendable to prove the fight was fair.  We learn it was an assassination attempt by the evil Rosenburg.  Zizka and crew are hired to kidnap Rosenburg’s fiancé Katherine.  Before they pull that off, Jan visits his brother who is a lowly, but hardworking farmer.  He hasn’t seen his brother in years and apparently stops by to put a target on his brother.  Sorry, spoiler alert.  Just kidding.  Your dead meat beeper will be going off.  Do I seriously need to spoiler alert about the relationship arc of Jan and Katherine?  This is the spoiler alert you really need.  There is no nudity.  But there is plenty of violence and a kick-ass battle that introduces us to Zizka’s famous war wagons!  And we find out Jaki’s theory on how he lost his eye.  That’s right, Ben Foster in an eye-patch.  But I digress.  It’s a roller coaster ride that includes the maggot cure, sawing a head off, crows pecking at bodies, war dogs, and flails.  Oh, wait, did I mention the lion in the dungeon?  Or the fight under water? 

            I know my summary of the movie makes it sound like a lot of fun.  However, the plot is all over the place and stuffs too much ridiculously over the top mayhem.  It’s what I call a “14-year-old boy movie”.  It is combat porn with very gory effects.  You can not fault the movie for being redundant in it’s killing.  This seems to be the trend with our recent spate of medieval gorefests.  The director has a list of different ways a person can be killed in medieval warfare (or his imagined medieval warfare) and he checks off each as the movie rolls.  Impaled.  Check.  Head sawed off.  Check.

            It’s hard to determine how much of the story is based on actual events since little is known about this period of his life.  Historians believe he did participate in banditry, but whether he led a gang is unclear.  His name appears with regard to conflict with Henry of Rosenburg.  And later he is pardoned by Wenceslas.  We don’t know when or how he lost his life. We do know a lot more about him when he participated in the Hussite Wars.  The wagon scene in “Medieval” is a portent to his brilliant use of wagon forts in that war. 

The acting is a plus as the cast is good and they are able to go medieval effectively.  I am a big Ben Foster fan and he looks great in an eye patch.  The script lets him down.  Michael Caine gets a death scene, so that’s cred.  Unfortunately, he won’t be in the sequel.  I pray they will make a sequel because I want to see Zizka fighting in the Hussite Wars. Now that will be a great movie.  Until then you can enjoy this prequel.  Just don’t expect much, unless you like getting splattered.

 

GRADE  =  C

 

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #34. Spartacus (1960)

 

           “Spartacus” is a famous historical epic released in 1960. It is based on the book by Howard Fast. Kirk Douglas was fascinated by the novel and wanted to ease his disappointment over losing the starring role in “Ben Hur”. He recruited Olivier, Laughton, and Ustinov. When Fast proved unable to make the jump to screenwriter, noted commie Dalton Trumbo was brought in. This was a daring move as Trumbo was, at that time, blacklisted as a member of the Hollywood Ten. He had run afoul of the House Unamerican Activities Committee during McCarthyism and was writing screenplays under pseudonyms. After completion of the film, Douglas insisted Trumbo be credited by his real name – a move that ended the blacklisting movement. Kudos! The first director (Anthony Mann) did not meet Douglas’ standards so he was replaced by Stanley Kubrick. It was not exactly smooth sailing after the change. The massive egos of the stars made each scene difficult. Kubrick looked back on the film with far from fond memories. Based on his recollections, you would think the movie was terrible. He wanted the movie to be more gritty and less a hagiography. He wanted more battle scenes, but test audiences reacted negatively (boo!). The movie was the most expensive to date ($12 million).

               A Roman lanista (gladiator school owner) named Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) arrives at a mine in Libya and buys a slave named Spartacus (Douglas) who is not only rebellious, but has good teeth. Perfect gladiator material. At the gladiator school in Capua, Spartacus begins training under the brutal Marcellus (Charles McGraw). We get a training montage. Spartacus makes a love connection with a servant named Lavinia (Jean Simmons). Crassus (Laurence Olivier), the richest man in Rome, arrives with two “ladies” who insist on watching pairs fight to the death. This violation of normal procedure leads to a mutiny. The gladiators set up camp on Mt. Vesuvius and escaped slaves join them. Spartacus creates a slave army and defeats several Roman armies (off camera). In Rome, Crassus is given dictatorial power to crush the rebellion. He achieves the power despite efforts by Senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton) to keep Rome democratic. Spartacus leads his people to a port where pirates have agreed to evacuate them out of Italy. This does not happen and Spartacus has a date with destiny with Crassus. The climactic battle is epic. Kubrick used 8,000 Spanish soldiers for the legionaries. They ominously approach the mass of rebel warriors (men and women) in their famous checkerboard formation.

ACTING:   A+                 

ACTION:    C  (7/10)

ACCURACY:  C           

PLOT:  A                         

REALISM:   C        

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    A

SCORE:   A+

QUOTE: I am Spartacus!

BEST SCENE:  the final battle

CRITIQUE:  With an A-list cast, no surprise the acting is great. Kirk Douglas is perfect in the role and it is obvious he put his soul into the role. He battled with Kubrick to get his vision on the screen. The production was a difficult one, but the finished product does not reflect that. The heavyweights (Olivier, Ustinov, and Laughton) do not disappoint and they chew the scenery less than you would expect. Ustinov is especially effective as Batiatus. He justifiably earned the Best Supporting Actor trophy. Some of the minor characters shine. Charles McGraw is great as the menacing trainer. Woody Strode brings gravitas to a key role. Tony Curtis as Crassus’ servant and Spartacus’ last opponent. The only sour note is provided by John Dall as Glabrus. It appears they ran out of salary money and grab a guy off the streets.

       The soundtrack by Alex North is one of the best ever. He was a six time Academy Award winner, but was only nominated for this one. The music is epic as befits the movie. He used antique instruments for a unique feel. The music attached to the lead-up to the last battle is awesome.

       For those not familiar with the Third Servile War, the movie is suspenseful because it is not clear what the outcome will be. It’s a great movie to be seeing for the first time. Who’s going to win? What will happen to Spartacus? Don’t read the historical accuracy section if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t know the story. And do not use the movie as a documentary.

      The romance is well done. I’m not much for mushy stuff, but if Kirk Douglas is okay with the script – fine with me. Jean Simmons is excellent as Varinia. Their opening scene is powerful, although unrealistic. It introduces the characters well. Compare their chaste relationship to the sexual escapades on the Starz series (which I am a big fan of) if you want to see how far morals have come since 1960. That series clearly answers the question “what would Hollywood do with Spartacus if it was remade today?” Conversely, how about that “snails and oysters” scene that was cut from the theatrical release? There is an example of how Hollywood was too prudish in 1960.

           One flaw in the movie is the lack of actual combat. Spartacus fought numerous battles with the Romans, but only one is depicted. It is pretty standard in an epic of this type to have a victory in the first half and a loss at the end. The skipping over the attack on Glabrus’ camp is head-scratching. As much as I despise “Braveheart” (Gibson clearly was inspired by “Spartacus”), it does a better job on this. Another problem is that the final battle is overrated. It has ridiculous elements (the fire rollers) and does not accurately depict Roman tactics.

          “Spartacus” is one of the all-time great epic films. It has all the ingredients necessary for grand entertainment. It has action, suspense, romance, and some humor. The acting is stellar and the score is outstanding. Although 197 minutes long (it had an intermission), it never drags. Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (who was blacklisted at the time) intertwines the characters deftly. There are three conflicts:  Spartacus versus the Romans, Spartacus versus Crassus, and Crassus versus Gracchus.  His dialogue is crisp. It is an almost perfect movie, similar to “The Last of the Mohicans” (1992). The most obvious comparison is to “Braveheart”. Both are highly entertaining, but even though neither is a good history lesson, “Spartacus” is not burdened by laughable plot developments. Compare the two romances to see what I mean. The difference between Dalton Trumbo and Randall Wallace is significant. By the way, Trumbo’s involvement played a role in helping end McCarthyism because Douglas insisted on giving Trumbo screen credit for his screenplay.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: There are a lot of gaps in the historical record concerning Spartacus. This should allow Hollywood to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, Hollywood takes some of the known facts and changes them. We do not know exactly who he was before the rebellion, but most likely he was a Thracian soldier who deserted from the Roman army and possibly became a bandit until he was captured and sold at a slave auction in Rome. He was purchased by Batiatus and trained at his gladiator school in Capua. The training was probably similar to that depicted in the movie. The rebellion did break out in the kitchen, but the cause is unknown.

       The rebels did make camp on the slopes of Vesuvius and they were joined by local slaves. A Roman unit (a hastily recruited militia, not the Roman garrison) led by Glaber was sent to put down the rebellion and did leave its camp undefended. The movie does not specify how the slaves surprised the Romans, but in reality they made vine ropes to climb down the slope. The original plan was to march north to escape over the Alps, but Crixus argued for staying and continuing to plunder Italy. Spartacus acceded, but remained in command. The movie does not clearly depict the disagreements between Spartacus and Crixus.

      In the second year of the war, the army split with most going northward under Spartacus and the rest staying in southern Italy under Crixus. Crixus was defeated and killed. At the funeral games for Crixus, Spartacus honored him with gladiatorial bouts between Roman prisoners. This is just one example of how Spartacus was not as saintly as the movie would have you believe.

      Spartacus defeated a Roman army on the way to the Alps, but again he turned back for reason unknown. After yet another Roman defeat, the Romans turned to Crassus who raised an army of six legions. Crassus’ motivations were not as broad as the movie suggests. He was mainly interested in the power that would come with rescuing Rome from the slave menace. After a subordinate violated orders and allowed part of the army to be brought to battle and got his ass kicked, Crassus used decimation (killing one-tenth of an embarrassed unit) to show his men he meant business. Crassus defeated Spartacus, but not decisively. Spartacus did negotiate with Cilician pirates for passage to Sicily, but they took the money and sailed off. Most likely they were not bribed by Crasssus, but simply were being pirates. A desperate attempt to build rafts to float to Sicily ended in failure.

      Meanwhile, Crassus constructed a line of fortifications to trap Spartacus in the toe of Italy. Spartacus had a Roman prisoner crucified in no man’s land to show his men what awaited them if they gave up. The stalemate caused the Senate to recall Pompey from Spain and Lucullus from Macedonia (a strategy alluded to in the film). On a snowy night, Spartacus launched an attempt to break through the Roman line. This was only partially successful with less than half his army reaching safety on the other side. For some reason, the slave army splintered again and the non-Spartacus part was caught by Crassus and had to be rescued by Spartacus. A second surprise attack on the splinter group resulted in its destruction a few days later.

      Spartacus headed for Brundisium, but Lucullus landed ahead of him. The slaves spanked the van guard of Crassus’ approaching army and overconfidently insisted on a pitched battle with Crassus. Spartacus must have expected the worst because before the battle he made a show of killing his horse in a victory or death analogy. In the subsequent Battle of Silarus, there is no reference to fire rollers, of course. And the movie does a poor job on Roman weaponry as it does not have the Romans using their pila (javelins). Also, Crassus won the battle with no intervention by Pompey or Lucullus. Spartacus apparently was trying to cut his way to Crassus when he was killed. (How did Hollywood resist that?) In one version, he was abandoned by his retinue and surrounded. In another, he was wounded in the thigh after dispatching two centurions and was finished off as he fought from one knee. Obviously he was not crucified and in fact his body was not identified.

      The movie does accurately show the crucifixion of 6,000 survivors along the Appian Way. In a post script neglected by the movie, Pompey finished off the fleeing remnants of the army and was able to falsely claim the lion’s share of ending the slave threat instead of it going to Crassus. Crassus does not go on to become dictator as the movie implies, but instead joins Pompey and Caesar in the First Triumvirate. The movies prediction that Spartacus’ rebellion would inspire slaves to eventually overthrow the empire was fantasy. In reality, the Spartacus rebellion was the last serious slave rebellion in Roman history.

      As far as the love story, there is little evidence to base it upon. Varinia is almost pure fiction. It is possible Spartacus was “married’, but his spouse would have been a Thracian. (In fact, Rome had not conquered Varinia’s Britain at this point.) She may have been a priestess. They probably knew each other before the rebellion. There is no evidence of a child. It seems very unlikely that he was the sensitive lover the movie depicts.