Some of you may find historical films interesting, but probably most of you do not. I fall into the first category. But I must say that any time I do skip out of the door to see one of these films or pop one in the DVD player, that impending sense of enjoyment is tempered somewhat by fear and trepidation. You may find yourself wondering whatever so much could make me fearful of a simple film, and I will attempt to explain myself.
Let’s face it, film makers aren’t well known for going out of their way to get things right, historically speaking. There is such a thing as laziness and there is such a thing as artistic license. But sometimes one is used to explain away the other, and the resulting product is something less than what I think the movie going public deserves. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect Hollywood (or any other regional film institution) to dumb things down so that every single knuckle dragging idiot that buys a ticket understands that what is being presented on screen is not what one might consider a… conventional history. I mean, cigarette manufacturers have been putting warning labels on their wares for years, and people still go out and buy them in droves.
But despite that fact, I’d still like to see film makers take a bit of responsibility and caution in what they are feeding the movie going public. Could this be achieved with a few simple lines of text at the beginning of a film that explains that what is being presented is the film maker’s own interpretation of historical events, and may not be completely accurate? Well, I’m not sure that it would actually do anything other than make me feel better about it, but it might be a nice gesture nonetheless. Notice that I said that I’d like to see the film makers take responsibility for this. I don’t want to see legislation that forces constraints and labels upon artists. And right about now you may be thinking that I am some kind of hypocrite and that I want things both ways.
And in some ways you would be correct. I suppose this is the result of the artistic side of me conflicting with the history buff. But films are a powerful thing, and the information contained within them is more easily disseminated than information from a book. Therefore the power wielded there is greater and more dangerous, in my opinion. Histories, after all, are quite often heavily influenced by the historian, whether intended or not.
Keep all of this in mind as you watch the following trailer. And, please, enjoy.
I posted briefly on Centurion here, and at that time I felt fairly optimistic about it. I must say, though, that I have my doubts after viewing the trailer. Besides being a terribly cut together, yawn-fest of a trailer, I must say that the trepidation I described above is beginning to manifest itself where this film is concerned.
A bit of historical exposition if you will: The Ninth Legion was a real Roman legion that was sent over Hadrian’s Wall into present day Scotland to destroy the marauding natives, the Picts, and was never heard from again. Supposedly. Although there is no conclusive evidence to support this theory, it has been the subject of several adaptations and interpretations including Rosemary Suttcliffe’s classic novel Eagle of the Ninth, and the TV movie-ish The Last Legion (how come it seems like everything that has Dino de Laurentiis’ name on it turns to shit?).
My problem here lies not with the accuracy of the story itself, but the way in which the Picts are (seemingly) being portrayed. Is it just me, or did the trailer seem to paint them in a negative light? And if so, what is so evil about a native people that is fighting to retain their land, culture, and way of life? Yes, yes. I know that I could also name a dozen or more films that have done the same thing with American Indians, but we’re not talking about those films at the present time. I honestly hope that I am wrong about this, but time will tell.
Another thing that bothers me about this trailer, and potentially the film, is the beauty of the Pictish warrior women. I’m not saying that Pictish people were not attractive. I’m simply pointing out that the Picts might not have had access to the kinds of hair care products and make ups that the actresses portraying them obviously do. Duh. This kind of thing just drives me nuts. Show me something that is a serious approximation of what life was actually like and please don’t dress it up with lipstick and eye shadow.
Now that I’ve rambled and ranted and bored the hell out of 3/4’s of my audience (that leaves what, one of you?) I’d like to hear what you have to say about the trailer. Are my opinions and postulations unfounded, unwarranted, and utterly without merit? Or did you agree with some of my fears? Tell me about.
And on a side note, if you find the Picts or this particular story interesting, please check out my friend Jack Dixon’s book, The Pict. If you do find this kind of thing fascinating, then this book will not disappoint.
Until then, Kirk out!
tiny spark of hope for this film. Hope because Mickey Rourke is one hell of an actor, and is arguably one of the best examples of a Hollywood comeback in recent memory. And after The Wrestler I’m willing to see just about anything that he might appear in (Ironman 2 anyone?). Tiny, though, because the casting choice for the character of Conan is so horribly misdirected that I’m not sure Rourke can save this film from mediocrity, or worse; utter failure. Sometimes an actor in a supporting role can be so engaging that his performance transcends the weaknesses of the film itself, making the overall product more appealing than it would otherwise have been. But these cases are pretty uncommon (see Christoph Waltz’ in Inglorious Basterds.) 
