Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

I finished Disc 1 of the recently restored and re-released historical epic El Cid (1961) this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Filmed in Spain, El Cid stars Charlton Heston as the legendary Spanish warrior Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (otherwise known as El Cid) and Sophia Loren as his wife (who spends most of the first disc plotting to kill him!) This is the kind of film that deserves to be seen on a big screen but it was breathtaking nonetheless on my television set. Even if you hate historical epics, this film is worth seeing just for the numerous, extended shots of the beautiful Spanish countryside and Medieval castles.

As you would expect, Heston is very good in this kind of part and he and Loren have an intriguing chemistry. Apparently, they did not like each other so the ongoing plot point of El Cid's wife trying to have him killed (as revenge for his murdering her father!) and the resulting tension between the two takes on an intriguing quality. Is the on-screen tension all just acting? Hard to know but the two leads being at odds off-screen certainly didn't detract from the realism of their on-screen portrayals.

Director Anthony Mann does an excellent job of bringing all this to life and there are some absolutely beautiful "painterly" shots in the film. (Love the shots of Sophia Loren alone on her wedding night and the Muslim horsemen riding along the shore at sunrise to a castle.)

The actual history is moderately good by the standards of the time (and is no worse than the history in something like Kingdom of Heaven.) (The film greatly simplifies the complicated political situation in Christian/Muslim Spain of that period and downplays El Cid's character flaws -- namely, his tendency to insult powerful people.)

Special mention should go to Genevieve Page as the scheming, incestuous Princess Urracca. (Didn't she go on to play the madam in Belle de Jour?)

Onward to Disc 2 and the Almoravid invasion (and Herbert Lom's hammy acting!)

P.S. Did they have lipstick in the 11th Century? :)

Link to comment

Thank you for the heads up, miliosr. I heard this was going to be released on DVD and I look forward to seeing it, although for once I wish I had HD and one of those gigantic new television sets. (One day I hope our local repertory theatre will get a new print and I'll see it again on the big screen, which is where it belongs, as you say.)

Director Anthony Mann does an excellent job of bringing all this to life and there are some absolutely beautiful "painterly" shots in the film. (Love the shots of Sophia Loren alone on her wedding night and the Muslim horsemen riding along the shore at sunrise to a castle.)

The cinematographer, Robert Krasker, should also get a mention. It’s one of the most gorgeous movies I’ve ever seen, and whatever happened between Heston and Loren offscreen, they are an august pair.

P.S. Did they have lipstick in the 11th Century?

Picky, picky.

Link to comment

Makeup of the Medieval period tended to be Not Good For You. Lip rouge was often mercuric oxide in tallow or beeswax. Eyeliner was kohl, antimony sulfide, which is less toxic than mercury, but a heavy metal nonetheless. And we won't even go on about foundation, which could have been almost exactly the same recipe as leaded house paint!

Link to comment

Well, I finished Disc 2 tonight, which is pretty much El Cid's defense of Valencia against the Almoravid invasion from North Africa.

The sheer scale of the battle scenes was awe-inspiring -- all the more so because this was done in an era when CGI wasn't available. Thousands of real life extras are so much more impressive visually than digitally inserted armies. That being said, I think I prefer the actual fight scenes in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven -- the bone-crunching violence in that film really makes you believe it's the 12th century.

And I loved Sophia Loren's red lipstick during the Almoravid siege of Valencia. Honestly, there are only so many sacrifices you can ask a great actress to make in the name of historical accuracy! :angel_not:

Link to comment
Thousands of real life extras are so much more impressive visually than digitally inserted armies. That being said, I think I prefer the actual fight scenes in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven -- the bone-crunching violence in that film really makes you believe it's the 12th century.

I quite agree. We may reach a point where CGI is as good as the real thing, but we're not there yet, certainly, even with an action director as good as Scott.

the bone-crunching violence in that film really makes you believe it's the 12th century

Nothing else did, unfortunately. But the trebuchets were really cool, it was fun checking out the different types of armor, and the in-close fight scenes were good.

Link to comment

I have mixed feelings about Kingdom of Heaven (both the theatrical cut and the director's cut.)

I found many of the performances cartoonish to the point where I thought I was watching a silent film. I also thought the script was problematic in its ahistoricism -- every time a character uttered some modern sentiment, the willing suspension of disbelief collapsed for me. Lastly, the extreme anti-clericalism of the movie left a sour taste in my mouth (and I say that as someone who enjoys the anti-clericalism of someone like Bunuel.)

On the "plus" side, however, the costume and set designs were splendid -- they really transported the viewer back in time to Latin Jerusalem. Also, the fight scenes were well-staged and didn't sugarcoat the violence.

Link to comment

I actually have a ballet tie-in to El Cid if you can believe it. When my parents were dating in '67/'68, El Cid, a fave of my dad's, was going to be shown on TV. My mom had tickets to the ballet. So, what did my mom do? She left JEWELS early to go meet my dad and watch it! My mom now realizes she missed seeing Farrell in Diamonds (most likely). I have been making up for her missing that ballet ever since, apparently.

-amanda

Link to comment
I also thought the script was problematic in its ahistoricism -- every time a character uttered some modern sentiment, the willing suspension of disbelief collapsed for me.

I agree, but I also understand the filmmakers’ plight. It’s no longer possible to make a film that glorifies the crusaders in the naive way that Hollywood used to do, which was not ahistorical but virtually anti-historical. They could have made the movie with Saladin as a more or less sympathetic protagonist, but such a film would not have been a suitable vehicle for Orlando Bloom, which was the basic raison d’etre for Kingdom of Heaven. So they end up with a script where the hero expresses inclusive sentiments such as “Jerusalem is for everybody!” (from memory) and eventually winds up surrendering the place to the opposition.

My mom had tickets to the ballet. So, what did my mom do? She left JEWELS early to go meet my dad and watch it! My mom now realizes she missed seeing Farrell in Diamonds (most likely).

Cute story, AmandaNYC. She missed the performance but eventually gained a husband (and you), so I guess it was worth it!

Link to comment

The confused period values problem was obvious even when the movie was in first run. MAD Magazine did a parody in which they mixed the screenplay with Paddy Chayefsky from 1955, and called it "El Mardi"

"Whaddaya wanna do today, Cid?"

"I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do, Mardi?"

I didn't get it then, hey, I was thirteen, but I understood later.

Link to comment
The confused period values problem was obvious even when the movie was in first run. MAD Magazine did a parody in which they mixed the screenplay with Paddy Chayefsky from 1955, and called it "El Mardi"

"Whaddaya wanna do today, Cid?"

"I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do, Mardi?"

I didn't get it then, hey, I was thirteen, but I understood later.

:FIREdevil:

It's going off topic, miliosr, but how was the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven different from the theatrical release?

Link to comment

The answer to your question dirac is YES!

The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven adds about 45 minutes of footage and completely transforms the narrative. With the additional footage, the motivations of the main characters (particularly Balian and Sibylla) become much more comprehensible and the storyline as a whole becomes much more coherent.

SPOILERS AHEAD (Stop reading if you don't want to know the changes)

1) At the beginning of the director's cut, the character of Balian is fleshed out in much greater detail. The viewer learns that he was a soldier before he was a blacksmith and that he has a familial relationship with the priest who is hounding him about the suicide of his wife. The viewer also finds out that the local lord is really Godfrey's nephew -- who is none too keen that his uncle has returned to France and now has a son and heir. (The lord stands to inherit Godfrey's lands in France if Godfrey dies childless.) This puts the later ambush scene in the forest into an entirely different context because the attack on Godfrey, Balian and Godfrey's knights now is more of a political assassination than a matter of arresting Balian for his murder of the priest.

2) By far the biggest change from the theatrical cut to the director's cut involves Sibylla's story. The director's cut restores the subplot involving Sibylla's son Baldwin V. When Baldwin IV dies, Sibylla's son becomes Baldwin V but -- disastrously for Jerusalem -- he too is a leper and Sibylla euthanizes him before the leprosy can take its toll. Once she kills Baldwin V, Sibylla turns the kingdom over to Guy; knowing full well that he will lead the kingdom to ruin by waging war on Saladin. The addition of this subplot makes a BIG difference to the character of Sibylla, whose actions in the theatrical cut are incomprehensible. Here, she is a much more interesting character and you sympathize with her because she is caught between bad choices and worse ones.

3) The director's cut adds a sword fight between Balian and Guy at the end but I thought this was a mistake to include. It adds nothing to the film.

If you have to watch one version of this film, watch the director's cut. It's still not perfect but the storyline "breathes" so much better in this version.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...