“It is the end” ~ Girl from The Seventh Seal

Throughout this class, we watched sixteen different films (not including Monty Python and the Holy Grail which we will view tomorrow making it seventeen) ranging from release dates 1928 to 2017. It was interesting to see how many different methods there are of portraying the past, and it was eye-opening to see how many different events and people there are that film creators can draw inspiration from. Not only were they able to create interesting films based off of various historical ideas, but they also portrayed concepts that leave a lasting impression on their audiences whether subconsciously or not.

One of the main impressions people get about medieval history from films is a bright and adventurous view from fantasy-medieval films. Such examples from class include: The Sword in the Stone (1963), Court Jester (1955), and maybe The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). Although there may be some darker aspects looming in the background of the films, they are mostly exciting movies pumped full of color such as the fun animation, a bright green Robin Hood outfit, or bright costumes from the court. Action or adventure is a key element in the films as well as castles, knights, dragons, magic, and more, which are easily associated with the medieval ages. This association is so strong due to the reinforcement of these images in historical films.

Another impression viewers receive from historical films is a dark, grimy, chaotic view. In The Name of the Rose (1986), audiences see animalistic peasants that are beyond dirty. In The Seventh Seal (1957), there are strong visuals of death and pandemonium. Flagellants swarm from town to town, plague devours villages, and death is always walking beside you. In Pilgrimage (2017), murdering, bargaining, and greed live in the hearts of the natural man even when faced with the relic of a saint. Many of the scenes witnessed in these types of movies are vivid and unforgettable, which puts this view of the Dark Ages into the audience’s mind.

After having watched many different types of historical films about the medieval ages (regardless of whether they were the bright ones, dark ones, or something in-between), I now have a greater appreciation for historical films. I also know how to critically think about them now. When I watch them in the future, I might do some research on the films to see what was accurately done and what was dramatized for the audience’s entertainment.

Open Post: Sherlock the Friar

Sherlock Holmes is an iconic figure that shows up again and again in media today. There are, of course, the original stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and then there are many spin offs that have been created. There have been many adaptions such as BBC’s Sherlock (2010-), Sherlock Holmes (2009) starring Robert Downey Jr., Mr. Holmes (2015), Sherlock Gnomes (2018), and The Great Mouse Detective (1986). From watching these and many more, a person picks up a general idea about the personality of Sherlock. He is often seen as: eccentric, a druggy, aloof towards society, a genius, excitable during a case, and willing to do illegal or unacceptable actions if he deems it as morally justifiable or necessary in the greater scheme of things. Upon realizing that The Name of the Rose (1986) was also related to Sherlock Holmes, I was bewildered. The main character, whom was the Holmes-like figure, was a friar in the 14^th century. How in the world were they going to turn William of Baskerville into a copycat Sherlock? I hadn’t planned on seeing an accurate portrayal of Sherlock. I simply thought there were going to be a few callouts to Doyle’s books (like his name → The Hounds of Baskerville, or a few famous lines → “Elementary, my dear Watson”); however, I would be proven wrong.

Despite adding a religious side to their version of Sherlock, William of Baskerville was able to be identified with key characteristics making him Sherlock-like without it seeming like the creators of the film tried too hard. William was extremely knowledgeable and had a mind for critical thinking. He was more or less a genius and was able to analyze people much like Sherlock does. For instance, when Adso needed to go to the restroom, William knew where it was due to watching one of the monks and his expressions/attitude. William also had the arrogance often identified with Sherlock. Although William did not want to get in trouble with the inquisitor, he could not help but be a bit snarky knowing he was right. Instead of having an addiction to drugs, William had an addiction to books. He could not help but try to save them when the abbey was burning down. William of Baskerville was also willing to twist the rules in order to sneak into the library, because he saw it as necessary. Through these characteristics, it did not mater that they added an extra dimension of religion to his character. It actually made it more interesting. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the accuracy I had not expected to be there.

Would the Sheriff of Nottingham like to capture Robin? He Sherwood!

Everyone loves a good joke, and some of the most fantastic ones can be found in one of Mel Brooks’ films… Robin Hood: Men in Tights was hilarious! Although it incorporated a plethora of mismatched concepts like present day jokes, medieval costumes, odd musical numbers, and the legend of Robin Hood, they were cleverly combined into a single film that was absurdly entertaining. There are prisoners turned in for jaywalking, a king asking for ‘his bill’ at the feast, and knights fighting training dummies with V8 cans for heads. There is funny wordplay such as on the names: Achoo (sneezing jokes), Blinkin (who is blind) and Latrine (toilet jokes), and there are callbacks to other movies like Home Alone, The Godfather, and obviously Robin Hood. The fourth wall is even broken when the characters yell at the director to stop burning down their village. If there was anything I did not enjoy, it was probably the more raunchy jokes (which there were PLENTY of) like Blinkin with Braille porn.

Despite all the shenanigans and making fun of Robin Hood, the story was able to progress in a recognizable way. Robin Hood brings an animal killed in the king’s forest to the king, there is the romance between Marian and Robin, there is an archery contest, Robin Hood is captured, the merry men help save Robin, and Richard comes back at the end. By putting a well known storyline in the background of all the tomfoolery, it allows the film to be as silly as it wanted to be while also being comprehensible. It is a fantastic film for a group of friends to watch when they are in the mood for a comedy. It would probably be even funnier if you watched it at midnight when people are already tired and think anything is funny (however it is by no means necessary to watch it late at night, since it is already funny the way it is).

Open Post: Family Fav Creepy or Uplifting?

Almost every child has a favorite movie growing up, and therefore, family members are subject to watching it repeatedly whether they like it or not. Growing up, I was fortunate enough to have siblings obsessed with what I would consider good movies instead of something unbearably irritating. At one point, the favorite movie was Jim Henson and Frank Oz’s The Dark Crystal (1982). We were all enamored with the plot, the characters, the script, and the music. Every one of us can quote lines from almost every scene after having watched it a million times. Some of our favorite lines came from the part where the Skeksis Emperor lay dying and when Jen meets Aughra. The movie became a family memory.

“But Gelfling all dead! Garthim kill them all! You can’t be Gelfling! Ya look like Gelfling… [sniffs] SMELL like Gelfling… [sniffs] maybe y’ARE Gelfling!” ~ Aughra

When we invited friends over to watch movies, it came as quite the surprise to us that our friends did not share our enthusiasm for the movie. In fact, many of them told us it was “too creepy” or “it scared the crap out of them.” Even in high school we had friends who thought it was unsettling. Re-watching the film, I can’t help but see their point. The Skeksis’ elaborate designs and clothing are quite nightmarish. The animatronic Garthim are bloodcurdling creatures. Even Aughra with all her wrinkles and her startling appearance, might be a fearful sight even though she helps Jen in the movie. Not only might the appearances of the characters in the film be disturbing, but some of the concepts are chilling as well. Because of the prophecy, there was mass genocide in order to try and get rid of all the Gelflings. There is torture such as draining the essence out of the body or caging up creatures. Mature themes of death even play a role within this film.

So why did my family love it so much? Why didn’t any of us have nightmares or think the film to be horrific? I think it might have had something to do with what we focused on. Sure, the gruesome attractions of the Skeksis and Garthim were cool, but I think we focused more on the balance and the “light” in the movie. As children, I highly doubt we fully comprehended the themes in the movie, but watching it now, it is easier to see that the movie portrays just as much good as it does evil. To balance out the Skeksis, there were the Mystics. If one of them dies, so does their counterpart. There are many equal and opposites in the movie, and at the end (when the crystal is made whole), the Skeksis and Mystics combine into urSkeks, which are neither good or evil. They are balanced beings and peace can come to their world once more. Opposites are not necessarily bad, but when balance is skewed is when there is trouble. Humans are not perfect. We do bad things sometimes, but our good sides can override the bad. Jen is able to fix the crystal despite the imbalance where it seemed as if evil would win. We can be our better selves even if hope seems lost.

Comparison: Same Brand Shirts

Although Cecil B. Demille’s Crusades (1935) and Carl Theodor Dreyer’s La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc (1928) may not be two peas from the same pod, they could be considered two shirts from the same brand. Due to the swift advancement of film technology, a small difference of 7 years between the release dates forced the films to utilize extremely different techniques just as two shirts may have different qualities; however, both shirts have a brand tag with the same name on it just as both films share ideas and concepts.

A fundamental difference between the two films is that La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc is a silent film, whereas Crusades is not. Unless a viewer can lipread French, the only ‘vocals’ we receive in La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc is from the text in the intertitles. This meant that Dreyer had to make sure the actors were able to portray themselves, the plot, and the emotions with very few words unlike Demille who had actors capable of portraying it all vocally. This gives viewers the illusion that the movies cannot be considered similar. Despite this reasonable response to comparing a film with sound to a film without it, I would argue that they share similar qualities despite this major discrepancy. Both directors put intertitles in their movies in order to move the plot forward. Instead of showing soldiers marching across Europe, traveling across the ocean, or being in bloody battles which the Crusaders lost, Demille had brief summaries placed between scenes in order to move the story along faster without having plot holes. Similarly, Dreyer used intertitles, so we would be able to understand when the plot was advancing. The text signified changes such as when Joan was going to be taken to the torture chamber, when Joan took back her confession, and when she was going to be burned at the stake. Without any dialogue or previous knowledge of Joan of the Arc, these key events might have appeared to be large jumps in the plot, but because of the intertitles, the plot moved forward logically.

As well as using text to signify movement of plot, both films employ music to enhance the emotions. In La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc, the music rises when the English interrogators are livid and while Joan’s anguish increases as they accuse her of siding with the devil the music interchanges between a thunderous male voice and a saintly female voice. The fluctuations in volume and inflection attribute to the emotions the viewers feel. Crusades also uses music to enhance the emotions. As the crusaders march they sing, which not only reminds us that their mission is supposedly holy, but also allows viewers to feel their purpose and their zeal. Through music we also get comedic effect, such as when the minstrel sings. Both films express feelings which translates to the audience in real life.

Crusades and La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc also share a relationship with war both during the time the movies were filmed. Before the filming of both movies, WWI had already occurred. Because Joan of Arc had been a prominent image used as propaganda, the argument that she should be a canonized saint instead of a folk saint was brought back into society. In 1920, she finally was. Because of WWI and her re-entrance into modern society, the idea for La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc was possible. WWI also had an impact on the making of Crusades. WWII was looming in the future, and the effects of WWI, the depression, and the dust bowl still lingered on society. Another war as bad as the first was the nightmare the people dreaded which lead to the making of the movie. DeMille snuck in the very modern line, “What if we call him Allah or God? Shall men fight because they travel different roads to him? There is only one God,” in order to support a message of peace. The people did not want more war. The current day politics and events taking time during the filming, such as war, impacted the stories.

War wasn’t only seen through the modern events, but also during the time period the stories took place in. Joan of Arc had been fighting against England during the Hundred Years War. Crusades is very literally about the Third Crusade, which was mainly focused on Richard the Lionheart versus Saladin. The idea that both the Crusaders and Joan were fighting for holy purposes also appears in the films. “When asked if God was for the English when they were prospering in France, she [Joan] answered that she knew not whether God hated the French, but she believed it was His will to suffer them to be beaten for their sins, if they were in a state of sin.” Joan believed God had sent her to help France, just as the crusaders believed it was their duty as Christians to own Jerusalem. In this way, both films are similar due to their involvement with God and war.

Although La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc and Crusades appear to be polar opposites on the surface, underneath they are actually very similar. They both have intertitles to move plot, music to give emotion, modern historical ideas intertwined in their work, and the concept of war and religion during the time the stories took place. Are they two peas from the same pod? No, they are not that similar; however, they are two shirts from the same brand. They share something even if it isn’t everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Joan_of_Arc

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1935.html

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/joanofarc-trial.asp

https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=crusades-the