The Sorceress and The Anchoress

The Sorceress and The Anchoress are two films that speak to a similar theme in a couple different manners. These films describe what life was like for two different women within the middle ages that struggle finding their place within society, and struggling with the power of the church. These films can be viewed on a couple of different levels, first looking at the very basic meaning of the film and interpreting the plot of the film. The level being discussed is that of a greater detail, discussing the role of the characters, how the women are portrayed within the film, who holds the power within society, and the tactics that filmmakers utilize.

These two films differ in many ways, but both investigate the elements that were discussed. In both films, the females are presented as a sort of submissive characters that are dependent upon men. The power of the church is very prevalent in both of these films, as women struggle to make decisions while being limited by the churches divine authority.  Not only is this power displayed consistently by the church but also by the male figures that are within the film. This appears to be historically accurate as within this time period male figures were the dominant authority and female characters had the primary role of caring for the children and raising the child. The films however both utilize the technology available to enhance the mood being portrayed by the director. In both cases, the film was intended to be somber, with a very reflective mood. This was achieved through soft colors and black and white between the respective films. This allows the viewer to get the mood of the movie through the emotions being portrayed by the actor as well as the color of the film.

Double Feature: How to Train Your Dragon

I watched How to Train Your Dragonin order to complete my first double feature paper with comparing this film with The Sword in the Stone. This film was a really cute children’s movie and had a lot of similarities to the film The Sword in the Stonethat we watched in class. The filmmaker did a great job at making the film connect to the imagination of children and doing so in an appropriate manner. The used unrealistic dragons to put an imaginative feel on the film. I thought having the film include these creatures was the perfect edge to keeping the children intrigued.

The director did a great job with pulling at the children’s imagination, but I feel like the film could have caught a wider range of children if it was real people instead of animated. The older ages of children would have been more interested in a film with real people and realistic looking dragons. This edition would have made the film seem more mature, so the audience would have felt like it was a more interesting topic to watch. Although having the film animated makes a warm feeling for the audience, putting the film into a more realistic looking cast would have appealed to more of a range of children.

This film was very creative and had a very good plot line that was easy to follow and appealed to many people in the audience. This film had more positives than negatives in my eyes. The effect of each character and the scenery around the film made it very fun to watch. Throughout the whole movie I was constantly intrigued and rarely ever took my eyes off the screen. I think the director did an amazing job at pulling in the audience with the imagination and cute romance between the two children. This film was very cute and I enjoyed watching it.

Critique on How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

When I first saw How to Train Your Dragon, it was around when it first released. At that time, I didn’t care what time period it was about or whether it was accurate or not. I just knew it was about vikings and dragons, and that is all that mattered to me at the time. Now having to watch it critically, I realize how important some of the aspects I didn’t care about are. This movie could possibly be the first time kids are introduced to vikings, and with that they will come to associate things from the movie with the vikings and the Middle Ages. Some aspects are correct, like that they were fighting people, albeit not actually with dragons. However, some may also associate having helmets with horns as a viking normality. We know from our class discussion that those helmets are inaccurate, yet it is one of the first things most people think of when it comes to vikings. It is kind of weird to think that a movie can impact someones knowledge without really meaning to.

I also think the animation in the movie is cool. You can see the depth of the animated characters that we are use to today. It is the kind of animation used with the more recent animated movies like Tangled (2010) and Frozen (2013). It’s also interesting how many action sequences are in this movie. Obviously, they probably used a computer during the animation process, but image if a computer wasn’t used for these scenes specifically. I don’t think the animators would have thought about including them at all.

This movie also shows a common theme that has been seen in a lot of the movies we watched; that everybody can get along. Instead of different religions like that of The Crusades (1935), its peace among the vikings and the dragons. Its interesting how that theme continues to present itself over time.

Critiques on How to Train Your Dragon

For my first double feature paper, I choose the movie The Sword in the Stone (1963) and How to Train Your Dragon (2010). Both of this movie are animated fantasy film. The Sword In The Stone was directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, scripted by Bill Peer (based on the TH White Novel), and the music in the movie was composed by Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman (The Sherman Brothers). On the other hand, How to Train Your Dragon was directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois.

Historically, one of the effective ways to teach a lesson is by storytelling. The movie How to Train Your Dragon has a great message to the audience, especially children. One of the aims in this was to send a modern message. Characters for medieval usually viewed as large and tough, especially for the Vikings. Hiccup, which is the main character, have weak characteristics such as lacks strength, charisma, and confidence. Despite being weak, he tried to convince his father and the village that they are wrong. When Stoick sees the final results, he discovers that the dragon is really quite sweet.

Toothless the dragon has an interesting and imaginative design than any other normal dragon. For me personally, think that Toothless’ facial expression and body movement are very cat like most of the times. Overall, this is a charming and enjoyable film about family and friendship that can appeal to any age of group.

Becket the Bishop

I watched the movie Becket (1964) for my double feature paper where I was comparing it to The Lion in Winter (1968). I watched both movies on the same day and found it very easy to connect the two historically. Both center around King Henry II and the status of the country England at that point in history. The movie has Kevin O’Toole starring as King Henry II and in both movies, his acting shows many similarities.

I enjoyed Becket (1964) more than I did The Lion in the Winter (1968) for a couple reasons. One of them being the portrayal of King Henry II. In Becket (1964), King Henry is younger, more temperamental, and shows more vulnerability. He is very cold towards his family, yet shows a great deal of affection and gratitude toward his assistant Becket. Becket will eventually become the Chancellor and then the Archbishop. Becket, instead of supporting the wishes of his dear friend, King Henry, supports the integrity of his position. He finds purpose in God and his duty to serve the church. Another aspect of the film I enjoyed was the greater variety of scenes that shown to illustrate the middle-ages. The castle was the main scene as it should be, but other scenes were present such as open waters, meadows, forests, and shorelines. Additionally, in Becket (1964) there was a great deal of detail that went into the appearance of the royal clothing attire.

 

Overall, the movie provoked a conflict that commonly occurred during the middle ages which was the conflict between the church and government. The film showed that faults such as being power hungry and being jealous would cost King Henry II one of his dearer companions in Becket.

A Boy and His Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) is a children’s film that tells a tale about Vikings and the lives they live. In this film, that life consists of defending their village from the dragons that ravage their land. The main character, Hiccup, is a young Viking who doesn’t quite fit in with everyone else and as son of the chieftain, life is made much harder. His life only gets more difficult when he catches a dragon but can’t seem to do what the others would do, kill it. While this only makes his social situation more difficult, he actually learns a lot from his time with his new friend and is able to save his village indefinitely from the threat that looms over them.

As possibly one of the first encounters children will have with the middle ages, it will leave an impression on what children associate with that time period. A common association with Vikings is their look: fur clothing and horned helmets. This film is no different, all of the Vikings inhabiting the island are large, like they are well fed, and sport the fur clothing and horned helmet commonly known to them. Just because this is a common association, doesn’t mean it is an accurate one though. However, the rest of the village is an accurate portrayal, like their buildings and their ships. Children don’t really care for historical accuracy, in fact most of them probably don’t even realize a real time period in history is being portrayed. Kids are more interested in the story that is being told.

Overall, the story line tells a heartwarming story about loving someone for who they are, not who you want them to be. At first Hiccup’s father walks around his village as if he is ashamed of his son because he is unlike the other Vikings on the island. So, when he gets a glimmer of hope that is shattered by Hiccups actions of trying to prove dragons are not what they think they are, he devastatingly tells Hiccup he is not his son. Being more bold and daring than any other Viking before him, he pushes for what he believes in and proves his entire village wrong. In the end, Hiccup really didn’t change himself or anyone else, he just opened them up to new possibilities in which the village learned from.

This film also teaches children not to judge others by what they see on the outside. Everyone judged dragons as vicious and ruthless killers, never giving them the chance to show their true colors. By spending time with toothless, Hiccup was able to learn new thigs about dragons no one in the village knew and proved that they are more than just killers. Making this is a great tale for kids and adults alike, who wish to enjoy a story about a boy and his best friend.

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).

It’s Not Right, #MeToo

Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Springs focuses on issues that are still going on today. Sexual assault, rape, questioning of faith, guilt, jealousy, the list goes on. While watching this film I was annoyed and frustrated. First of Karin is a sweet virgin girl who is spoiled by her mother and has a unique relationship with her father. Unique meaning they have a more intimate relationship than just being father and daughter. Karin’s parents Tore and Mareta needs her to go to the church and give the candles to the Virgin Mary. During this time period, only the virgin could bring the candles so it had to be Karin. Ingeri the servant of Karin’s family goes with her through the first to make the trip to the church. I know I am speaking with a 21st-century mindset, but I would not have sent two women (one of them being pregnant) out on such a long trip. As the story goes on Karin is by herself because Ingeri couldn’t go on with the trip and Karin is approached by three herdsmen who eat lunch with her, rape her, and kill her.

Even if you didn’t watch this movie you see my frustration, why would Bergman want to do something like this? I know Bergman was going through something himself, but I felt he made Karin too easy and gullible. I felt there was no genuineness in this film. Even in modern films today the portrayal of women is posed as weak and easy to get, however with #MeToo movement things are changing around. I think if this film was to be remade, there would be a different outcome, Karin would be strong, her parents would be more verbal, everything would be different. As a young woman watching this film I felt during Bergman’s time these issues were probably not focused on much. However, as someone who wants to work in the film industry was thinking of the remake of this film and how these issues should end.

How to Train Your Dragon Critique

For my double feature paper, I decided to compare The Sword in the Stone (1963) and How to Train Your Dragon (2010). Both of these movies are children’s movies, which made them fun to watch. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) is directed by Dean DeBlois and is about a boy named Hiccup who is a son of a viking. Hiccup lives with all the vikings and they fight and kill dragons. Hiccup is a particularly small boy, so when it comes to killing the dragons, his dad doesn’t let him because he will get hurt. Hiccup then stumbles upon a very dangerous Dragon, Night Fury, and surprisingly, Night Fury doesn’t kill Hiccup. After that, Hiccup knew he had a special power because he knew if it were anyone else, the dragon would’ve killed him. Hiccup learns to train dragons and be gentle with them. Everyone in their village is so amazed, but thinks they still need to kill the dragons. Hiccup teaches the vikings that the dragons are nice, and that they shouldn’t kill them anymore.

 

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) didn’t really create a very good image of the middle ages. The thing I thought that didn’t create a good image was the dialogue. I think the director wanted to connect the characters to present day, so they didn’t talk like the middle ages. One example comes to mind. When Hiccup is talking about himself, he jokingly says “I am way too muscular for them, They don’t know what to do with all of this” *as he is flexing his arms*. To me, that isn’t something someone would’ve said in the medieval era. Throughout the movie, the characters would just say some lines that were pretty modern which didn’t give a good image of the middle ages.

Other than the dialogue, there was some things that gave a good image of the middle ages. They had vikings and swords. The costumes weren’t very accurate, but you could tell they were vikings. You could definitely tell that the director did some research of vikings and has most of the right elements. Overall, I really liked this movie and I recommend watching it because it is humorous, adventurous, and has some parts that tug at your heart.

Double Feature: A Twist to a Robin Hood Film

I chose the Robin Hood double feature as my first essay. I paired The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) with Robin Hood (2010). I came in expecting to see many overlaps between the two movies. From my film experiences, a typical Robin Hood movie was action packed of battles between Robin and King John. Additionally, Robin Hood is usually portrayed as a vigilante, who fears no one and always has a smile on his face.

The 2010 film starring Russell Crowe has a different feeling then the classic Robin Hood films. This movie is set as a prequel to the legendary stories of Robin Hood, which was not what I was expecting. This movie should take on a different title to more accurately describe what people are about to see. In this film, Robin isn’t even mentioned as “Robin the Hood” until the final minutes. I have more issues with this film regarding its historical accuracy. To begin, they have King Richard murdered while on crusades when he in-fact returned home after being held ransomed during that time period. Another inaccuracy to this film was the constant theme about the king’s subjects demanding liberty and rights. Yeah… wanting liberty was the same as wanting death in those days. Lastly, the whole French conspiracy was not a thing either; however, King Richard did fight against King Phillip II in Normandy near the end of his life (BCC, n.d.)

Although this film has many issues with it, there are some components that I did like. The actors in this movie had more appropriate costumes. The common people had rags, and actually had dirt on their faces/body. I liked that the director, Ridley Scott, also gave this Robin Hood version a less vibrant, colorful film. This film more accurately represents a gothic feeling of the middle ages. Lastly, I liked the slow motion release of Robin’s last arrow during the epic battle on the beach front. This was a good way to build audience suspense as Robin finally got Godfrey.

All-in-all, I think this film was just an okay remake of a Robin Hood story. Scott put many of his own components into the plot line to make it stand out from other films. I felt that this 2010 version was a less fun story of the Robin Hood that many have come to know and love, but it is fitting for the 21^st century audience. I would probably recommend this film to others.

 

BCC. (N.d.). History. Richard I (1157-1199). Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_i_king.shtml