Observations Regarding Writing + Plot of this Movie

I, for one, dislike movies that try to fill in every blank, but this one makes it fairly clear that a lot of the things you miss are happening offscreen.

1. The main reason that we don't see Morgana answer Eric's question, "why did he hesitate?" at the end of the battle is because that would have ruined the power of the climactic scene by turning our attention from Einar's sacrifice to Eric's emotional response to it. That was Einar's triumph, not Eric's (and producer Kirk Douglas's big scene, not Tony Curtis's). Moreover, a response was unnecessary because WE knew the answer that Eric would surely learn. Of course Morgana (who also knows about the stone) tells Eric about his heritage after the battle. She had told Einar, so why wouldn't she tell the man she loves who and what he is? Despite being the right thing to do, it would also give her everything she wants for him and for herself by elevating his status in both the Viking and English cultures. The movie makes it clear that this is precisely what has happened. In the final scene, it is Eric who commands that the raiders prepare "a funeral for a Viking," suggesting his acceptance as a leader and as a suitable match for the Princess Morgana, something unlikely for a former slave no matter how great his prowess in battle.

2. From my first viewing as a kid, I always felt that Ragnar recognized something in the brief pause after Eric had given him the sword before he jumped into the wolf pit. He certainly stares a good while at his erstwhile son while developing a literal glint in his eyes. Ragnar could have just been grateful for the opportunity to die a Viking death and enter Valhalla, or he could have been acknowledging Eric's worth as a fellow Viking, but I always perceived it as more than that, that Ragnar suddenly saw something of himself in Eric's face. In any event, that pause was there for a reason.

3. As for the kidnapping of baby Eric that brings him to his father's court, that kind of coincidence is one of the oldest plot devices in romantic fiction, preceding Hollywood by centuries. Indeed, one of the most common tropes in "comedy" is the doomed and forbidden love between an aristocrat and a commoner that is suddenly resolved when the commoner (usually the woman) is revealed to be a lost noble. Far from a weakness, this element connects the movie with the traditional lore of the very time it depicts.

4. Another traditional element of the hidden noble trope is the idea that the aristocrat will naturally exhibit the qualities of his superior nature. This theme dates back to Greek mythology in which semi-divine characters like Jason and Perseus are raised as shepherds or farmers yet prove to be the greatest heroes in the land when unexpectedly called into action. So it's no surprise that the untrained slave Eric is mysteriously adept at falconry, swordplay, charm, and even leadership. In fact, it is Eric and not Einar who appears to mastermind the invasion planning, and Eric seems the more intelligent and less impulsive commander, probably because of his more "civilized" English half.

5. In the opening scene of the movie, Ragnar's attack has obviously caught the royal party while it was travelling and overcome the sentries and whatever other defenses were protecting the King. The King and his retinue may have been on a hunting expedition, on their way to visit some other noble familty, or simply moving between different estates of their own. Such royal "camping trips" with the kind of tents and baggage shown are another typical image of traditional literature as well as actual history. For example, this kind of thing occurs constantly in Arthurian legends.

To cluvon:

I think you would benefit from a bit more experience with film and literature. I'm not being snide, here, I'm serious. The answers given by tehck you would have answered yourself had you been more artistically 'adept.'

To tehck:

Point 1,
Couldn't have said it better.


Point 2,
Yes, definitely. And just to solidify, no, it wasn't that Ragnar was 'just being greatful'. It was a hint of recognition.


Point 3,

I agree, and how great of Fleischer and the writers to not hit you over the head with it. Subtlety, man. It's what makes truly great art.


Point 4,

That is the only point that cluvon can be make regarding 'weakness' in the film. But even then, your argument, tehck, is a valid one, although I would have had something, however small, in there for some justification. Recall the line, "If he was fathered by a black ram . . ."


Point 5,

Well said, tehck.


www.joekeck.com