I have loved this book since I first discovered it in my teens, and just acquired this version of the movie (which is the best version I've seen).
The way you asked your question makes me wonder if maybe you haven't read Ivanhoe, and thus possibly missed out on some of the complexity taking place here. The thing that makes Scott really stand out is his character development; which is complex by any measurement but particularly so when judged by how early he wrote his novel.
Scott plays continually against a backdrop of stereotype, often introducing a character (or set of characters) fully in harmony with the common stereotype just to contradict it in their next appearance.
The characters are not solid, they are transitory; stuck within "the age's" parameters of who they may be, but their personality is not defined by their role. Rather than being 2 dimensional characters with a single motivation their fates are subject to multiple loyalties, desires, and attachments.
Ivanhoe himself is a devoted son, but he is also an ambitious young man. His ambitious love results in him being cast from his father's house, his ambition for chivalrous fame sweeps him to the holy land, and his loyalty to both Rowena and his father compels his method of return. He is broad minded in racial and social terms, seeing Issac and Rebbecca as worthy of compassion, generosity, and dignity. He is willing to risk his life for Rebbecca's sake, yet he is still blind to her very humanity, unable to even recognize that she is desperately in love with him.
All of the good characters have similar layers of self-contradiction, it makes them immensely human. The only main character who never contradicts herself is Rowena and the result is a weak portrayal; we never fall in love with Rowena we merely accept her because she is loved so fervently by Ivanhoe and Cedric.
Brian de Bois-Guilbert, is monumentally conflicted. He plays a role of loyalty to his faith, to his order, and to his race; yet his one true loyalty has been to himself. His ambition has been unchecked, unlike Ivanhoe he does not have love and loyalty calling him home. The Templar feeds on power and glory, money and women have always been side interests which fell to him by accident as he pursued his ambition.
This introduction is a perfect villain stereotype. But then he becomes obsessed with Rebbecca, we might say he loves her (I would) but love is an alien motivation. So much so that he doesn't know what to do with it. He desperately wants her affection, or at least her lust, but has no emotional vocabulary beyond pride, war, and conquest. For the first time he is distracted from his ambitions, in fact he flagrantly risks all of his achievement so far by his actions. He asks her to run away with him to some land were he can win back the prominence he already has.
If she were not a Jew and he not a Templar he could have courted her in normal ways, but as it is his desire it thrice forbidden (by her religion, his celibate order, and the prejudice of the time). But he CANNOT let it go, he knows for the sake of all that he has worked for he should just forget her but he is driven with a degree of passion that he cannot even understand.
He has struck the full boundaries of his stereotype, he is pushing against all of the walls and something must snap. He seeks redemption within his order, but finds it hollow and unbearable. He seeks flight to start over fresh, but he cannot abandon Rebbecca to her fate and she will not accept him.
When the final confrontation comes it could not be more perfectly stacked in favor of who he had formerly been; Ivanhoe is weakened by injury and by striking him down he can erase all trace of his indiscretions, he can salve his wounded ego, he can even possibly advance further by removing such a strong support of King Richard. To win, to be back on the road to everything he wants, he simply needs to do what he does best.
....but when the crucial moment comes he finds that Rebbecca is the one thing that he is not willing to sacrifice for his pride.
He has become a villain in serious danger of redemption.
reply
share
loveagoodromance
14 years ago
I loudly applause for your analysis of Ivanhoe’s characters; as a fervent lover of Sir Walter Scott’s great novel, I have to admit you are extremely insightful and eloquent in analyzing Ivanhoe and Brian Guilbet’s characters.
However, maybe you should ask if I have watched the movie yet instead? Since every time I read the ending of Ivanhoe, Sir Walter Scott says that Brian Guilbert “Unscathed by the lance of his enemy, he had died a victim to the violence of his own contending passions.”
Ivanhoe and Rebecca believed that he was struck down by the hand of God, since they both said that this is God’s judgement and they commit themselves to God when facing extreme odds at the duel.
From modern point of view, Brian Guilbert probably died of a sudden heart failure resulting from intense confliction of emotions. But it is in the movie Brian Guilbert willingly submitted himself to Ivanhoe’s sword. It is the movies ending I don’t like.
I have to admit the movie is loyal to the book in terms how Brian Guibert develops strong feelings towards Rebecca, the various confrontation between them, and the difficult choices faced by Brian Guilbert. But I think the screen writer altered the ending to make it more dramatic or believable, since it would be very difficult to explain how Brian Guilbert died if he just suddenly fell from his horse and expired.
In the book, Brian Guilbert made the final choice that in line with his character development. He was strongly attempted to give up everything for Rebecca, if Rebecca returns his love. But Rebecca tells him that it is impossible; that if he really cares about her like he says, he should go to the English authority and appeal her case. She thinks this is the only way that she might live. He flatly refused : he wouldn’do it if she does not accept his love; there is no way he could lay down his personal pride and beg Richard for the life of the woman that he claims he “loves to distraction”.
So it should not surprise anyone, he finally chose to fight Ivanhoe and could have killed him and Rebecca also if he himself wasn’t struck down by an invisible hand or heart failure depends on what you believe. It was what made the book a timeless Classic instead of Cheesy Romace: Brian Guilbert is an extremely well developed complex character, but after all these confliction and contraction, he made the choice that a human being of his character would naturally make.
I think many girls find complex, dangerous, exciting men like Brian Guilbert extremely sexy. Of course here we are discussing a great novel and beautiful movie, instead of proving marriage advice. But I have to say that we should never expect a vallian, no matter how contradictory or sexy he is, to reform because of a good woman. Men do reform for various reasons, but they usually do not change their ways completely because a woman wants him to. It is very unromantic and unfortunate, but that’s just how human mind works.
reply
share
h-r-rambler
14 years ago
I really enjoyed taking the time to put some of those thoughts into words, so I'm going to unleash another Rambling...
I took a few minutes to re-read that chapter to better isolate what Scott wrote from what I read into it, and I've got to say that I appreciate more than ever the way that it leaves so much room for interpretation yet still is such a deeply satisfying climax.
I must admit that my initial impression (which has remained consistent through multiple readings) is entirely subtextual. I would argue though, in my defense, that everything here is pointedly subtextual; as you pointed out the very cause of death flutters somewhere between the physical and the divine. Unlike earlier clashes where descriptions have intricate detail the actual physical battle. At Ashby we are brought in closely as spectators ourselves, but here an intentional distance is placed between us and the action; the expectations and surprise of those watching are given as much attention as what they actually see.
I think the real flaw is that the movie's ending attributes him too much will to fight left in the last battle. I've always read here the death of a man already defeated:
He strikes out angrily with words where before his reactions had been physical, earlier there are several times that others have to intervene to prevent him striking someone because of insults less bold than taking his reins.
The weakened Ivanhoe is already at his post with visor closed and lance ready before Brian even begins his preparations.
Even his fierce rivalry with Ivanhoe is remote to him, "I will not fight with thee at present," said the Templar, in a changed and hollow voice. "Get thy wounds healed, purvey thee a better horse, and it may be I will hold it worth my while to scourge out of thee this boyish spirit of bravado."
After derision of his knightly honor he "turned his countenance irresolutely towards Rebecca" and even though he summons up the strength to sound defiant he seems not to move. It is only after seeing Rebbecca choose another as her champion that he has "suddenly become very flushed".
With the sort of foreshadowing usually given to someone dieing to an internal enemy "his face, which had, notwithstanding the variety of emotions by which he had been agitated, continued during the whole morning of an ashy paleness".
The actual battle seems to be mostly between the horses, the Templar's only contribution being a "well-aimed" lance, rather than his former strength and ferocity. It's as if he's acting on autopilot. If Scott had created an unknown and inexperienced knight to suddenly oppose him the result would have been the same.
We get the sense that Ivanhoe's will and determination that pull him through his fall safely, but whether God or nature provide the deathblow it is the Templar's own conflicted will that casts him down "although the spear of Ivanhoe did but, in comparison, touch the shield of Bois-Guilbert".
I think you're right that the movie's scene is scripted/directed to cover the difficulty of expressing more internal parts of the narrative; however I don't think that it's flaw is in attributing a death wish to Bois-Guilbert.
That he might have cast himself from his horse in despair is certainly one of the valid interpretations that can be derived from the chapter.
So it's from this sense that I think the movie's version of the death fits the cinematic need for a "good fight" and tries to capture the book's spirit of internal conflict and ambiguity. You're still left with the same questions: was it Divine Providence, was it a collapse under mental strain, was it suicide?
p.s. thanks for responding, I'm always looking for an excuse to reflect on the philosophy of literature and movies
reply
share
valawen
10 years ago
Thank you all for the analysis of Brian Bois-Guilbert, especially h-r-rambler and loveagoodromance. I must say that I have both watched the movie numerous times and read the novel, but I first saw the movie. That was in 1982, I was 11 years old and had fallen in love with Anthony Andrews' portrait of Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited the year before. So I was all for Ivanhoe, asked for the book, which I got probably the next year and read it. I reread it a couple of times in my teens, but haven't since and can't remember that much except that Rebecca was a lot feistier, Ivanhoe rather boring and Bois-Guilbert more interesting. I've become a lot more interested in Bois-Gilbert in the movie in later years, Ivanhoe is more nostalgia for me, especially since I had a heated discussion with a girlfriend about twenty years ago. She thought nothing of Ivanhoe and had Bois-Guilbert as her hero, hoped he would better himself, redemption through true love, and then win Rebecca somehow. I hope I will find time to read the book again sometime, sounds interesting with modern and complex characters from your posts.
For those of you who aren't Swedish, you do know that we slavishly watch this movie every New Year's Day as a hangover remedy, often accompanied by pizza and heated discussions. Not just women, men as well, for some reason they feel weak enough to discuss romance and choice of spouse in a serious manner, not just the exciting medieval jousting and how to attack a castle in the best way.
reply
share
bobconstans
14 years ago
I, too, am impressed with h-r-rambler's analysis. In fact, it is Sam Neill's exceptional portrayal of just how conflicted Brian is, that makes this movie the seminal version for me. I've been searching the video stores for as many years as there have been video stores to find this version, and until I recently thought to look on IMDB, I was beginning to question if I was remembering right! "Sam Neill as Brian de Bois? Are you sure?" I still feel that it is his greatest work ever, and one of the all-time great performances.
His Brian de Bois is a consumate rotter who yet has admirable nobility and in the end, he has you hoping against hope that he will win redemption.
reply
share