MovieChat Forums > Ivanhoe (1997) Discussion > The characters in 'Ivanhoe'

The characters in 'Ivanhoe'

posted 18 years ago by wimsattm
14 replies | jump to latest

People who see films chiefly for pleasure will naturally prefer one actor or actress to another, but serious viewers of a film may hold opinions quite different from those expressed by other people. For these reasons, I feel compelled to defend Stephen Waddington against his detractors. His role in the film is determined by his role in the book. He is not supposed to be a tormented hero-villain; he is a knight loyal to King Richard and to Cedric, and he represents a stable, sensible way of life that finally establishes itself as the most desirable way to exist, despite the heroics of more formidable figures. Scott shaped Ivanhoe in deliberate contrast to Front-de-Boeuf, to De Bracy, and especially to Bois-Guilbert, who gives a striking performance in the film and who rightly deserves the praise he has won for it. But Stephen Waddington deserves praise as well. In his low-keyed manner, he strikes exactly the right note. Doing so could not have been easy when he was surrounded by more glamorous characters. Waddington was good in 'Boudicca' also.

[–] oshelley55 18 years ago

I'm not sure if you had particular detractors in mind, but as someone who participated in the thread where Ivanhoe was called things like Ivanwho? and Ivanbore, I'd just like to make it clear that none of my comments were a criticism of Steve Waddington. I think him a very good actor. I was talking about the character of Ivanhoe. It wasn't even meant as a criticism of Scott's story -- its just the nature of these types of stories. I think B-G, particularly as he's written (and played) in this BBC/A&E production, is just the more compelling *character.*

I guess I'm just fond of the 'baddies who redeem themselves' type: in 'Last of the Mohicans' where Waddington is in that type of role, I'm very fond of his character. :-))

[–] wimsattm 17 years ago

I agree that Bois-Guilbert is more compelling. He is supposed to be. My only point was that Waddington is supposed to be the way he is as well.

[–] oshelley55 17 years ago

Then we are in agreement. :-)

[–] KittMc 17 years ago

Ivanhoe's character is more a reflection of Scott's era -- and our preference for the tortured anti-hero of Bois-Guilbert is perhaps more a reflection of our own.

[–] wimsattm 17 years ago

Yes, that's exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head.

[–] murdoch1111 10 years ago

@KittMc

Excellent comment!

[–] angelosdaughter 10 years ago

... and that tortured anti-hero was popular in Scott's era because Byronic heroes in the style of George Gordon, Lord Byron, poet and rebel were admired and imitated.

"..sure you won't change your mind? Why, is there something wrong with the one I have?"

[–] Colkitto 16 years ago

The problems of Ivanhoe as a character aren't limited to not being a tortured anti-hero. They're mostly to do with the fact that he's paper-thin. He never says anything that isn't designed either to further the plot or to support his status as the "noble" guy: nobility appears to be his only characteristic. He shows no discernible sense of humour; we learn nothing about his tastes (except his inexplicable taste in women) - no appreciation of music, food, whatever, in fact no sign that he ENJOYS anything at all.

Waddington's a great actor. But Ivanhoe isn't just a character too bland for modern tastes, he's barely a character at all.

Incidentally, people in Scott's time loved antiheroes like Bois-Guilbert. The Monk, Melmoth the Wanderer, Frankenstein, all put the tortured antihero at the centre of the story. That Scott didn't has more to do with his personal tastes than those of his contemporaries.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] The_Maniacal_Dr_Poohfinger 16 years ago

I always thought of the character of Ivanhoe to be the ideal example of the idea of chivalry. He is noble to a fault, and as such he is almost entirely unrealistic. He is the knight as the knight should be.

On the other hand, de Bois Guilbert represents the idea of chivalry as applied to an actual human being with vices and faults. He is the knight as the knight would be.

As a result, you cannot help but identify with and root for Sir Brian, as we are all human being with vices and faults, where Ivanhoe is almost repulsive to us as he borders on inhumanity.

[–] farzhan 15 years ago

I identified with Rebecca the most and was disappointed when she refused to escape with BG when her death seemed eminent as this seemed unrealistic to me as BG had proven himself to be a worthy comrade for her by that point. The conclusion where she was made out to be choosing the high road was very unsatisfying and made her supposed love interest and his chosen mate seem very simple & bland, making you question why you ever gave a damn about their story in the first place. The queen's omniscience about her sons didn't seem to include the fact that John tried to have Richard murdered twice and was therefore an annoying scene in the end to me despite the very fine performance by her.

[–] angelosdaughter 13 years ago

Rebecca was a Jew; a marriage between her and Bois-Gilbert would have been as impossible as a marriage between her and Ivanhoe. If a Jewish woman renounces her faith to marry outside it, it is a tragedy in her family, and most Christians at that time would not have accepted a Jewish woman as a wife for their son. At this time, Jews were dying in preference to renouncing their faith. Rebecca would not have been true to her character and her faith if she had chosen to escape and save her life with a man who could only dishonor her.If she had been that type of woman and attainable as well, Bois-Guilbert would not have been so madly in love with her. He rose to his best self because Rebecca did not depart from her faith and her principles even to save her own life, and really, because her faith and her principles put her out of his reach.

[–] schuhj 11 years ago

You have it.

[–] murdoch1111 12 years ago

@Colkitto

You and I have different views of Ivanhoe, to put it mildly.

[–] murdoch1111 12 years ago

@Colkitto

I don't find Ivanoe "paper-thin" or any of the other things you mention. The point I have made before and shall make again if necessary is that he's SUPPOSED TO BE the way he is, whether you like the fact or not.

Incidentally, I have read "The Monk," "Frankenstein," and similar narratives. Scott's books are different from those works because Scott was an astonishingly prolific professional author writing for a public that adored his novels. Many of his works have happy endings [a fact that pleased his millions of readers]. Also, Scott designed a specific structure for his books: Most of his novels, save for "The Bride of Lammermuir," display that structure. Scott's works have fallen out of favor with many Americans. He is still widely read in the UK.

Scott's writing influenced Leo Tolstoi, Victor Hugo, and other notable European authors.