Hi Samantha,
I'm happy the author was happy with the movie - that's a rare thing so better for him. Yes, I notice some, let's call it "didactic" aspect of the book and it was exactely this aspect I didn't like, I suppose. I enjoy good historical studies about a period I'm interested in (and I've always had a weakness for the XVIIth century). I also enjoy a good historical novel, even if it differs a bit from the truth (like Dumas used to do). However, I've got a distinct impression that in Alatriste (of course, I speak only about the first one, I didn't read the other) the didactic intent was a bit too strong and somehow "pushed" into the novel without a logic explanation (above all the information about writers, painters ecc.). Unfortunately, I feel these are all informations and not interpretations: it doesn't seem to me, Perez-Reverte brings some new historiographical point of view to light. How do you make a movie of such a film? If you stick to the "didactic" intent - as seems the producers did - you will have some "live pictures" of the history without any depth in it. Prey, what do we come to know about Philip IVth or count Olivares or Velazques or Quevedo? Do we know why the king is weak, or what Olivares really wants? Yes, they show us the war is brutal and the life of simple people is hard, but we do know it, don't we? There is no need to keep us in the cinema for 2,5 hours for this. And, on the other side, if the didactic intent were less heavy, may be the script could be more attractive and the characters could be more elaborated: cloak-and-dagger film doesn't necessary have to be stupid, IMO.
As for Viggo Mortensen, lol, I do know something about him, I even visited an exhibition of his photo art, once - wonderful and it shows he has an extraordinary artistic sensibility. I'm also a great fan of LOTR and I do believe V.M. is very talented. So greater my disappointment in his choice of movies like Hidalgo or Alatriste and even more that he should speak so enthusiasthically about them. I mean, an actor can play in better or weaker movies - that's mainly director's responsability, but I would expect mr Morgensen to be able to recognise when a movie is not the top.
However, I'm open to the discussion.
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
miriel68
17 years ago
Hi, Samantha
if you just disagree with me about my opinion about the books and the movie it's difficult to develop a discussion. I know you didn't say they are scholarly - I did. I could explain it further but I don't know it would have much sense, as you seem much determined to maintain your point of view. In any case, de gustibus non disputandum and you have every right to enjoy whatever you want (even if saying "I can see their quality" implies that the other cannot).
I don't blame Viggo for speaking well about the movies he takes part in - it's obviously part of the commercial strategy and he has to stick to it. It could be that I'm a bit disappointed precisely because I value his so much as an actor and an artist (after all, being a poet and a photographer he is presumably more than "just" an actor)and even since LOTR I have been waiting to see him play an equally superb part. Now Hidalgo was really many cliches put together and kind of silly and Alatriste, while noble in intentions has a very bad script. When I said that IMO after LOTR he was "tempted" to play noble heros, I didn't intend he wants to take part in big productions or that he is interested in money (that would be rather Orlando Bloom). But I do have an impression he likes that kind of characters to interpret (he did seem very deep into Aragorn chracter in LOTR) and I'm not sure he does right choices.
As I said, I enojyed very much Viggo's performance in the History of Violence. I'm certainly not a lover of violent movies (in fact, I'm quite a lover of historical ones, lol), but I appreciated his brilliant interpretation, his vocal and gestual expression, his capacity to create a powerful and complicate figure. Thanks to Cronenberg and very good script. I have no doubt he would be able to do the same in Alatriste, being given the chance.
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
miriel68
17 years ago
Surely, I wouldn't dream to spoil the delight a true fan of Viggo Mortensen can take in everything this worthy actor is doing. And surely there is no point of trying to discuss something on rational basis versus emotional basis. :)
reply
share
teacher_tom516
17 years ago
I agree actually. You don't get as good a sense of the period as you should. You don't even know who the heck Alatriste is fighting in the first scene - it turns out they're the Dutch. Why are they fighting the Dutch? What were the reasons for the Dutch revolt? Who was the Duque de Alva? What was a mercenary's life? What was a tercio? Who was Maurice of Nassau? While some of these are tangential concerns I don't see why a larger geopolitical frame could not have been drawn to contextualize the story for non-Iberians.
This is a BIG problem with people who know the material inside and out and love it. They tend to forget that there will be people from the outside who DON'T know the material and will be totally lost and eventually not care less about what's going on. Who the heck is Velasquez or Quevedo? WHO CARES? No one cares because they've not been contextualized? And they've not been contextualized because they had the brilliant idea to condense the entire series into one instead of making one REALLY DARN GOOD ONE, having it become an international hit and making more. Spiderman, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Matrix, STAR WARS anyone? It's like the director was trying to blow his own foot off with a demiculverin! The whole point of a 'series' is to make SEQUELS to earn MORE MONEY!! Why the director chose to avoid doing this is utterly beyond me.
I am a fan of Perez Reverte's writing and I could see elements shine through here. The problem is just that - they are glimmers of light when they should be a field of sunshine.
This really could have been a great opportunity for teaching Spaniards - and people around the world - the history of the Golden Era of Spain and how it eventually came to an end through corruption, greed and power-struggles while heroes like Alatriste were unwitting pawns. Sadly this by-the-numbers adaptation shows courage unworthy of the literary hero. For all the money spent on this it is, sadly, too much wasted effort for too little return.
Viva Alatriste,
Tom516
"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
teacher_tom516
17 years ago
That's just it... they should have done a really good in-depth film focusing on only one or two of the books in the series, not have a go at the entire series in one fell swoop. I certainly would have wanted to see this as an entire series. I certainly would have enjoyed that more than the Matrix trillogy.
And I wouldn't want this to be in English either by the way. I like it as it is except for the fact that they crammed everything into one movie.
Viva Alatriste,
Tom516
"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient
reply
share
miriel68
17 years ago
Yes, a serial would be a good idea. There is some potential in the books and they could have been turned into a very good 5 of 6 part tv movie. It's really a pity they didn't try this option.
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
teacher_tom516
17 years ago
Not necessarily a serial - a big film, like the film it was except FOCUSING on just one of the books so that we really get to know and love/hate the characters. This might be all well and good for the fans of the books but what about those who have no idea what its about? I agree though that it is a risk - like what Peter Weir did with Master and Commander. I'm also hoping for a sequel to that one but I don't think it will happen. Still I feel that M&C is more watchable than Alatriste simply because it is more focused.
Like I said, I don't hate the film, I just think it could have been done a lot better.
Viva Alatriste,
Tom516
"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient
reply
share
catpetal-1
17 years ago
Having read three of the books and seen the film a couple of times at least, I'm not at all sure it would be possible to make a great film out of just one, or even two of the books. They're really not that kind of book, I don't think. There's so much that works well on the page but just doesn't translate into good film.
I'm puzzled that people think they'd get to know, or feel for the characters more if it had been less episodic. Yet that's how most tv series run - a lot of little stories which gradually add up to this characters' life. I'm also struggling to think how it could have been made more exciting if they'd jus done one book, say - I'm just thinking out the cries of boring, and slow, or whatever, that are already around. Reducing the set-pieces wouldn't have improved the film, I would have thought. Aren't we all used to episodic material by now? I feel sure we should be.
Anyway, there are moments in the film I shall always remember - the scene in which he lies perfectly still on the floor while time passes is just unforgettable, as are the sword fights, and the scenes on that ship. And the way his love affair turns out is so highly charged ...
reply
share
spanish_armada
17 years ago
i loved the movie i understood everything in it, i felt it because i love the history of the Siglo de Oro i love Tercios viejos, and Alatriste is amazing, you have to be a Spaniard or read a lot about Spain. This film was not only about the wars with the Dutch, it was more about the corruption of the church, the corruption of the monarchs and the big gap that was between them and the poor people this is the time when Spain power was declining, if you don't like well, it is your opinion, and i'm sorry if i offended anybody but i have a passion for this period of time in history
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
OrlandoEastwood
17 years ago
I enjoyed the film but my only complaint was that it was too long in my opinion, now on the PAL copy it's 2h19. If it was 20 minutes less it would have been perfect in my opinion.
I'm going to eat your brain! - Doc Block
reply
share
Michael_Galiatsos
17 years ago
Too long and too slow indeed.This could have been much better if you ask me.Very average film.
reply
share
robert-golebiewski
16 years ago
I have just started watching it....
and I turned TV and audio off ...I left it to be recorded. I will watch it maybe tomorrow.
I feel greatly disappointed. I felt if from first moments.
But in my opinion the problem with this movie and similar ones is the low budget. Low budget and "I know better" people standing behind the camera. They seem unable to decide if the movie is to be profitable, saleable and so on. If they want to sell it (cinema is a business and anyone who cannot understand it - I know its hard to accept it - would fail) they should take knowledge of best solution applied in world cinema.
Simplest way to put it is: if I am short of money I do not spend it on scenes that require lots of cash. Otherwise movie lacks:
- action of action movie; the introductory sequence was a total disaster. Either we make a movie that pushes audience into seats or we concentrate on politics, sex, relations or all other things that require less resources. Or we do not make movie at all. Same issue happened with Polish movies. They tried to make blockbusters with 8 million dollars. Special battle effects made people laugh.... Distaster.
If I am short of money...... - movie lacks:
- atmosphere created by proper photography. Movie is a set of pictures, frames and so on. If one is bad...set of bad frames would not make good set.
and so on.
I shall continue when I see the full movie (now just 50 minutes).
reply
share
robert-golebiewski
16 years ago
A very interesting observation.
I am just preparing to watch this movie - it is to be shown in my TV in some 3 hours so I gather opinions.
I have already expressed my opinion about learning how to enjoy movies elsewhere so I am not going to bore you now. Let me just say that learning how to enjoy historical movies took me some time (reasons are simple: I used to be military history maniac, publisher and so on.)
I have noticed one important thing that consumes also Polish movies: failed attempts to teach the Poles their own history. We have our national writer Mr. Henryk Sienkiewicz - he go Noble prize for "Chłopi" (Peasants) novel more than 100 years ago. But besides this one he also wrote a triptic "With fire and sword", "Deluge" and "Colonel Wolodyjowski" generally devoted to this Wolodyjowski fellow.
As a Pole myself I read the books several times. I - and most of educated Poles - love the atmosphere of times depicted there (30 year war but when Poland was dwelling with Cossacks, Turks and itself).
Imagine situation: "Deluge" and "Wolodyjowski" were made during communism times (mostly because in these novels nothing was mentions of great brother Russia or Ukraine) but the budgets were huge, actors were splending and storytelling great. I still watch Deluge once or twice a year.
"With fire and sword" was made a few years ago. Actors were current, screenplay too, storytelling failed all the way. I was totally dispappoited with the move due to a few main issues:
- director could not vreat a Very Very powerful characters. (funny thing: when back in 70-ties for Deluge there was a national survey made and people selected an actor they wanted to play a main character. But director had his own choices and decided. Wise decision it was! But....he made this character really powerful although the book has several strong types - this one is leading..... dominating) - in With Fire... all wanted be prime characters, all magazines wanted their heroes on covers so....noone was shining really bright.
- lack of historical commentary. When I went to movie (I had too!!!) I went with my wife and promised myself - "I am not a historian and I want to be ordinary man who wants to enjoy movie". It failed. Without knowledge all the movie and conflicts seem to be simply in vain and too complex. I also feel that such results take place when characters are not to strongly depicted and when conflicts are not clear painted. It explains why western movies are simple and why Kurosawa samurai movies are readable altghough 90% of Japanese movies are unavaiulable for Europeans as far as understanding is concerned.
- cutting off several important scenes from book. There is a great scene in book (I still wonder why taken away since it could work wonders to Polish German politics) when German mercenaries fight Cossacsk. Cossack start negotiations and ask germans to come to their side. Germans say that they would go with pleasure but after May since they have contract to May. Then Cossacks say "All of you will die" and the German say "Half of you too". For me its the great vision of honor, loyalty and business which war is.
As for the Author he was writing these huge novels during his journeys, the parts were published in daily magazines - he was sending them from travels though America. The is a character in the book - Scottish mercenary Kettling. Once a reader wrote to magazine that there is some new character - Hasstling - and he does not understand the plot any more :) Sienkiewicz found out that he simply mixed all up forgotting names. So next part he wrote "Hasstling-Kettling....".
I strongly recommend getting Deluge and watch it.
I nanot wait to see the movie with Vigo since its always worth seeing movie about the nation history written by a native with some vision to teach his own nation history.
As for screenplay and director skills - I await my fate of discontent :)
I saw hundreds of fine ideas turned to ..... disappointment due to lack of ? skills??? Not me to judge..I just want to enjoy. It is hard work to watch the movie about period of history you like. Its a hard work :)
I hope I am not going to work.... its late night here :)
Your friend
Robert
reply
share