I mean come on, Ridley Scott's mindset at his late age is more and more like Mel Gibson's(!)
Even more so because the house of Plantagenet WAS French, their family castle Château Gaillard was in France, Richard Lionheart and John Lackland spoke French and Eleanor of Aquitaine was born in France and once married to King Louis of France, who was Philip II August's father. History lesson over.
I fail to see the connection between the French roots of all these characters and Scott's alleged anti-French sentiment. There's just no connection whatsoever between your first statement and what follows. If you're going to troll, at least try and make some logical sense. Trolling lesson over.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Well basically this simplistic sh!te portays French as devious, scallop eating, cunnilingus practicing, human burning rapists and English as down-to-earth pure hearted goodygoodies.
Plus if one is making a historical movie at least it could be somewhat accurate, which of course this garbage is not for a minute. More history lesson: What was that about in the end of that cheap ass looking animation where crusades are supposed to cut a head of Saladin? THAT never happened either, quite the opposite.
The movie does no such portrayal, or else we haven't been watching the same one. John is a pretty unlikable character, but so is the sheriff of Nottingham, and he isn't French. Of the other French characters you mention: what's wrong with Eleanor, for example? I remember liking her a lot. She was strong, clever and noble - but I wouldn't for a minute conclude that the portrayal of the French in this movie is of a strong, clever and noble people as a whole.
I also wonder how the practice of cunnilingus ended up on your list of things that make the French look bad in this movie. You must be either doing it or receiving it wrong.
There is a Saracen head being cut off in the end credits; that you decide it must be Saladin is your choice, there's nothing to imply that at any moment.
The movie's script may not be the cleverest thing ever but you're the one drawing overly simplistic conclusions.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Plus if one is making a historical movie at least it could be somewhat accurate, which of course this garbage is not for a minute.
...historical movie at least ... somewhat accurate...
Can't say I'm still much clearer on how historically accurate you want your fiction however.Just showing life a little less one-sided might be nice. Crusaders, bad? Check. French, bad? Check. Royalty, morally bankrupt? Check. Church, corrupt? Check.
Crusaders, bad? Check. French, bad? Check. Royalty, morally bankrupt? Check. Church, corrupt? Check.
Can't say I'm still much clearer on how historically accurate you want your fiction however.
Read up on your crusade history? There wasn't much good coming out of them. Robin and his crew realised it was all a bit of a con.
In what imaginable sense do you suppose that the crusading movement was 'a bit of a con', or that lower-ranking crusaders might have thought it was?
And talking of cons, that whole speech Robin gives about a huge massacre of women and children is a total falsification. It didn't happen.
In the sense that the crusades were frequently conducted under the papal sanctions of the church and they were therefore seen to be doing God's holy work.
In what imaginable sense would make you suppose that ALL lower-ranking crusaders such as the Robin Hood character, may have whole-heartedly agreed with that doctrine?
LOL! Of course syntinen, the crusaders' behaviour was always exemplary.
Now you're being outright dishonest;
(syntinen) What I said was that the massacre of women and children that the script says Richard ordered his men to carry out in cold blood never happened. And it didn't
King Richard The Lionheart: What is your opinion on my Crusade? Will God be pleased with my sacrifice?
Robin Longstride: No, he won't.
King Richard The Lionheart: Why do you say that?
Robin Longstride: The massacre, sire.
King Richard The Lionheart: Speak up!
Robin Longstride: When you had us heard two and a half thousand innocent men, women, and children together; the woman at my feet, with her hands bound, she looked up at me. It wasn't fear in her eyes, it wasn't anger. It was only pity. She knew that when you gave the order, and our blades would descend upon their heads, in that moment: we would be godless. All of us. Godless.
I repeat: in what way does that make them 'a bit of a con'?
I'd be thinking that Mr Longstride is referring to the ("Massacre at Ayyadieh") where Richard personally presided over the decapitation of 2700 Muslim prisoners from the garrison of Acre. My understanding is that it did include women and children.
God's work can be a bit messy at times, don't you agree?
I don't think that it is a huge stretch of the imagination to see that the principled Mr Longstride may have become a "little" disenchanted with things and thought the Crusades were a bit of a "con".
But for anything at all to be a 'con' there has to be someone doing the conning, for some kind of motive. And you have yet to provide any evidence for either.
show you.
Just like you're attempting to con people here for whatever misguided, deluded reasons. (It probably doesn't sit comfortably with your perceptions of history very likely gained from the old 60's Richard the Lionheart TV series.)Please follow along. Neither the medieval Church or the Monarchy were using the Crusades as a con. They believed in the Crusades whole-heartedly. You can call the Crusades misguided, you can call them a waste of lives and energy if that's your view, you can say that they were positively...medieval, but you can't call them a con because they were anything but. No one was trying to swindle anyone. Understand?
But no amount of bluff, bluster and balderdash from you syntinen can disguise the fact that what the fictional Robin Hood character says is authentic and fits into the narrative.Wrong! What Robin Hood says is NOT authentic. There were no women, children or "innocent men" (non-combatants) killed at the massacre of Ayyadieh, only Muslim soldiers from the city's garrison.
One moment you are arguing that historical fictional films such as this aren't authentic or balanced enough. See above. Then when an event of your choosing is demonstrated to be authentic, you immediately go into a state of self denial and desperately try to obfuscate yourself out of your own self-inflicted mess.Try to pay attention, Robin Hood's description of the massacre at Ayyadieh was not authentic. It did not include women and children. It consisted soley of Muslim soldiers and the reason it occured was because Saladin was stalling in negotiations. Richard flew into a rage and ordered the Muslim garrison massacred. Even one of Saladin's own biographers blamed Saladin in the incident for reneging on the terms of the agreement, causing Richard to lose his temper and the Muslim garrison to be killed.
There was a massacre. There were massacres on both sides of the Crusades. Wars tend to facilitate that sort of thing.Which is exactly why Robin Longstride wouldn't have been bothered by it. If he had voiced any misgivings to Richard about massacring prisoners of war in cold blood, the King could have simply reminded him of Saladin's massacre of the Templars and Hospitallers after the Battle of Hattin just a few years earlier where he had them all beheaded after initially accepting their surrender!
Try to pay attention, Robin Hood's description of the massacre at Ayyadieh was not authentic. It did not include women and children. It consisted soley of Muslim soldiers and the reason it occured was because Saladin was stalling in negotiations. Richard flew into a rage and ordered the Muslim garrison massacred. Even one of Saladin's own biographers blamed Saladin in the incident for reneging on the terms of the agreement, causing Richard to lose his temper and the Muslim garrison to be killed.
After much delay by Saladin and the Muslims, Richard, frustrated and angered, personally marched his prisoners to a hill called Ayyadieh. There, in full view of the nearby Muslim army encampment, Richard ordered the slaughter of the over 3,000 prisoners, women and children included. They were all mercilessly beaten to death, axed and cut down by swords and lances.... Thus concluded one of the most unusually ruthless battles/massacres, even by Crusades’ standards.
Which is exactly why Robin Longstride wouldn't have been bothered by it.
But to condemn the crusade for crimes it never committed is ignorant at best and prejudice at worst - and a violation of historical fiction.
condemned the Crusades?
for crimes it never committed is ignorant at best and prejudice at worst
...and a violation of historical fiction.
I'm sorry I responded to your post. It's obvious you're being purposely obtuse.
And, yes, the website you supplied is unreliable. It contains not one reference to any historical sources.
Still, at least he's being original. Most morons chant 'If you're so all-fired keen on history, go read a book!!', but this one is saying 'If people care about history they shouldn't read a book, they should go and Google for some random, unreferenced, amateur lists website.'
sharePayne was a novelist by training and inclination, and everybody agrees that his book belongs on the fiction, not the history, shelvesHmmm..... A so-called work of fiction being possibly referenced in a fictional movie.... The HERESY!!
Duh. If you'd taken the trouble to read what was going on there, you'd have seen that the point at issue was that spookyrat was insisting that the massacre of Acre did in historical fact include women and children, and I was trying to explain to him by what route this misinformation had reached him.
And the 'heresy', if you want to call it that, is not in one work of fiction referencing another, but in fictional romances being sold as works of history to delude poor innocent souls like spookyrat.
I actually DID read this entire thread of arguing about a fictional movie not being historically accurate.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
But it needs to be stressed again this whole thing is a work of fiction.The whole thing a work of fiction? Really? You mean there was no Richard the Lion Heart? France and England were never real places? The Middle Ages never happened? Prince John, Magna Carta, fighting with swords, it's all an elaborate fantasy?
What about Eleanor of Aquitaine as depicted in this film? She was morally bankrupt?Eleanor of Aquitaine has become somewhat of a femenist icon since the 20th century and is always treated favorably in popular culture. Compare the BBC mini-series, Ivanhoe (1997) or the ultra-political, outlandishly biased "history book" Warriors of God by James Reston. In each case, Queen Eleanor goes against the grain.
Church corrupt? From the gang that sponsored the Crusades. But was Friar Tuck corrupt?Movie Tuck clearly states that he isn't religious, that bee keeping is his real devotion and helps Robin and his Merry Men against the established church. Not much a representation of the clergy, is he?
Read up on your crusade history? There wasn't much good coming out of them. Robin and his crew realised it was all a bit of a con. That's why after speaking honestly as requested by Richard, he ended up in the stocks.No doubt you've inherited all the same ideas about the Crusades, the medieval Church and medieval society in general that has been the popular, public perception for the last two centuries or more. Modern historians have dispelled the myths.
I think the film was relatively careful to not be too one-sided.How, exactly?
The whole thing a work of fiction? etc.
Modern historians have dispelled the myths.
the Crusades, the medieval Church and medieval society in general.
Your paragraph there is really too silly to respond to. Go back and look at my earlier postings. You've clearly been reduced to semantic quibbles.The point is that historical fiction isn't the same as pure fiction. There are different expectations for historical fiction.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested as to whether the depiction of Eleanor of Aquitaine suited your particular personal ideals.Uh, you are aware of the feminist movement, no? If you've read enough pop/pseudo-history, you'll know that Eleanor of Aquitaine has been drafted as a champion of feminism in the Middle Ages and is therefore always portrayed positively in film and popular literature. It's not my personal idea. Watch Ivanhoe 1997 and compare the portrayal of all three historical characters, King Richard, Prince John and Queen Eleanor.
In this fictional film she was clearly a royal personage who wasn't morally bankrupt as you suggest that all royalty in the film is.The problem is that when the same historical figure is constantly portrayed as the exception to the rule, it's no longer a reflection on royalty and merely a reflection of the modern perception of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
"Friar" Tuck (let's give him his full title) WAS clearly a member of the Catholic Church and not just a "bee-keeper".Drunkard, "Friar" Tuck was a politically-correct Catholic because he stood up against the Church - which the film clearly portrays as corrupt.
I don't recall at any stage his character saying he's not religious. I'd agree that he arguably has a far more progressive religious perspective than the other priest who I think was leaving Nottingham for Yorkshire (with the silverware).This film's Friar Tuck doesn't have a religious perspective at all! Name one act of religious devotion or religious statement to come out of the man. I don't think his comment about how mead "gives a man a halo" qualifies. He does, however, tell Robin, "I'm not a churchy friar".
Sweeping generalisations such as this is, won't convince me of anything.It's hard to answer generalizations with specifics. Your evidence for medieval, Church corruption was that it initiated the Crusades and "very little good came out of them," you said.
The film never claims to be a documentary...If I had a nickel every time I heard this...In historical fiction, the main characters and their immediate storylines are fiction while the setting and a few secondary characters are historical and are supposed to be, presumed to be accurate. That's why so many people are attracted to the historical fiction genre. Audiences take it for granted that the setting and main events are historical. Now days so much attention goes into costumes and sets that most people assume the history behind the story in a film is well researched. To make matters worse, marketing departments even brag early on about how much historical research they did because they know it boosts ticket sales when the film is released.
It's a fictional film about principally fictional characters with some historical characters and events thrown into the mix for good measure, as frequently occurs with works (both literary or otherwise of historical fiction.In historical fiction, the main characters and story are fiction but the setting is real. Wo to any historical fiction film that gets caught fudging its historical backdrop as it is certain to suffer financially. 10,000 BC is a perfect example. Even the successful Inglorious Bastards is often surrounded by apologetics after or before viewing. In historical fiction, the history part of it is supposed to be as accurate as dramatically possible.
As I said earlier I enjoyed seeing the way medieval life was portrayed onscreen and was happy to accept the fictional narrative knowing it was fictional. You clearly didn't. Too bad.I have news for you: you didn't see medieval life on screen, only a slight resemblance to it.
There's nothing that you or anyone else has posted in this thread to convince me this was a "stupid anti-French film" and wasn't historically accurate enough (just about oxymoronic I would have thought in a film about Robin Hood).How were the French portrayed sympathetically? share
There are different expectations for historical fiction.
Uh, you are aware of the feminist movement, no?
If you've read enough pop/pseudo-history, you'll know that Eleanor of Aquitaine has been drafted as a champion of feminism in the Middle Ages and is therefore always portrayed positively in film and popular literature.
This film's Friar Tuck doesn't have a religious perspective at all! Name one act of religious devotion or religious statement to come out of the man.
You have to learn the rules...,
The only way the Crusades can be considered "bad" is from the Muslim point of view.
There is no evidence that anyone, including the men who initiated it, believed it was a con.
In historical fiction, the history part of it is supposed to be as accurate as dramatically possible.
I have news for you: you didn't see medieval life on screen, only a slight resemblance to it.
How were the French portrayed sympathetically?
Look, spookyrat, I'm not a professional historian but I do know something about the history of the Crusades and the Middle Ages. I'm also fairly familiar with two other areas: film and contemporary political/cultural views. In my posts, I've gone further than blank assertions and given you examples as evidence for my conclusions. If you decide to dismiss them out of hand, that's your business, but it's kinda silly to continue to fain bewilderment at my position if you refuse to look at the presented evidence.
Ridley Scott has made two medieval epics (the other being Kingdom of Heaven) within the space of five years of eachother both of which are connected to Richard I and the 3rd Crusade. I suggest that you watch both of them and compare characters and themes. Then maybe you'll understand why I'm so confident. And then watch BBC's Ivanhoe if you can take the trouble (if you like medieval drama, you'll like it). If you're really itchy, I would also recommend reading Movie Medievalism: The Imaginary Middle Ages by Nickolas Hayock.
So you're saying it's not fair that I use Eleanor of Aquitaine as an example of a non-corrupt royal in the film...because it's just not fair.I'm saying Eleanor of Aquitaine is a stand-in for feminism, not medieval royalty. You can prove me wrong. Does her character side with the crown or the royal class at any time in this film?
So your saying that I can't use Friar Tuck as an example of balance in the film's depiction of the church...because he's not religious enough...even though he's a friar.He's not religious at all! He practically says as much. Not one prayer, not one sermon, not one blessing, not one attempt to turn anyone to thoughts of God, Christ, heaven or religion. A strange medieval man of the cloth indeed.
Perhaps Robin and Marion should have taken time out in their busy schedule to attend mass with Tuck or pray with him.That would have helped, yes. And it would have been keeping with tradition. Such Christian activities were common in medieval sources on Robin Hood. In one story, Robin's religious devotion even provides his enemies an opportunity to trap him when he comes out of hiding to attend mass in disguise and take the sacrament.
And once again, you know this for a fact. You know that every one was singing from the same hymn sheet. There were no conscientious objectors (who lived after objecting anyway)?Very few. And those who did were not accused of heresy and killed as you're implying. Without the power to interview or climb into the concsiences of people a thousand years ago, no one knows anything for a "fact" but, contrary to popular belief, the Pope and his administration was criticized within and without the Church for various things throughout the Middle Ages. Sometimes, Kings and men of lesser birth opposed the Pope outright and even invaded papal lands. Yet, very few medieval people questioned or criticized the merits or importance of the Crusades. Do these things add up to facts? The point is that there is no evidence that the Crusades were a con or secretly unpopular and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Credible historical analysis must be based on evidence.
They were just the enemy in a battle that didn't occur.I suppose there wasn't enough French representation to make a concrete judgement but if the character of the French king and his accent has any indication, the anti-French accusation does still carry some wieght. Afterall, Queen Eleanor, King Richard and Prince John were also of French origin but they all spoke with English accents.
As said earlier, I don't think the film was stupid, nor anti- French.
I wasn't watching a documentary on medieval life.No, you were watching historical fiction, a genre in which the main characters and their immediate storylines are fiction but the historical setting is real. And you all but admitted that you believed it's portrayal of medieval society was accurate or, at least, plausible.
I'm not a professional historian
I'm saying Eleanor of Aquitaine is a stand-in for feminism, not medieval royalty.Good grief! Whether she was or wasn't, in the film is immaterial. She WAS the Queen of England and she wasn't corrupt. I'm OK with that. Your not! And you've tendered a lot of opinion to justify your position. Great! But it's just that...opinion. Move on please!
...at the presented evidence...
The film isn't primarily about Richard, John, Eleanor, The Crusades, Phillip, The Catholic Church's position in medieval England etc.*sigh* Which is the "historical" part in this historical fiction. You know, the part that we've been discussing?
They are part of the background setting.
As such I'm personally happy in the way that they were presented. For the purposes of this fictional film about some largely fictional events, they were authentic and balanced enough for me.Yeah, but we've recently established that you know even less about history and storytelling than I do so what does that prove?
E.G. Eleanor's character clearly justifies me saying that not all royalty in the film were shown to be corrupt as you claim.I never said that. I said that medieval Royalty in general, as a class, was portrayed as corrupt. Your assertion that one good apple saves the bunch strains reason on its own but add the fact that the one good apple is constantly butting heads with the others the argument loses merit altogether.
I've appreciated your thoughts and opinions but need to stress again that nothing you've offered (including unsubstantiated allegations of political, cultural and religious bias) have altered my perspective that the film isn't stupid and anti-French one iota.Would you be more willing to suspect political and cultural bias, I wonder, if the French were, instead, American Indians invading Missouri rather than England? And that the only chance for white Missourians to unite against them was to limit oppressive Jews in office and stop unprincipled black slaves from loafing around in the fields?
Evidence? You want me to watch a BBC show and read a book of your choosing.The intrinsic evidence should speak for itself - but you're stubborn.
"Well basically this simplistic sh!te portays French as devious, scallop eating, cunnilingus practicing, human burning rapists and English as down-to-earth pure hearted goodygoodies."
And you have a problem with that?
So are you saying that the Norman invasion of 1066 didn't happen?
Or that the Anglo-Saxons wanted to be invaded and be treated like 2nd class citizens by the invading army, who forced most of the common folk into even direr poverty than they were already in?
The Normans were sh*ts. But on the upside they did build us many lovely castles from which they could quell rebellions and continue to stomp on the english for centuries to come.
You sir are either an Idiot or a Troll.
And this is relevant to Robin Hood how? The Normans weren't French, and the Saxon/Norman ethnic divide was long dead by 1215. (The notion that it had any place in the story is the invention of that shameless old faker Sir Walter Scott.)
share"Well basically this simplistic sh!te portays French as devious, scallop eating, cunnilingus practicing, human burning rapists and English as down-to-earth pure hearted goodygoodies."
Yeah, so? You got a problem with that?
Well basically this simplistic sh!te portays French as devious, scallop eating, cunnilingus practicing, human burning rapists............
Lol. I asked a similar question ages ago (along the lines of what's wrong with cunnilingus?). I never got an answer... ^^
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Come to that, what's wrong with bivalve eating? (It's actually oysters that King Philip was shown eating, not scallops, but both are bivalves. And English people who can afford them traditionally eat both species, with great enjoyment.)
shareIt is a work of fiction and not an historical document. "The Hobbit" is unfair to dragons everywhere.
shareThere's no such thing as a "stupid anti-French movie"!! lol
Blasphemy: It's a victimless crime
I can see your opinion on this but....
The French cook at the beginning is the best character in the entire film and kills King Richard with a crossbow as he takes a break from serving people soup, so there's a plus for the French in the film IMHO.
I mean...what a badass. The whole movie should have been about him.
It would have been a pretty short movie, he ended up being skinned alive IIRC. On the other hand I'm sure Mel Gibson would be willing to give it a go, 'The Passion of the Chef' maybe?
Taking painting to the pictures ...
www.thepicturepalace.co.uk
Good point. However, I don't think that this movie was anti-French. The villains were just French for the most part.
shareBut it does rest on a nationalistic 'France v England' dynamic which simply didn't exist in the 12th century, and to do so is obliged to change the ethnicity of historic characters; most ludicrously Queen Eleanor, who has been transmogrified from a legendarily glamorous, hotheaded,beautiful Aquitanian duchess into a practical, horse-faced English gentlewoman.
share