Black Death (2010) Film Review

Filled with blood, gore, and gruesome action scenes, the film Black Death (2010) attempts to expose the calamities associated with 14th century Europe during the time of the "black death," or the "great pestilence." The film centers on the year 1348 when the bubonic plague has spread throughout much of Europe. Osmund, a young monk, eventually becomes close allies with Ulric, a knight who promises to provide him with additional support from his fellow knights in conquering the devastation of the plague. Another important aspect of the plot to consider is Osmund's relationship with his lover, Averill. The movie begins with them reuniting after the two were separated for a long time, but their relationship eventually takes a drastic turn again when Osmund and Averill argue over their future with one another and Averill angrily leaves on horseback. The second time that Osmund ever comes across Averill again, he discovers remnants of her clothes lying in the snow, resulting in his assumption of Averill being dead.

Image from amazon.com.

When Osmund, Ulric, and his crew hear rumors of a marsh village that isn't infested by the plague, they make the long journey to get there and are welcomed by the townspeople, including Hob and Langiva, who appears to be infatuated with Osmund the most. At first, the village seems to welcome the guests, with Langiva, a necromancer healing Osmund's wounds and the men invited to a welcoming ceremony and party, since they claim to be seeking a place of refuge. It has also been rumored that Langiva has the ability to bring back people from the dead, but under uncertain circumstances. However, things aren't as they seem to be once the townspeople discover their Christian beliefs and claim that the knights are vulgar and hateful due in part to their religion. Langiva also claims that Christianity itself is the main cause of the plague vastly spreading and killing people within its reach. As a result, Osmund, Ulric, and his crew are tortured and are forced into denying God and His existence in order to live, or else they die. After several of Ulric's men are executed, Langiva decides to utilize Osmund for her own benefit by tempting him to give up his duty as a monk, so that he can be reunited with Averill once again, since she claims to have possession of her body. Despite these setbacks, a majority of the men stood up for the faith and as Ulric is tied to whips, he reveals to Osmund and the villagers that he is consumed by the plague and that he is "Death" itself, scaring the townspeople and resulting in the rest of the men being freed. The movie then reveals Osmund's life a few years later, as he no longer possesses the characteristics of being a good monk; his life is now overshadowed by his grief in losing Averill as he now seeks vengeance on the witch that betrayed him and took Averill's life.

Image from npr.org.

When it comes to historical accuracies, Black Death does a great job of portraying the struggles Europe encountered during the 14th century, including poverty, famine, and the bubonic plague, all issues indicated in our notes and Bennett's text (Bennett 303). I also found it interesting how religion and faith were mentioned throughout the film and had a significant impact on shaping multiple characters' perspectives, especially during the plague, and how Christianity controlled much of the Middle Ages ("A 'Black Death' Saga With More Than One Plague"). Another part of the movie that is historically relevant is the theory of sin as the main cause of the black death, which is definitely portrayed throughout the film as Langiva and the other pagans who live in the village accuse Osmund, Ulric, and his men that the plague existed on account of their sins and being Christian, which is similar to how sin was perceived as a major contributor of the black death itself.

Image from imdb.com.

Although Black Death is somewhat historically accurate, a vast majority of the film isn't. Despite the film portraying the aftermath of the plague spreading across Europe, there are additional unrealistic plot lines that detract from the historical facts that are presented and ruin the medieval style of the film for entertainment purposes. These consist of adding witches, pagans, and healers that are able to bring back people from the dead, when in reality, witch hunts did not occur until several hundred years later and certainly did not exist during the time of the black death, as well as zombies ("Black Death Should Be Burned at the Stake"). Alongside the supernatural elements that are incorporated into this movie, there are hints of romance, especially between Osmund, Averill, and Langiva earlier in the film, as well as vulgarity that seems out of place for the Middle Ages.

Overall, Black Death is very unrealistic and should not be considered a movie that historians or students should be considering as a first choice on account of the number of historical inaccuracies that outweigh the reality of the bubonic plague and its significant impact in the late Middle Ages.

References

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History, Eleventh Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011.

Buckwalter, Ian. "A 'Black Death' Saga With More Than One Plague." NPR, 10 Mar. 2011, https://www.npr.org/2011/03/11/134429670/a-black-death-saga-with-more-than-one-plague. Accessed 5 Dec. 2019.

von Tunzelmann, Alex. "Black Death Should Be Burned at the Stake." The Guardian, 22 Mar. 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/mar/22/black-death-burned-at-stake. Accessed 5 Dec. 2019.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

            The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is a movie that portrays the journey of Joan of Arc to liberate France and help to rid them of their oppressors, the English. The movie begins with a telling of  “Jeanne’s” childhood, and how it led her to be the commander of a French army, with the task of liberating Orleans and Reims. After experiencing the extremely traumatic raping and killing of her sister by barbaric soldiers, Joan wished to immediately become “one with God.” The movie does not end up exactly showing the visions received by Joan that lead her to believe in her mission, however the audience is made to assume that there is no doubt that she has had these visions and is now one with God. She then travels to meet Charles, the Dauphin. She manages to convince him that she is fulfilling God's will, and he provides her with an army in order to attempt to retake Orleans. The way the movie deals with transferring power from the men to Joan is something the movie represented very poorly, however this will be mentioned later on. Joan is able to retake Orleans and Reims using some very unconventional strategy that the movie again creates a very poor demonstration. Due to her success, Charles is the crowned King of France, and then refuses to provide her the support to fight further into the English army. After eventually being captured and refusing to submit to the will of the holy church, Joan is eventually burned at the stake to end the movie. 

The first very obvious criticism of this film comes down simply to logic. For instance, when the surprise attack on the English army fails and the French are retreating, somehow Joan riding up on her horse gives the French the numbers advantage they were looking for. The English then immediately decided to retreat and raise the bridge they had just lowered moments ago due to their advantage in numbers. If this event actually did take place, there had to have been many more factors involved that the movie simply skipped over and owed it all to the fact that Joan is a messenger from God, therefore it just works. The film also created almost a hatred for the character Joan from the audience in certain scenes. The most prominent example is when she first arrives in order to take over the French army, the male general is surprisingly made out to be fairly understanding, and simply wants to know her reasoning behind attacking in a place that from a strategic standpoint would lose them the fight. Joan then begins to tell them to just do as their told, she begins to yell and her body begins to twitch, depicting her as beyond reason. My main criticism of this film is that although there is a large degree of wrong doings done to Joan simply because she is a women, the men's actions are made out to be more reasonable than hers, which does not seem like a proper understanding of the Middle Ages given that there most likely would have been far worse actions taken if someone like Joan were to act the way she did around a group of men.  

The film definitely did a solid job when it came to creating a medieval atmosphere. There was no denying the time period that this was taking place due to the clothes, weaponry, architecture, and many other seemingly accurate details. The writers and producers are definitely important when it comes to the depiction of Joan. There is undoubtedly traits of Feminism all over the story of Joan of Arc, simply due to her struggles based on her gender. However, in this film if Joan would have been presented in more of a civilized manner, it could have gained more sympathy and emphasized those traits even further is she was still wronged.  

 

The central historical message of this film is definitely not easy to identify due to the changes that occurred throughout the movie. For example, after Charles' coronation, you could definitely categorize him as a bad king, and therefore the movie is trying to clarify that kings should not have held such positions of power. However, before Charles was made king he seemed perfectly fair and understanding, especially since Joan believed it was her duty to make him King. The main message of this film is made when Joan is having internal conflict in her jail cell. The audience becomes no longer aware of whether she actually saw the visions she so adamantly stated were God's message to her. She begins to almost convince herself that the miracles that happened to her were just coincidences. Therefore the main message is that no one today really knows if Joan really was God's messenger, or if she really existed in the first place. All we know is that if she did exist, her story really is one full of miracles, coincidence or not.  

Horvat, Marian. Messenger - The Story of Joan of Arc - Movie Review by Marian Horvat, www.traditioninaction.org/movies/002mr.htm. 

“Joan on the Screen: Burned Again?: Perspectives on History: AHA.” Joan on the Screen: Burned Again? | Perspectives on History | AHA, www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2000/joan-on-the-screen-burned-again. 

Brave (2012)

Brave (2012)

Set in the 9th-12th century Scottish Highlands, Brave tells the story of a young princess of the clan of BunBroch.  The movie is a bit of a coming of age story. It teaches moral lessons about learning from your past and not repeating the mistakes of those before you.  Merida, the princess, is against the idea of marriage when she learns that the other clans are going to be competing for her hand. Traditionally, in the movie anyway, the princess gets to choose the competition in which the eldest sons will be participating for her hand.  She decides to take matters into her own hands and chooses archery, which she excels at. After the sons have fired their arrows, Merida steps out and shoots perfect bullseye over their own shots, theoretically winning her own hand. Merida’s mother, the queen Eleanor, is mad at Merida and even throws Merida’s bow in the fire in anger.  Merida rides away on her horse because she is so upset. She stumbles upon a stone circle much like Stonehenge. She sees a will o’ the wisp across the circle and follows it, where she comes upon a witches cottage. She tells the witch that she wants a spell to change her fate. The witch gives her a spell in the form of a small cake, which she gives to her mother when she returns to the castle.  After eating this cake, Eleanor is transformed into a bear. The rest of the movie is spent attempting to turn the queen back into a human. At the end of the movie, Eleanor is transformed back into a human and the bond between mother and daughter is mended.  

This movie is accurate in some aspects but definitely has some exaggerations and even depicts the 9th-12th century as less developed than we know it to be.  Wisps are a very common occurrence in this movie and are shown as being the souls of those who have died. These are seen today. They are actually thought to be caused by gas emissions from bogs and swamps reacting with the oxygen in the air.  

The clothing in the movie is actually fairly accurate among women.  Some of the clothing is more contemporary and would be found in the 14th or 15th century Scotland.  The men in this movie wear kilts, which weren’t actually worn in Scotland until the 1500s. Clothing in this time period was actually very similar to what people in England were wearing.  Many of the clansmen are also shown wearing face paint to show which clan they are from, however, this was not an actual practice at this time. Food shown in this movie is fairly accurate.  There is an entire conversation about haggis. While there is no proof that this recipe was around back then, it is very likely. A cookbook from 1615 was found with the recipe for haggis. One inaccuracy is the use of forks, which were not used at this time. They also ate many of the things that we have been talking about in class in the section about eating.  Something that I found interesting was that banqueting was very common in this movie, which we learned about in our reading.  

Haggis

Tipperary Cakes
Recipes exist today!

The Kingdom’s castle is quite accurate.  The producers of this movie did do their homework when it comes to landmarks and the landscape.  Arranged marriage is a huge theme in this movie. Merida is told that she must marry whichever man it is that shoots the best arrow.  While arranged marriages were common among nobility at this time, women had the right to refuse the marriage. This was often looked down upon and was believed to be selfish, making it uncommon for women to do so.  

All in all, this movie was fairly accurate.  While this might not be shown in a history class wanting to learn about 9th-12th century Scotland, you can definitely see many accuracies that make this movie a decent representation of the Scottish Highlands. Don't get me wrong, though. It definitely has flaws!  Personally, I love this movie and definitely recommend it! 

Sources:

Barnett, Laura. “A Scottish Historian on Brave.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Aug. 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/aug/29/scottish-historian-view-brave. 

“Disney Pixar's Brave: Historically Accurate?” Apprentice of the Chosen One, 23 Aug. 2015, https://apprenticeofthechosenone.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/disney-pixars-brave-historically-accurate/. 

Riley. “Scottish Highlands.” Clothing of the Ancient Celts-Scotland, 1100-1600 AD, http://www.marariley.net/celtic/SentToKass/Scotland.htm.  

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: a Short History. Langara College, 2016.

Henry V (1989) Film Review

Henry V is a movie created in 1989 and is based on a William Shakesphere play of the same name. It stars Kenneth Branagh as both the director and as the titular title character Henry V. In the film, King Henry is convinced that he is the rightful ruler of France and goes to war against King Charles IV and the current French regime with a much smaller army than the French, culminating in the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. The film doesn’t deviate too much from Shakesphere’s original play as the movie is usually considered one of the more faithful adaptations of Shakespeare. The reception to this film is astounding, as the film holds a perfect 100% on the popular movie review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes. Kenneth Branagh was even nominated for Best Actor and Best Director at the 1990 Academy Awards. With all of this praise, the movie must have done something right in regards to its historical accuracy and depictions of Medieval society. Does the film’s representation of Medieval times hold up to the massive critical acclaim?

I would say that for the most part, the film does a good job in accurately portraying Henry V's story and Medieval life in general. At the Battle of Agincourt, Branagh shows off a variety of medieval weaponry like swords, axes, lances, and maces. The film also shows the importance of the longbows that wiped out much of the French army. Branagh also emphasizes how the English were underdogs, not only in how the English army was outnumbered 5 to 1, but also in how the French have better equipment. The Frenchmen wear conical and bascinet helmets along with chest plates and leggings. While some English soldiers have hauberks (chain mail armor for the head and neck area) and some armor, they were less equipped compared to the French. The film also shows off the Christianity prevalent in the Middle Ages, like when English soldiers pray to God and kiss the ground before battle. The English soldiers also sing a latin hymn named Non Nabis Domine after their victory at Agincourt, which is probably the greatest musical composition in the movie.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is King Henry’s relationship to the citizens in his army and in his country. Throughout the film, King Henry makes many difficult decisions to further his goal of conquest, which tires his men as they might be paying a terrible price for this war started by King Henry. In one scene, he disguises himself with a cloak to gauge his army’s reaction to fighting this war. The response was polarizing, as some of the soldiers lament the fact that they are risking their lives for Henry V’s gain. Henry V’s internal conflict with taking France versus helping his people can be connected to real-life conflict of the Middle Ages. The struggle between the royalty and the common folk was very pronounced in the Middle Ages, and the film uses this conflict well for dramatic effect and giving more insight into King Henry as a character. 

This doesn’t mean that the movie’s historical accuracy is perfect though. Upon doing some research, Henry V actually ordered mass executions of French prisoners after his victory at Agincourt, a decision which is omitted from the movie. However, I can understand why Branagh would leave this out if he wants to make Henry V more sympathetic and not wanting to kill the mood of the victory of England with the death of prisoners. However, whether it’s because of the excessive violence or slight differences in how both sides attack, the film’s depiction of the Battle of Agincourt is not the most historically accurate (although it makes for a good climax). Other than that, the movie has many scenes of which it’s muddy, rainy, and/or dirty, kind of making the Middle Ages look more unsanitary and dirty than it really was.

Henry V manages to be entertaining and insightful about the Middle Ages. The film accurately paints a picture of the battles and lifestyles that typically took place in Europe in the Late Middle Ages. All in all, I would say that the high praise for the film is mostly deserved.

Alexander Nevsky Film Review

            Alexander Nevsky is a 1938 Soviet film directed by Sergei Eisenstein. Eisenstein also handled the majority of the writing, but was assisted by Pyotr Pavlenko. The movie’s score was created by Sergei Prokofiev, and is by far my favorite part of the film. Alexander Nevsky is certainly a historical drama, however its historical accuracy and themes will be discussed in addition to the plot below.

            The plot of the film revolves around the invasion of Novgorod (located in northern Russia) by the Teutonic Knights (Germanic crusading force) in the 13^th century. During this time, Russia was fragmented into several states, the greatest of which is the Free City of Novgorod. Russia is threatened by the Swedes and Germans to the west, and the Mongols and Turks to the East and South. These antagonists conquer or exact tribute from the many independent princes in Russia. The central character is Alexander Nevsky, one such Russian Prince. After word reaches Novgorod that the invading Teutons have taken Pskov with the help of Russian traitors, the citizens debate what course of action they should take. They finally conclude that they should send for Prince Alexander, who was exiled a few years earlier, and invite him to defend the city. Envoys are sent, Alexander arrives, and he agrees to command the armies of Rus. He marches his army to the frozen lakes outside of Pskov, and engages the Teutonic force there. Nevsky is able to envelop the Teutonic forces by holding his left and right flanks back, allowing the Teutons to penetrate the center to the point where withdrawal would be problematic. Nevsky springs his trap, and the Russian forces thrash the Teutons. During the melee, Alexander captures the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, while several other Russian warriors best the other Teutonic Knights. The remaining Germanic forces retreat and are pursued by the Russians. The thin ice of the frozen lake breaks under the weight of the Teutonic forces, and several fleeing German knights drown. The film concludes with the triumphant Russians returning to Pskov with their prisoners, where they hold a court. They release the common foot soldiers of the Teutons, ransom the knights, and tear apart the treasonous Russians.

            The historical accuracy of this film is an interesting subject. It is based off historical figures and historical events. Alexander Nevsky did exist, there was a crusade launched against Russia in 1242, the Germanic knights were involved, and Nevsky did defeat them on a frozen lake. While there are some obvious embellishments, such as the knights slipping into the breaking ice and drowning, the movie seems grounded when compared to most Medieval cinema, at least in terms of visual portrayal. The costumes, sets, and general visuals all felt very appropriate, with one major exception: the helmets worn by the Teutonic footmen. These are very obviously modeled off of the stahlhelm worn by German infantry in WWI. These helmets were still a part of the German uniforms during the creation of Alexander Nevsky, and would remain so through WWII.

            Where the movie really clashes with history is in its themes. Alexander Nevsky was certainly a unifying figure in 13^th century Russia, and his ability to unite parts of the fragmented states, for as long as he could, is certainly part of our understanding of the idea of the emerging nation-state that came out of the 12^th and 13^th century. However, Eisenstein’s depiction of Nevsky is that of a firm leader that was a friend of the common people, and the one person capable of halting a German invasion. Most of the visuals may be Medieval, but these themes are clearly from 20^th century Russian communists. Nevsky is reflected nicely in Joseph Stalin, the Teutons are stand-ins for German Nazis, and the overriding refrain is the strength of the common people. The film has several lines that emphasize the responsibility of the common people to rise up and die for the motherland. The men and women of the common folk are shown to fight and die to defeat the Germans, while the wealthy do little but scheme.

            Overall, Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky is a great film, but it is not a great historical account. Broad information could be gained from viewing the film, such as the politics of the era (push to “Christianize” Russia), the primary actors (Teutonic Order and Livonian Order vs Novgorod), and the overarching events that take place (the Battle on Ice, failed invasion). However, it is more a call-to-arms for the people of Russia in the 1930s rather than a record of events. It is a reflection of Russian nationalism in the 20^th century, not of the 13^th century. Perhaps if there had been less interference from Communist Party officials Eisenstein could have done justice to the accepted history of Alexander Nevsky, one of Russia’s most remarkable Medieval princes.

References

Hellie, Richard. “Saint Alexander Nevsky.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 10 Nov. 2019, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Alexander-Nevsky.

Alexander Nevsky - New World Encyclopedia, 

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alexander_Nevsky.

Merritt, Russell. “Recharging ‘Alexander Nevsky’: Tracking the Eisenstein-Prokofiev War Horse.” Film Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 2, 1994, pp. 34–47. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1213094.

Images:

Dessem, Matthew. “#87: Alexander Nevsky.” #87: Alexander Nevsky, 1 Jan. 1970, http://criterioncollection.blogspot.com/2008/09/87-alexander-nevsky.html.