This is basically the perfect example of "don't judge a book by it's cover", only this is a less flattering opinion of the movie.
It really looked interesting, and had been on my list for some time. I thought it would be a bit more balanced and, frankly, realistic.
The beginning of the movie is very dark, yet riveting. It showed some burnings at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition, implying that Columbus might face the same fate if he pursued too passionately the notion of proving that the world was round by sailing to China via a mysterious western route.
Columbus was seen as a forward thinking, progressive scientist in the beginning, almost an equal to Galileo or Copernicus.
And indeed, in being granted the opportunity to lead a westward expedition, the movie does probably accurately depict the very trying ocean trip, under horrific conditions, frustrations on everyone's part, and the near mutiny of the men.
Yet, Columbus prompts the voyage forward, and is ultimately rewarded by being proven right. He would find land, finally, although he famously mistook it for India.
To that point, the movie seems accurate enough, and at the very least, avoids controversy. Indeed, those were the days of the Spanish Inquisition, and Columbus potentially faced severe punishment if he went too far, and was found guilty of heresy. His struggles to get the venture started were also probably accurate, as were, most likely, the difficulties and discomforts from the hot weather and food shortages that the movie depicts. You almost feel relieved when the crew finally finds land, and the excitement and uncertainty is well played by the actors, when Columbus reaches land, and then wades into the unknown, inside of the tropical forest. It probably remains relatively accurate, up to and perhaps a bit to the initial encounter with the natives, as well. The tension and the uncertainties on both sides are well played, I think.
Now, up to that point, I think the movie was pretty good, and possibly quite accurate. Indeed, embarking on such a dangerous, and obviously uncertain, voyage like this would have been brave, and likely only possible with a determined pioneer out to prove a scientific point. in that sense, Columbus probably does deserve credit.
Where the movie not only strays, but begins to completely reinvent history, is in his approach to the natives, who he mistook as "Indians", of course.
We all know that, while Columbus used to be celebrated as a hero in the United States until not all that long ago (he was viewed as a hero during my school days, and nobody seemed to question that at the time), but history has not really been kind to him over time. Knowledge of his original assessment of the natives, sizing them up for lives of servitude, and clearly viewing them as inferiors, has come to light for more and more people, to the point that many people feel that we should not celebrated him or his legacy at all. In fact, many people put the exploitation and genocide of the natives at his feet.
Here was a quote from a friend of Columbus. In it, he describes his experiences with a woman that Columbus had, for all intents and purposes, given to him, as if she were property. And she was treated as property, as well.
"While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked—as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But—to cut a long story short—I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Yet, Columbus seen exclusively in the most positive, even heroic light. He could do no wrong in the movie, and an invented bad guy that accompanies Columbus on his subsequent trip to the Americas is the culprit for all of the atrocities committed during Columbus's tenure as governor in the "New World" that he had allegedly "discovered".
Throughout the rest of the movie, Columbus is seen as an enlightened and fair figure in history, who is, unfortunately, a victim of the devious misdeeds of others. We see him get cheated of his discovery of the Americas by Amerigo Vespucci, the man for whom the "New World" is now named after.
So far does Ridley Scott go towards reinventing a more sanitized and friendly, politically correct Christopher Columbus, that he even literally puts words in his mouth that there is no evidence Columbus ever uttered.
Here, more or less, are the words that this highly idealized movie version of Columbus expresses, which we are to believe truly were his first impressions of this strange land that he had found:
"October 21 1492 - I think we have returned to Eden. Surely this was how the world was in the beginning of time. If the natives are to be converted to our ways, it will be by persuasion and not by force. I believe no man will ever see this world as we do, for the first time. We come in peace and honor. They are not savages and neither will we be. Treat them as you would your own wives and children. Respect their beliefs. Pillage will be punished by the dagger, rape by the sword.”
(Part of the quote, as well as some interesting point/counterpoints regarding the historical accuracy of this movie overall, can be found at: (http://www.sandi.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-848f-a8b4987d588f&FlexDataID=33432&PageID=27917)
That might be what those who defend Christopher Columbus today may wish that he had said and felt. But history would suggest otherwise. Here, according to the same Wikepedia pages that I got an earlier quote from (and this quote can be found elsewhere), is what he actually wrote, on October 22, 1492:
"Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Not nearly such noble sentiments, right? Also, it contradicts the notion within the quote from the movie version of Columbus, which he subsequently repeats at various times and various fashions throughout the rest of the movie, that the natives are equal to the Spanish, and their beliefs are to be respected.
Historically, however, both the words and the deeds by and surrounding Columbus suggest that he took a very different, and far less modern, attitude towards the natives. Yet, the movie absolutely insists on portraying Columbus as a hero, to the point that it gets in the way of actually being able to appreciate what, at times, was a movie with beautiful scenery, and even captivating in the earlier parts. There came a point, shortly after that admirable quote by the fictitious Columbus that Scott devoted this movie to, that he lost me, because the movie is just entirely unrealistic and completely inaccurate.
Again, the earlier part actually made me admire his accomplishment in this sense: that he took a very perilous voyage based on his passion for what seemed solid science and reasoning. Also, the ship scenes, and the suffering and frustrations of the men on the three ships, was probably not far from the mark.
The rest of the movie, however, just completely ruins it. Depardieu was probably playing the weakest role that I have ever seen him in, and the shoddy acting is accentuated all the more by the lazy and misleading interpretation of history from Ridley Scott.
Hate to give such a negative review of a movie, but this one's a loser. the historical inaccuracy just bothered me too much. This movie heralds the triumph of historical myth over historical accuracy, and in this day and age, I'm not entirely certain that this is a luxury we can embellish in. In fact, I think it's a huge part of the problem, and as such, was intellectually dishonest.
Don't waste your time on this one!
Thought I would share the link to this following review of the movie, which was published in 2010 in The Guardian:
"1492: Conquest of Paradise – new world, old tosh" by Alex von Tunzelmann of The Guardian, 7 January 2010:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jan/07/reel-history-1492-conquest-of-paradise
No comments:
Post a Comment