movies-msg - 3/17/08 Reviews of medieval and renaissance movies. NOTE: See also the files: info-sources-msg, med-letters-msg, publications-msg, videos-msg, masks-msg, puppets-msg, theater-bib, theater-msg. KEYWORDS: movie review medieval period renaissance ************************************************************************ NOTICE - This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday. This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter. The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors. Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s). Thank you, Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous Stefan at florilegium.org ************************************************************************ From: donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca (Donna Hrynkiw) Date: 3 Jan 90 18:15:00 GMT Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism Subject: Movie Review: Henry V I can't believe that nobody else has posted about this yet... Went to see the new Henry V movie on New Year's Day with some other SCA folks (in our party of 4 there were two Laurels and two Knights - and I'm not a peer). Overall impression: Excellent. An SCA must-see. Don't wait for the video, see it on the big screen. Diverse comments: - remembering that this is Shakespeare and not necessarily real history... - a young welshman (who's name escapes me at the moment - d*amn!) adapted the play for screen, directed AND starred as Harry. Did an excellent job. - costumes are not magnificent/opulent/glittery, but IMHO fairly accurate and probably very close to what a nobleman would wear day-to-day. They reminded me very much of SCA-wear. (Especially the cloaks and surcoats.) - effective use of narrator ("Chorus"). - Too many close-ups of Henry's face during his speeches. - good to see Henry and other nobility wearing heraldic surcoats. I wonder if the mundanes realized the significance? Also: watch for French nobility in their fancy-quilted gambezons. - armour is a bit sparse, but according to the Laurel-for-Armour in our party: "Wow! I want that!" Watch for the brass stars and trim. - helps to know a little French. Used in two scenes: Catherine, Princess of France in conversation with her Lady-in-Waiting and near the end where Henry is asking Catherine for her hand. (Both scenes very amusing, understanding French or not.) - Agincourt battle scene: awesome. If for no other reason, you *must* see this movie for the battle scene. Don't wait for it to come out on video - this deserves the big screen. - Personally, I think they placed too much emphasis on the showers of arrows from the English longbows. But then again, it *is* an English production. (And Knight in our party claims that the English didn't charge at Agincourt.) - I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Henry V - does Part I really end with the humorous scene of mostly English-speaking Henry asking mostly French-speaking Catherine for her hand in marriage? I found the contrast between the desperation, violence and gore of the battlefield with the light love-banter a little jarring. - Effective use of humour. In one scene, the night before the big battle, Henry dons a cloak and goes among his men anonymously to hear what they have to say. One soldier, in the course of his discourse, strikes the "stranger" with a glove. His reaction when the King returns the glove is priceless. But after all is said and done, I want to see this movie again before it leaves the theatre. And then I want a copy for my video library and maybe I'll even look for the soundtrack (great welsh chorus). Elizabeth Braidwood Donna Hrynkiw Barony of Lions Gate, Kingdom of An Tir Kwantlen College donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca Surrey, B.C. */ Things won are done; joy's soul lies in the doing. -Troilus & Cressida /* From: inmet!justin at UUNET.UU.NET (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks) Date: 4 Jan 90 15:07:16 GMT Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism Elizabeth Braidwood asks why no one else has posted to recommend the new film of Henry V. Good question; I'm not sure how I overlooked doing so myself. (I've only been telling everyone in Carolingia (at some length) to go see it for the past two weeks!) Well, I'll echo her recommendation: this is a *marvel* of a movie, one of the best adaptations of Shakespeare to film I've seen yet. The director/ producer/adaptor/star is named Kenneth Branaugh, as I recall (spelling probably mangled); his acting is quite good, the production and adaptation are excellent, and the direction is top-notch. (The only fault in the direction is that he isn't as good directing himself as he is the rest of the cast.) Lessee; little points... The heraldry is *really* neat, and looks quite authentic to my half- trained eye; I suspect that the heraldry used is generally historically accurate. Brian Blessed is marvelous playing Essex. (Granted, he's playing Essex playing Brian Blessed, but he's always *so* entertaining...) I have mixed feelings about the Agincourt scene. It's very ... realistic. That is to say, it's *very* long, and *very* bloody. On the other hand, it's quite dramatic, and seemed pretty true to what history I know about the battle. Yes, they put quite a bit of emphasis on the archery; on the other hand, those arrows *were* pretty important in the battle. (Of course, I went to see it on a Carolingian Company of Bowmen field trip, so it's a tad hard to be impartial in this matter...) As for buying the tape when it comes out: yes, yes, yes! This is the fourth movie I've ever decided is worth full price, *whatever* the full price is, out of my fairly huge tape collection. (For reference, the other three are Knightriders, Lion in Winter, and Fantasia.) Definitely a film worth keeping for posterity... Ah, I'm missing it already. Fortunately, I'm running another trip to go see it tonight... -- Justin du Coeur Fan of good medieval cinema From: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Goldschmidt) Date: 4 Jan 90 20:04:01 GMT Organization: Stanford University I saw the film in Berkeley before Christmas. The Agincourt scenes are definitely a must-see, but I found the dialogue quite difficult to understand, (esp. the heady dialects and French parts). Perhaps it was partly the acoustics of the theatre. The Herald (Montjoy) and the heraldry were extremely well done. The St. Crispin's Day speach should be memorized by every King who ever hopes to lead troops in battle. Those were my impressions. mka: STephen Goldschmidt aka: Juls Siwaldsen net: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (If your mail bounces, don't post it!) geo: Palo Alto, California USA phone: (415)494-1748 From: joshua at paul.rutgers.edu (Joshua Mittleman) Date: 8 Jan 90 17:50:19 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Greetings from Arval! My lady and I went to see Henry V last weekend, and loved it. It is grand, splendid, spectacular, and good Shakespeare. Derek Jacobi makes a fine chorus. The interpretation is different from Olivier's version, but quite valid. BTW: If anyone out there HASN'T seen Olivier's Henry V, Shame on you! Rent it & watch it. It is better. However... Any medievalist seeing the new Henry would have some quibbles. If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to skip the rest of this posting. It has a few minor spoilers Did anyone else notice the following, positive and negative? Negative: ...The only full suit of armor in the movie was 3 or 4 hundered years out-of-period? ...Why don't warriors in movie wear helmets in battle? ...Why did they all get off their horses to fight in the mud? ...Why didn't they show us the French charge. I know it would have been expensive, but after that build-up, it would have been WONDERFUL! ...In the scene after the battle, did you notice that two of the dead bodies twitched? ...Are we really supposed to believe that the King of England lives in such Spartan surroundings? ...Phooey. They cut the scene where Fluellen makes Pistol eat a leek. Olivier's version did that so well. ...There were only two pieces of heraldry used before the battle. Seems odd to me. ...Where was the English herald? He's in the script, and should have been there (Professional jealousy). And, they cut my favorite line, when, after one of the scenes between Henry & Mountjoy, Henry tooses him a bag of gold, saying "Here's for your troubles." :) Positive: ...Did you notice that the treaty signed in the last scene has an illuminated capital? ...The heraldry in the battle made up for lots of the negatives. Wow! ...Period tennis balls!! ...I love that they made all the noblemen young, just like they should be!! A lot of the play is much more believable when Henry, the Dauphin, etc. are in their twenties, rather than their forties. ...Was the actor who played Essex REALLY the same guy who fought Danny kaye in the Court Jester? No, not really, but he sure looked the same! Awaiting your flames :) Arval. ======================================================================== Joshua Mittleman (joshua at paul.rutgers.edu or mittle at ibm.com) H0-E12 T.J. Watson Research Center PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 From: WAXY at CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (Wendy Alberg) Date: 8 Jan 90 16:57:58 GMT Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism William de Corbie mentions Polanski's Macbeth, which appeared here in late '72 or early '73 and then vanished. It's a very real-feeling film, not stagey or self-conscious; it was so real I found it terrifying. It is a very good film nonetheless. -Gwdiauwen Gwdiauwen ferch Gwdolwyn Wendy Alberg Dominion of Myrkfaelinn Ithaca, NY BITNET: WAXY at CORNELLA Internet: waxy at cornella.cit.cornell.edu From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Edward Fitzgerald) Date: 22 Feb 91 08:32:24 GMT Organization: Open Communications Forum Mercy,mercy ME! My dear, hast thou not heard that "Henry V", new version, is now available? And what about Ladyhawk, Dragonslayer, and Highlander? (Admittedly the last three have a strong streak of fantasy/SF...but my friends all have copies! :) Oh, and despite the terrible fantasy armor, Excalibur has some good points...certainly no worse than Black Shield of Falworth! (And to soothe the nerves of us high-strung Gaels I very strongly recommend a little thing by Tapestry Productions/Paramount called "Portrait of Ireland" with NO dialogue...just swooping vistas of Ireland accompanied by music by Enya, James Galway, and The Chieftains. May be hard to find, but very lovely!) For the smalls..."Castle" and "Cathedral", educational partly animated videos by the same fellow who drew the books of the same name. (Look in your local library for these last three if you're lucky enough to have one that has videos like ours does! Oh, and in the same vein as "Portrait" is a video of "Prague Castle" with some lovely, spooky effects as the camera plunges and swirls through the huge castle and its many chapels, accompanied by music. Whoever the Czech film crew were, they were true artists! Distributed in the US by Kaw Valley Films. Happy hunting, and enjoy! :) Elaine NicMaoilan, who hopes you are as thrilled with Henry V, Portrait, and Prague, as she! :) From: Colin_Hart at mindlink.UUCP (Colin Hart) Date: 21 Feb 91 13:47:59 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada One more movie not to forget or miss is REVENGE OF THE BARBARIANS, despite its title an excellent movie on the Norse and a raid on Ireland by some Vikings and the problems that it leads to. This is a Swedish film and really good. On the other hand their is Lee Majors starring in the Norsemen. This should be junked for starters! Norsemen in furry bikinis horned helms etc! It gets even better, the leader Lee Majors often dons his armour, looks suspiciously like Italian Renaissance Parade Armour! also the Longship has a cabin below deck with a least at a guess a 12 foot ceiling! One of our local Norse types would like to buy every copy in existance and destroy them! Great movie for all the Hollywood Cliches, but definately not period! Colin Mackay of Balmaghie, Lions Gate An Tir From: david at twg.com (David S. Herron) Date: 25 Feb 91 21:32:37 GMT Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA Jabberwocky -- humorous, yes, and at the same time rather accurate in some more gruesome period aspects. (Monty Python) Pathfinder -- An old Lapp legend about a kid who returns home from hunting to see his family be murdered. Runs away & has adventures & eventually revenges the murder. The acters & producers & everything is by native Lapp Landers. *GOOD* It was circulating about the bay area last summer Cyrano -- George Depardieu playing the ultimate fop. It's waaaaaay out of period for me, so it wasn't so interesting. But still very good and gave me a good chance to practice listening to French. It is currently circulating about the bay area. Knight Riders -- Er.. well, it's not period. But is SCA-related ;-). David -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack From: lefaivre at lclark.UUCP (Rick Lefaivre) Date: 27 Feb 91 00:43:46 GMT Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR A really good movie that seems to have been overlooked is "The Return of Martin Guerre." It is a French movie with English subtitles and does a most fantastic job of recreating a French medieval village and has a captivating plot line to boot. I highly recommend this film to everyone. -- Rick LeFaivre From: CONS.ELF at AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) Date: 28 Feb 91 22:28:01 GMT Greetings from William de Corbie! If you aren't determined to see all films in a cinema, there is a very good Ivanhoe on Video. It was made for television, as far as I can see from the text on my copy, but it has the format of a real movie theatre film. Starring James Mason, Olivia Hussey and several other stars. Contains VERY GOOD jousting scenes and has very good, authentic equipment (though at least parts of it is a little later in style than the 12th century, but nothing that sticks out as out-of-period). I recommend this wholeheartedly if you can find it over there. I believe it was made around 1980. There is also a very long video film entitled "The power of the Sword" in Swedish -- original title unknown -- which comes on two cassettes and tells the life and times of William the Conqueror. This has a lot of fighting and very good costuming, but rather poor actors. Worth seeing, though. William From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) Date: 27 Feb 91 18:52:24 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA One more to add to the list is a VERY hard to find film, *The Sword and the Dragon* This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale! The movie was wonderful! Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it, it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also... Costuming was great, story was charming, acting was of the "Larger than life" style that one finds in the Kalevala or Mabinogian type of tales. My squire and I got it because it had "cast of dozens, ten thousand horses!" on the credits, and it was correct. The ten-thousand horses part came towards the end during what looked like a real Mongul horse-charge! The story is kind-of an Ivanhoe sort, I can't really explain it, I guess that I'll need to see it again! Kevin - Outlands From: 0002853615 at mcimail.COM (William Linden) Date: 5 Mar 91 02:37:00 GMT Reply-to: Alfgar the Sententious (0002853615 at MCIMAIL.COM) In <9040005 at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Dennis Clark writes: >*The Sword and the Dragon* > This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of >the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale! The >movie was wonderful! Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it, >it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also... Costuming was great, story No, Russian! It is a very loose adaptation of the sagas of Ilya Murometz and the Golden Table champions of Kiev. From: CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") Date: 16 Apr 91 03:47:59 GMT Organization: The Internet Greetings from William de Corbie. I just got home after seeing a really good movie which should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's "Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who cares. The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful. The photography is masterly, there are great battle scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and Hollywood could never have made it. See it. William From:_Hollie Domiano Subject: A great film Date: 18 Apr 91 On the , "]ke Eldberg" (1:114/15 at v_p) whispered in my ear: "E>Greetings from William de Corbie. "E>I just got home after seeing a really good movie which "E>should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's "E>"Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who "E>cares. "E>The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with "E>the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful. "E>The photography is masterly, there are great battle "E>scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and "E>Hollywood could never have made it. "E>See it. Greetings, m'lord William. I saw Cyrano myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. Gerard Depardieu was ìfantastic, and the nose was very convincing makeup. As for the period, well, ìthere is some controversy about it, but I like cavalier costuming. Our barony ìhad a cavalier event last year. Four stars! Ysabeau Madeleine deRouen Axemoor, Meridies From: esp at cup.portal.com (Emily Sue Pinnell) Date: 16 Apr 91 04:56:21 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Another great film for SCAdians starring the same actor is "The Return of Martin Guerre." Also French, it is period, and is fantastic. Everyone should see it. (My own humble opinion.) Amelie d'Anjou From: klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Karen Williams) Date: 4 Jun 91 20:56:22 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes: >From the latest Robin Hood movie (the one with Patrick Bergin) >I quote: >(Will Scarlet berating a Norman baron:) > "A land ruled by thieves, robbers, murderers and autocrats!" > I got a chuckle out of that one, too. I saw this movie last night (through the magic of videotape), and I was impressed. When I first saw Robin Hood, I thought, "Hey, he's dressed like a Saxon!" And the Normans were dressed like Normans, and had Norman haircuts, and carried Norman kites and spears, and had Norman helms. And the Saxon clothes were different from the Norman clothes, and everything. Of course, I wasn't surprised when I saw in the credits that the historical advisor was Professor Sir James Holt, who is the premier Robin Hood scholar around. Branwen ferch Emrys The Mists, the West -- Karen Williams klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com From: mittle at blinn.watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) Date: 14 Jun 91 20:05:14 GMT Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw. Better to rent the Errol Flynn version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home. Arval. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1) by Vincent Canby If you let a bunch of unskilled carpenters loose in Sherwood Forest, don't be surprised if you wind up with a load of kindling. That's about the only coherent response to Kevin Reynold's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," starring Kevin Costner as that once-merry man Robin of Locksley, aka Robin Hood. The new movie is a mess, a big, long, joyless reconstruction of the Robin Hood legend that comes out firmly for civil rights, feminism, religious freedom, and economic opportunity for all. ... It's a measure of hwo muddled the movie is that the only two entertaining characters are subsidiary: Robin's beloved Marian, a beautiful, intelligent, strong-willed woman played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman with a wit and humor that are otherwise not found in the film. Mr. Costner and his associates seem to ahve approached their subject without a clear idea about the kind of move they wanted to make. In the production notes, there are jokey references to the classic 1938 version and the fact that Mr. Costner refused to wear the sort of green tights sported by Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters. ... It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20 pounds heavier than he does that same evening. With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem. He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his fans. He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself... This Robin Hood gives the impression of being lethargic and dull. Sometimes he may be under-acting. At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all... From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) Date: 19 Jun 91 22:33:09 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA / badorion at watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian A. Dorion) / writes: >In article <9106171724.AA20900 at inmet.inmet.com> justin at inmet.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks) writes: >> >>The cast was fine, except for a minor annoyance named Kevin Costner. Having >>the only really conspicuous American accent in the cast, he managed to mouth >>pretty speeches in a rather lifeless manner. > >??????????????????????????????????????????? > >I have to ask, wasn't Christian Slater in the movie you saw? Every time >"Will Scarlet" opened his mouth, it was like getting kicked in the teeth. >I thought his american accent was much, much worse than Kevin Costner's. > >Overall the best comment that I heard was that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves >was a live action cartoon, and the actors who did best were those like the >sheriff who recognized that they were in a cartoon. I agree completely. Azeem, the Sheriff (and his cousin), Marian, and several others overplayed their parts to the larger-than-life theme quite well. Rather like the job that Kurt Russel did in _Big Trouble in Little China_. Costner _underplayed_ his part, he almost seemed embarassed to be Robin; he would have done better to ham it up for this movie. Still, it was a fun movie. Good action, good characterization, even the majority of the garb was period, though not all of the same period, rather like the SCA... I had hoped for better, but for the price I payed it was worth it. I and about 50 other SCA-types got in for free by doing a demo for opening night. The theatre asked us back in the fall, to do one for this movie in the fall!? >Brian Dorion Konrad Matthias Jager >---------- Kevin MacKinnon - Unser Hafen - Outlands From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair) Date: 17 Jun 91 02:15:19 GMT Organization: Wesleyan University > So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw. Better to rent the Errol Flynn > version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home. I had a somewhat better appraisal of the film, but that IS a damn good time at home. > > (excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1) > > by Vincent Canby > the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend prior to the Douglas Fairbanks film. I found the more fully fleshed Will Scarlet intriguing, and Alan Rickman ( the Sherrif) gives a typical good performance (mixed w/ off-center humor). > It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters. True enough. > It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have > their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20 > pounds heavier than he does that same evening. Trivial. > With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem. > He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his > fans. He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself... This Robin Hood gives > the impression of being lethargic and dull. Sometimes he may be > under-acting. At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all... True. But, perhaps the view of Robin not a charismatic Hero, but as (roughly) highly-motivated Everyman is the look he was after. I recall your review of HENRY V. What do you think of the actual LOOK of the film (Grimy castles, costumes, etc.)? -J From: Ioseph Subject: Re: Arval's Robin Hood review Date: 21 Jun 91 TU>From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair) TU>> the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by TU>Morgan Freeman TU> TU> Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend TU>prior to the Douglas Fairbanks film. ???????????? Would you tell me -where- he appears? As a -rabid- Robin Hood fan I would remember such....and such a person appears nowhere in the ballads (to my knowledge) nor in the published versions of the story (of which I prefer Howard Pyle's)..... -Ioseph of Locksley (the -original-) From: jakos at DPW.COM (Ceilene Jakos) Date: 19 Jun 91 13:49:07 GMT Organization: DP&W, New York, NY Rented "King Arthur--Young Warlord" last night and thought it was murky, messy and muddy enough to be an accurate accounting of an 'historical' legend! To my untrained eye, it was GOOD. Thea From: artemis at hlafdig.stonemarche.ORG (Diana Goldsmithe) Date: 14 Jul 91 06:00:47 GMT In all this talk of period matches and movies I had to share this one: we took out an old movie called *Knights of the Round Table* starring Robert Taylor and (I think) Ava Gabor. It said on the box it was a classic, and I certainly think everyone in the SCA would enjoy it- especially the tournament they have for Lancelot when he comes back from Scotland ("the Scots are revolting" says Lancelot, "The Scots are always revolting" says Arthur. Well, `in revolt', but my mind turned it around the right way) I won't tell you why you'll like the tourney- when someone goes out and rents it and sees, they can tell you. But anyway, while Lancelot is up in Scotland he is caught by a Pictish ambush, and his archers use this nifty little gadget with a tiny bellows attached to a fire box to light their flaming arrows. If someone could tell me whether the producers made it up, or whether they really had something like that, it would ease my mind considerably. Thank you Arastorm From: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko) Date: 26 Jul 91 23:09:21 GMT Organization: Benden Weyr, Saskatoon Sk. (306)-382-5746 Greetings from Werewulf of London! Yes, that's documentable! Seriosly, though, an excellent period movie is Lion in Winter. It stars Elizabeth Taylor as Elenor of Aquitaine. Peter O'Toole plays King Henry. a much more recent one is called Sorceress. It is in French with English Subtitles. It is a true story based on a manuscript in the French equivalent of the British Museum Library. There is Erik the Viking, if you want something silly. It stars John Cleese as Halfdan the Black. These are the only ones I can remember right now. There is an early film about Henry and Elenor. I can"t remember it's name right now. Avoid it like it was plutonium- laced plague rats. By the way, my persona's name is actually Layamon of York. Werewulf is my alter ego persona. -- Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22 UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG Standard Disclaimers Apply... From: moss at cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss) Date: 27 Jul 91 15:42:41 GMT Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst) Elizabeth Taylor as Eleanor of Aquitaine in Lion in Winter? It was Katherine Hepburn and she got an Academy Award for it. Still a great film, though! Aell Aethelwita, called Ellethel Bergental, East Kingdom -- J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Lederle Graduate Research Center University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss at cs.umass.edu From: rhe6 at quads.uchicago.edu (mindy miriam rheingold) Date: 27 Jul 91 16:34:47 GMT Organization: University of Chicago _Lion in Winter_ stars Katherine Hepburn, not Liz Taylor, as Eleanor. It also features Timothy Dalton and the actor who played Arthur in Excalibur. Another great movie is _The Return of Martin Guerre_ (French, with subtitles), which is based on actual 16th century French court documents. One caveat about Lion in Winter: even though it has some of the best lines in cinema history ("I made Louis take me on a Crusade, etc...), some of them are rather anachronistic. I do not think, for example, that Eleanor of Aquitane would really have said "It's 1193, we're all barbarians," a) because seh would have felt no need to mention the date, and b) because she wouldn't have thought of herself as a barbarian (The English, on the other hand...) Mindy/ Madeleine From: rick at olivee.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Rick Meneely) Date: 30 Jul 91 01:21:55 GMT Newsgroups: rec.org.sca An excellent non-historical fighting scene is in "The Princess Bride" Staged between Cary Elwess ('The man in black') and Mandy "... Prepare to die" Pankin (sp???). It does an excellent job of playing with the audience. First it starts out as a simple line fight as in modern fencing but bursts into evermore complex exchanges. I would not say that it is the most realistic fight scene but it is certainly one of the best staged. Romeo and Juliet: There is an old version with Basil Rathbone (no - not as Romeo). He does an excellent rapier and dagger duel (and loses of course). This is no surprize as Basil I believe was an international fencing master. Unfortunately he made too good of a bad guy and always had to lose to that Errol Flynn guy. Errol Flynn by the way - was a very poor swordsman. Robin and Marion: This is simply an all around great film. It has Sean Connery (Robin), Audrey Hepburn (Marion), Robert Shaw (Sheriff) and Nicol Williamson (Little John) - remember him from "Excalibur" (Merlin) and "The 7 percent solution" (Sherlock Holmes). The armor is real (yes - even the mail) and correct for the time period. The fight scene between Robin and the Sheriff is excellent. It demonstrates the weight of the armor well, they even take a break during the fight to recover their wind. Probably one of the more realistic fight scenes I've seen. This film also does something that is very hard - it actually adds to the Robin Hood legend instead of simply retelling it. Some other good historical films: --------------------------------- The Conqueror: Charlton Heston, Tony Curtis (blaah!), Richard Boone (I think) Very good film of the Norman era in England - even the haircuts are right. El Cid: Charlton Heston The screenplay is a bit to much like a stage play but it's still worth watching. The Return of Martin Gueirre (sp??): Someone has already mentioned this film. It is very well made and based on a real person. - Anatar Mael Duin ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Rick Meneely | Internet: rick at .ATC.Olivetti.Com | | Olivetti Advanced Technology Center | | | Cupertino, Ca 95014 | When in Rome, do as the Visigoths...| | Disclaimer: The buck stops...There! | SACK IT!!! | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) Date: 1 Aug 91 05:26:30 GMT Organization: Open Communications Forum In article <416.28965438 at weyr.FIDONET.ORG> Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko) writes: >Greetings from a much repentant Layamon of York! Terribly sorry to get >Katherine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor mixed up. >another good period movie is The Name of the Rose, Starring Sean >Connery as a 13th or 14th century Franciscan who solves a series of >murders at an italian[?] monastery. Several caveats, though. I don't >think that monks ewre quite as depraved and lecherous as Umberto Eco, >the Author, woul like us to believe. Second, the theory behind >witchcraft was not as well developed in the forteenth century as it >was portrayed in the film. F. Murray Abraham plays an excellent >Inquisitor. Another strongpoint is that the various theological, >philosophical, and social currents of the time are accurately >portrayed. It is a "heavy" film, in the sense that it helps to have at >least some idea what the nominalist/realist debate was all about. >Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every >person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be >wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The >Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it. >I can't remember his name offhand. >-- >Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22 >UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko >Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG >Standard Disclaimers Apply... Milord, you will find the movie a good deal less confusing (though no less "heavy") if you read the book, which does give some better clues as to which heresy was which. It also makes a lot of the motivation easier to understand. (I recommend *both* forms.) NicMaoilan trifid at agora.rain.com From: cctimar at athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles de Mar) Date: 1 Aug 91 07:18:46 GMT Organization: Vanderbilt U. Student of Numerology To all the fisher folk upon the Rialto doth Charles de Mar send his greetings! Layamon of York hath written: > Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every > person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be > wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The > Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it. > I can't remember his name offhand. Is it not trouble enow to correct errors of historical fact, without trying to make others know the same myth thou dost, with the same details thou knowest? The sword in the stone, to the best of my knowledge, was not a historical fact, so its name is also not historical fact. The best we can do is say what the various authors say. In the English tradition, Sir Thomas Malory is probably the most "authoritative." Almost every author is agreed that Excalibur was the name of the second sword - the one that the Lady of the Lake told Arthur to take from the hand sticking out of her lake. Some authors use the alternative version, Caliburn, for the first sword, drawn from the stone, but this probably shows a desire just to name it something. The confusion of calling the first sword Excalibur is quite understandable: it is the only widely accepted name of Arthur's sword. In fact, the mistake is made by Malory himself, making it a documentable, period error. Arthur receives the second sword at the end of Book I, entitled, "Merlin." Prior to that point, he uses the sword he drew from the stone. Nonetheless, about a third of the way through this book, when Malory describes Arthur's battle against the six kings (on p. 19 of the Vinaver version, representing p. 9 of the Caxton edition, and probably the eighth leaf of the Winchester manuscript (the first eight leaves are missing)) we find: Syr said Merlyn to Arthur fyghte not with the swerde that ye had by myracle til that ye see ye go vnto the wers. Thenne drawe it out and do your beste. ... and euer sir Arthur was in the formest prees tyl his hors was slayne vndernethe hym. And therwith kynge Lot smote doune kyng Arthur. With that his four knyghtes rescowed [receyved?] hym and set hym on horsback. Thenne he drewe his swerd Excalibur but it was so bryght in his enemyes eyen that it gaf light lyke thirty torchys and therwith he put hem on bak and slewe moche peple. Incidentally, the movie, _Excalibur_, remained very close to the tradition of Malory. Not exactly authentic, but otherwise good. -- -- Charles de Mar, Vanderbilt University student of numerology and geometry From: KGANDEK at mitvmc.mit.EDU (Kathryn Gandek) Date: 5 Nov 91 18:41:19 GMT Organization: The Internet The other day I picked up The Black Arrow by Walt Disney in the children's section of the local video store. The background of the movie is supposed to be the War of the Roses. It has lavish costumes, okay fighting (there's only one actor who appears to have had any serious training, Oliver Reed, and I'm told the archery was awful), a nasty villian, a spunky heroine and a happy ending. The number of costume changes was actually quite amazing. I don't know if the style of clothes all belonged in the same time period, but they were quite lavishly constructed. The plot is a frothy one (minimal substance) about an evil man with innocent wards and an avenging figure from the past. A thoroughly enjoyable no-brainer. Catrin o'r Rhyd For Kathryn Gandek Barony of Carolingia Boston area East Kingdom kgandek%mitvmc.bitnet at mitvma.mit.edu Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU Subject: Russian garb (was Polish garb sources Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark) Subject: Re: Mailed feet (again...) Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 03:33:18 GMT OK, I'll bite. I didn't see your original post, but I take it you're looking for references to armoured footwear. I'm not an armourer, but I have seen a terrfic video called "How a Man Schall be Armed"...it's put out though the Tower of London musuem, but I got my copy at the Metropolitan Musuem of Art in New York. I'm sure you could order it through one of these museums. Anyway, there are nifty close-up shots of a man putting on 16th century armour, including sabotons. BTW, there is a nother vido on the tape called "Masters of Defence" which describes the beginnings of fencing. Hope this helps... Nicolaa From: odlin at reed.edu (Iain Odlin) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights Date: 2 Aug 93 06:33:33 GMT And to Moreach's note of "Robin Hood: Men in Tights"'s existence, I add a rousing: Grab your friends and see it! It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and it's great fun! And a bloody good laugh. It helps if you're a movie trivia buff (There're dozens of sight gags referring to other movies -- I love being the only person in a theatre giggling at certain moments!), but that's only for the (sometimes not-so-) subtle stuff -- there's plenty of slap- stick, too. Besides: Cary Elwes almost does Errol Flynn better than Errol did! And he's cute to boot! ;) [And for those of you wondering about my 'orientation' right about now: I'm straight, but I'm able to appreciate beauty where I find it.] Your mileage may, of course, vary, but I've met noone who didn't at least find the movie amusing. Enjoy! -Iain Odlin, a man in tights "Are my seams straight?" ------------------------- Iain Odlin, odlin at reed.edu ------------------------- 10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103 --------------------- N is for Neville who died of ennui --------------------- Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu (Joshua Brandon) Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights Organization: Brown University Mathematics Department Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:28:26 GMT Dixit Vincent: > >A bunch of us at Canton Skraeling also went in garb (six atomic bodices, >several tunics, 2 men in tights, everyone else in mundanes) and enjoyed >the movie. Lots of groans at the jokes, lots of laughs at the slapstick, >no complaints about authenticity (yeah, like, who expects authenticity >from Mel Brooks?). Note: this is *not* a complaint about authenticity. Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie going around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!? It *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England! (Okay, it wasn't perfectly consistent --- Prince John's throne had France on it.) I was in hysterics! My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you, dear...." Great movie. :):):) ---Simon -- Joshua Brandon Brown Math Department brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu "It's never too late to have a happy childhood!" ---Cutter John YAZ/socrates Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:54:41 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Greetings from Arval! Simon wrote: > Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie > going around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!? It > *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when > Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England! It gets weirder: Stewart, as Richard, was wearing France quartered with England, the form of the English royal arms during the Hundred Years War. The answer is simple. Captain Picard travelled back in time twice: Once to take the English throne as Henry V and again to take the throne as Richard I. Which further explains why I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for Richard to bless Robin & Marian's marriage with "Make it so!" PS: I'm not sure when Castile and Leon were first quartered together, but I'm fairly certain it was after Richard I. > My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you, dear...." If it makes you feel better, everyone with whom I went noticed it, and only half of us were heralds. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle at watson.ibm.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.org.sca From: Alexx at world.std.com (Alexx S Kay) Subject: Re: Three Musketeers movie Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 18:51:08 GMT There have been a number of people making reference to the current version of the Three Musketeers in comparison to the 70's version. I would just like to remind or inform you all of the truly excellent 1940's version, with Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan. Many of the stunts in the current version which were done with tricky camerawork and stunt doubles, Gene Kelly just *did*, and with more grace than I would have believed possible if I hadn't seen it. Go down to the video store and check it out! Alexx Alexx at world.std.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations Organization: Indiana University Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 22:29:07 GMT The Return of Martin Guerre (15th c. French Peasants) Anne of 1000 Days (Anne Bolyn) Romeo and Juliet (Fellini 15th c. Italian) Blackadder (English War of the Roses comedy) All of these have their problems from a historical point of view (except maybe Martin Guerre) and all of them will have something that the Authenticity Police will gripe about, but they're good films in their own right. They also don't butcher history and grind the carcass into mincemeat like Robin Hood: Dances with Bows or some of the more dreadful 50's costume dramas. Romeo and Juliet has some duello, but since I'm not a light weapons fighter I don't know how good it is. Lothar (who's STILL waiting for a decent film set in the 14th c. to come out. The Navigators was O.K. but hardly distinctively 14th c.) From: julifolo at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (watkins julia k) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations Date: 26 Feb 1994 11:49:21 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana I missed the original thread, so I don't know how late is late. I would like to recommend NAME OF THE ROSE (14th century) THE BLACK ROSE (17th century) Richard Lester's THREE MUSKETEERS (17th century) Yrs, Folo From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations Date: 27 Feb 1994 02:15:17 GMT Organization: EPAS Computing Facility, University of Toronto This isn't a feature film, but it is germane to the discussion. The Metropolitan Museum of Art puts out an excellent film called _Masters of Defence_ which discusses the evolution of personal defence (fencing) from the early 16th-18th centuries. I highly recommend it. Cheers-- Nicolaa/Susan Canton of Eoforwic sclark at epas.utoronto.ca P.S.....lots of nifty swordplay, too! From: faust at ace.com (Faust) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: thought experiment Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 13:00:51 EST Organization: Argus Computerized Exchange Just to insert a small aside. The movie ARMY OF DARKNESS (nee' Evil Dead III) reads as a very silly version of A CT. YANKEE. With all the attendant problems being discussed here. (gunpowder, cars as battlewagons, etc.) Thomas of Berwick faust at ace.com From: UDSD073 at DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike Andrews) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Costumes: 6 Wives of Henry the Eighth Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 10:05 Organization: The University of Oklahoma (USA) MMS6824 at tntech.EDU writes: >I have been watching "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" and I am wondering if >anyone has any comments on the Costuming? It looks rather good to me, but I do >think that in at least one case (The Countess that dies with Catherine Howard) >the actress should have had more than one costume. >MArian of Clann Kyle. They're rather interesting close-up, too. My Lady Wife and I were privileged to see all the costumes for this film on our second voyage to England, where they were on display in the crypt of (?) Canterbury Cathedral, I think. They were still impressive close at hand, but it was obvious that some shortcuts had been taken in construction. As an example, the Archbishop's golden pectoral cross, so impressive in the film, turns out to have been made of some hundreds of the very smallest cup-hooks, all glued together and then spray-painted gold. Sic transit gloria mundi. -- Mike Andrews udsd007 at ibm.okladot.state.ok.us (192.149.244.2) From: melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: 29 Jul 1994 16:22:33 -0400 Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote: : What are your favorite medieval movies out there? The Warlord? El Cid? : Henry V? Going to buy some and am wondering what to get. my votes: the lion in winter (and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?) lady jane henry v and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress'). it's pure schlock. Lady Angharad Melys Sacred Stone, Atlantia -- melys at cybernetics.net From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 07:09 Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love) writes: >Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote: >: What are your favorite medieval movies out there? The Warlord? El Cid? >: Henry V? Going to buy some and am wondering what to get. > >my votes: > >the lion in winter >(and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?) >lady jane >henry v > >and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress'). >it's pure schlock. > > ...melys, looking forward to seeing > other people's favorites... Alfred the Great (Good battles nice period feel, characters are rather 60's ish) Robin Hood (No not the silly one but the one with Patrick Berghan sp? once again nice period feel and this time fun characters) The Crusades (C.B. deMill at his gaudiest) Robin and Marian (Very good Richard cameo by Richard Harris) Ivanhoe (There are two versions in most video stores both are good for different reasons rent them both and you decide which you like best) Well this is a short list for now, More to come. Siohn ap Govannan Caid (Who is butting in on someone elses conversation but I'm a celt so its natural) >Lady Angharad Melys >Sacred Stone, Atlantia >-- >melys at cybernetics.net >that which does not kill me had better run like hell... Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: RE: movies From: Mary Catherine Miller Date: 01 AUG 94 18:20:09 CST Organization: Northeast Missouri State University MUSIC System >What are your favorite medieval movies out there? The Warlord? El Cid? The Name of the Rose The Seventh Sign A Lion in Winter Any Robin Hood movie not matter how cheezie Much Ado about Nothing 1993 That's all I can think of for now. I look forward to making a checklist of of SCA folk's opinions on this matter. Slaine ni Cieran BTW I have a professor who says that Monty Python's The Holy Grail is one of the best medieval movies ever made. From: mabr at sweden.hp.com (Morgan "the Dreamer" Broman) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: 3 Aug 1994 10:49:26 GMT Organization: HP/SCA/SKA/FSTS/AMTS/SLRP/ETC Sweden Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote: : What are your favorite medieval movies out there? The Warlord? El Cid? : Henry V? Going to buy some and am wondering what to get. El Cid w. Charlton Heston (nice athmosphere, great masses of soldiers etc) Excalibur..;) (I know it is romantic fantasy...but then so is SCA..) Robin and Marion (Good clean fun...;) ) Ivanhoe (Simple and heroic...) Robin of Sherwood (TV-series w. Michael Praed(sp?) ) Monthe Python & The Holy Grrrraaiiil... Ciao Morgan// ....too many videos...sigh...;) -- HP : Morgan Broman mabr at sweden.hp.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair) Date: 4 Aug 94 07:58:27 EDT Henry V (Branagh) is excellent, esp. as Agincourt reminds me of the Pennsic 18 field battle. Hamlet (Mel Gibson), especially the clothes and artistic direction. The Lion in Winter. Just darn good. The Vikings. Go figure ;-) A Man for All Seasons Assorted silliness: Erik the Viking The Black Shield of Falworth The Court Jester and for those in later period: The Three Musketeers (Richard Lester) The Four Musketeers (Richard Lester) -Splendid examples of '70s costume films. Richard III (Olivier) Much Ado About Nothing (Branagh) Elizabeth the Queen (Bette Davis) The Sea Hawk (Errol Flynn) From: mchance at crl.com (Michael A. Chance) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: 3 Aug 1994 20:22:12 -0700 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access Kvedjur fra Mikjal! Here are some of my favorites that haven't been mentioned yet: Becket (the first movie in which Peter O'Toole played Henry II) Has some scenes that rival _Lion in Winter_ for memorability. Ladyhawke (not exactly historical, but good, none the less) Also has (IMO) the best choreographed bastard sword fight in film. Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect) Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the grittier side of the Renaissance. Pleasant watching! Mikjal Annarbjorn -- Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields Work: mc307a at sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon" Play: mchance at crl.com mchance at nyx.cs.du.edu From: goddess at access3.digex.net (Louise K. Rogow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: 4 Aug 1994 04:33:07 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA In article <31pmt4$fle at crl4.crl.com>, Michael A. Chance wrote: >Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect) > Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the > grittier side of the Renaissance. Flesh and Blood. I first saw that movie at a party where almost all the viewers started commenting on the garb. Keep the Faith, Louise From: Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan POLI SCI) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: movies Date: 3 Aug 1994 21:30:16 -0400 Organization: the internet One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from 1957/8 with Kirk Douglas. Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the SCA. A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons. My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill, standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle. Anyone have an idea what movie this might be? Jonathan (Iban) From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 07:08 Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office In article <2E403FD7 at courier.sscnet.ucla.edu>, Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan POLI SCI) writes: >One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from >1957/8 with Kirk Douglas. Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no >business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along >with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the >SCA. > >A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman >England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons. >My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill, >standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle. Anyone >have an idea what movie this might be? > >Jonathan (Iban) > Sounds like Alfred the Great, David Hemmings as Alfred and Michael York as the king of the Danes, directed by Richard Donner I believe, but am not sure, made in the 60's. I taped it off of the TV late one night and have never seen it in any video catalog or at any video store. Siohn ap Govannan Caid Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: delint at meena.cc.uregina.ca Subject: RE: movies Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 12:36:14 GMT Organization: University of Regina, Regina, Sask., Canada In a previous article, Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan POLI SCI) wrote: >One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from >1957/8 with Kirk Douglas. Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no >business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along >with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the >SCA. > >A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman >England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons. >My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill, >standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle. Anyone >have an idea what movie this might be? > >Jonathan (Iban) That's probably _Alfred the Great_, silly show of the '60's. The battle scenes are GREAT (to give the viewers an idea of the horror of war, and thus protest Viet Nam, no doubt), but the plot development rushes past like a politburo funeral. Well suited for video, since you can compress some of the tedium (although it's generally historically accurate). Cedric van Kiesterzijl (Real life? Never use the stuff...) From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: movies Date: 5 Aug 1994 00:12:09 GMT Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS I'm feeling late period today. How's about: A Man for All Seasons (about Thomas More) Elizabeth R. (the six part series w/ Glenda Jackson) And of course, Blackadders I and II (no, they're not movies, but...) For those of you heading towards the 17the century, there's The Last Valley (30 years War, loads of famous people) and Cromwell (he looks WAY too good, but the costumes are nice) What's that movie about Michaelangelo and Pope Julius II? Cheers! Nicolaa/Susan Canton of Eoforwic sclark at epas.utoronto.ca From: sco at mchr.nteltec.com (Stephanie) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Movie Review - Rob Roy Date: 29 Mar 1995 05:20:12 GMT My lord and I just returned from a preview of the new film "Rob Roy". Although this film is about 100 years OOP, it was absolutly stunning. The story of one Scotsmans fight against the system, it is a brutal, passionate, and visually stunning portrayal of rural life in the 1700s. Liam Neeson stars as Robert Roy MaGregor, a Scottish land holder who risks everything for his honour. Jessica Lange stars as his wife who must live with the consequences. The film is filled with wonderful dueling scenes, highland panoramas, castles where I would love to hold an event or two, and some costumes that I thought were lovely (but I am no expert in that field). If you have the oppertunity, I would recommend that you see this film and if you have an easily stirred heart, make sure you pocket some kleenex before you go. Rob Roy is currently set to open on April 12th. Lady Isabel d'Estella Baronial Scribe Barony of Twin Moons, Atenveldt -- Stephanie Valencia NTT sco at mchr.nteltec.com From: errickii at aol.com (Errick II) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Braveheart,a review... Date: 27 May 1995 08:57:51 -0400 Braveheart the Movie! >" Has anyone seen this movie yet?" I've started seeing that question and already I've read the answers with the usual picky responses. Well today I saw it...and it's time for my review. ( Drum roll please...) (Soapbox mode on...tongue in cheek ;-) ) On a 4 star scale...... I rated this MOVIE ****** A 6 ?? U betcha!!! Best $1.25 an hour I've spent in a long time. Let me repeat, this MOVIE was excellent. Running time is 3 hours, you really get your moneys worth. I thought the acting, scenics, battle scenes, weapons, armor, in fact just about everything about the MOVIE was..., was..., spine tingling!??!. (words just fail me, gasp...). When you buy your ticket enter" SCA event mode" and ignore the minor things. Things like 1100AD personas interacting with 1500AD personas or an exposed plastic cooler laying next to a shield reenforced with mans greatest tool "Duct Tape" at a local event. In the MOVIE..., things like a hand and a half claymore in half sheath, blue painted men with kilts, unusual armor combinations, you know the usual things EVERYBODY bitches about. This is entertainment, not a historical thesis, sit back, relax, enjoy the leisurely pace of the first hour. Be prepared to cringe, cheer, laugh, and possiby shead a tear or two in the last couple of hours. Graphic violence is very much in evidence, and the battle scenes are awesome. This is a movie for stick jocks and stick jock wannaabees. I feel Mel Gibsons "persona" in this film could easily fit into the SCA, in fact it could be used as a guide to what it takes to makes a knight. Ok... have fun ripping on this one! As always, reprint rights are granted free. Donations of mead, etc. gladly accepted. (Soapbox mode off ). Errick errickii at aol.com From: salley at niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Anyone seen Braveheart yet? Date: 27 May 95 15:42:47 GMT Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208 Better still, did anyone catch Mel Gibson on _The Tonight Show_ Thursday? Jay announces Mel, waits by wings, nothing happens for about twenty seconds, and then suddenly dozens of bagpipers start marching into the studio from stage left, stage right and the back of the audience all playing _Scotland the Brave_. Suddenly the camera zooms in and Mel is in the middle of the bagpipers wearing a tux from the waist up and a kilt from the waist down! The screaming of the women drowned out the bagpipes! It was wonderful. Mel brought canned hagis with him and Jay couldn't eat it while Mel was munching and eating. Jay was trying to find out what Mel had *under* the kilt. "Jay, why are you trying to look up my kilt?" "I want to know what's worn underneath." "Nothing's worn, the parts are in perfect working order!" The audience went wild! Mel brought out a live-steel claymore. My wife told me to stop drooling on the couch! "You're not even looking at me, how did you know I was drooling?" "I married you, now stop drooling!" - Dagonell SCA Persona : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, CSC, CK, CTr Habitat : East Kingdom, AEthelmearc Principality, Rhydderich Hael Barony Internet : salley at cs.canisius.edu (Please use this, reply may not work.) USnail-net : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029 From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (John Doing) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: OK another Braveheart review Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 15:04 Organization: University of California, Los Angeles Ok I saw Braveheart last weekend. This is not a work of historical fiction but of historical romance (and I don't mean the torn bodice school). In my humble opinion the film owes more to its Hollywood anticedents then to its historical ones. This is very much in the vein of Errol Flynn and Charlton Heston. Costumes which look good to a modern eye no matter what they wore in period. Changing fact to fit the fiction instead of the other way around. On these terms it is a good film. Much romance without mush or crassness, plenty of action, heroic characters, dasterdly badguys, and a sense of humor. Fans of Robert the Bruce will not like how he is treated in this film, nor will fans of Edward. As to the much discussed gentle thrown from a window scene, in my humble opinion, his murder has less to do with his sexual nature than in his common sense. In the scene, Edward arives from France to find and army destroyed, Scotland lost, and York and most of Northumbria taken by the Scots. The chief military adviser to his son (the person responsible for the current state of affairs) then proceeds to lecture the king on military affairs. It seemed to me, that no matter who this gentle was or what his sexual preference he was going out the window. All in all I enjoyed the film, especially the battles (which were remeniscent of a few SCA battles I've been in), and I have to admit it has the best scene of blue painted, screamming celts, running down a hillside of any film I've seen this year. I'd see it again, on the big screen, especially if I could find a showing with a quite audience. Just my t'pence Siohn ap Govannan Barony of ALtavia Kingdom of Caid From: justin at dsd.camb.inmet.COM (Mark Waks) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Braveheart Date: 1 Jun 1995 11:37:41 -0400 General opinion: very nicely done film. One this whole historical-accuracy thing -- Braveheart is *clearly* a deliberate melding of fact and legend. It's even self-conscious of that; while it isn't omnipresent, there are a number of very careful and well-done references to the nature of legend in the film. (Eg, Wallace being told that he *can't* be *the* Wallace, since the real one is seven feet tall.) I suspect that Gibson deliberately took the historical record and blended it with the best legends. Frankly, I think it works. Several times, I was struck by how Robin Hood-like the whole thing was, and I am rather impressed by the way it managed to combine the *scale* of Prince of Thieves with the *flavor* of the Patrick Bergin version. That is, it managed to be grand and powerful, while still *feeling* right. Yes, there are lots of details wrong, but they just don't jar you the way Prince of Thieves did. And the pacing is, IMO, magnificent. It never goes rocketing along, but it proceeds in a *very* careful, measured way throughout. Getting through three hours without ever really dragging is an accomplishment any director could be proud of. Worth the money, and maybe worth watching a couple of times... -- Justin Who has to concur that the battle scenes sometimes looked *just* like Pennsic, except with quite a bit more blood... From: dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Movie: Queen Margot Date: 22 Jun 1995 12:47:30 -0400 Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history (I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri, Catherine, etc.) what they really did? The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie, even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were simplified). Estrill Swet Mooneschadoweshire, Ansteorra From: ej613 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Maureen S. O'Brien) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Movie: Queen Margot Date: 25 Jun 1995 04:46:24 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) In a previous article, dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet) says: > Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering >how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history >(I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were >the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri, >Catherine, etc.) what they really did? > >The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie, >even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were >simplified). I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book (Dumas' MARGUERITE DE VALOIS). It was based on folklore about the period (Catherine de'Medici as a poisoning, plotting evil genius behind the Huguenot massacre, whereas actual evidence shows that she and most of the royals weren't too pleased by it all (riots are _so_ messy!). Or at least so I understand. I know about English history. Or Irish. Or Japanese. Surely somebody knows something about French history around here! -- Maureen S. O'Brien We are like the roses --- ad451 at dayton.wright.edu We are forced to grow. From: CUYR15B at prodigy.com (Joe Mariani) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: First Knight Date: 10 Jul 1995 14:31:02 GMT *** A long rant-n-rave with spoilers! *** I know this is all just nit-picking, so if you're offended by that sort of thing, don't read this! Some of this is about anachronisms , but most of it is about divergences from legend... I have never been so offended by a movie as I was by "First Knight". I ignored the cheesy title and figured I'd give the film a chance. This proved to be a mistake. The title may have been the best thing about it. The dialogue was awful and the costuming more reminiscent of bad space movies than bad fantasy movies. At the end of the film, the people behind me were crying. My friend told me later he wanted to turn around and ask them why they were crying -- was it tears of joy because the movie was over, or were they crying because they were so upset at throwing away money better spent renting "Excalibur", "The Sword in the Stone", or even "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? When the end credits began to roll, I said "You hear that whirring noise? That's Sir Thomas Malory spinning in his grave". This is a list of SOME of the things that I felt were so wrong about this movie. All in all, the BEST thing I can say about it was that I went to a matinee instead of seeing it at full price. 1. Lancelot was a commoner, a wandering showman. He was not knighted until more than two-thirds of the way through the film. 2. Guinevere was the Lady of Lyonesse. 3. Prince Malagant's men (Arthur's main foe) used tiny hand crossbows with the power to put steel bolts (!) right through armor. 4. Malagant wielded a sword like none ever seen in a museum, with a blade that widened halfway down and a serrated edge! 5. The armor worn was not chain mail, but resembled hundreds of the pop-tops from soda cans sewn together. 6. Arthur's men wore tight-fitting blue uniforms that would have been more at home on the Battlestar: Galactica set. 7. Even priests in Camelot wore blue! 8. Guinevere's father was dead before the movie began. 9. After Lancelot just happened to be around to rescue Guinevere from abduction (the first time), he sleazily tried to force himself on her. Richard Gere showed more class and style propositioning a hooker in "Pretty Woman". 10. When he married Guinevere, Arthur was an old man, having already been king for many years. 11. Camelot was a huge walled city, bigger than 17th-century London! Actually, it looked like woodcuts of 17th-century London, with all the Tudor houses... 12. The only one of Arthur's knights mentioned by name was Agravaine. Where were his brothers, and all the rest of the Knights of the Round Table? 13. Arthur's sword was just another blade. The name Excalibur was never mentioned. 14. The symbol of Arthur Pendragon was a gold dragon. No dragons, gold or otherwise, were seen in the film. 15. No mention was made of the Grail, Merlin, or Mordred, either -- all central to the Arthur legend. 16. The bizzare machine called the Gauntlet -- wasn't that just a little beyond medieval technology? 17. The one and only time Lancelot and Guinevere kissed, they were caught in the act by Arthur himself. 18. During the public trial of Lancelot and Guinevere for treason (?), Camelot was surrounded by the enemy and taken. 19. King Arthur was killed by 4 of Malagant's steel crossbow bolts, shot by Malagant's soldiers. 20. King Arthur left his kingdom, and his wife, to Lancelot. 21. Arthur's body was set adrift on the (remarkably calm) ocean on a barge, which was then set afire with a flaming arrow. Before the arrow was shot, smoke was rising from the barge, exactly where the arrow would hit... Now, as I recall the story (Reader's Digest version), King Arthur became King as a very young man with the help of Merlin and the sword Excalibur. After subduing those who opposed his ascendancy, he sent his best friend and favorite knight, Lancelot (the son of a French King), to bring his promised bride, Guinevere, whom he had never seen. Lancelot and Guinevere fell in love during the trip. For years, Guinevere and Lancelot tried to hide their love, but it was an open secret, and the King forgave them completely until his half-sister, Morgause (or Morgan), caused Agravaine (one of her sons) to catch the two in flagrante delicto, as it were, and force the matter into the open. Lancelot fled, and the Queen was accused of adultery. Lancelot rescued her and held off the rest of Arthur's knights in his castle... to make it short: Mordred, Arthur's son by his half-sister, took over the kingdom while Arthur was in France. In a huge battle, begun by accident (a soldier drew his sword to kill a snake while Arthur and Mordred were discussing peace), Mordred mortally wounded Arthur, and was killed by him. After Arthur died, he was taken away in a barge by his half-sister (now a nun). Lancelot became a priest, along with the knights that were left (Bedivere and Percival, I believe). Guinevere became a nun. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the story's good enough to be filmed as is. CAVALIER CUYR15B at prodigy.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: a-mikem at ac.tandem.com (mckay_michael) Subject: Re: First Knight Organization: Atalla Corporation - San Jose, CA. Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:57:42 GMT As predicatable as day, the "accuracy" tear-down starts on First Knight. It is not worth bothering, since it never said that it would be accurate. Our local group did a demo in front of the theater, and than saw one of the showings. Overall we enjoyed the movie (I give it 2 out of 4 stars). I pondered the director's decisions to use the names from the Arthurian mythos. On one hand, it set very strong tones, and allowed a lot of credence for certain feelings (like the unity of the knights, the type of king being protrayed, etc.). The biggest drawback was that after using these archtypes, the characters and story line were not consistent (actually Arthur and Guenevere were passable, but Lancelot was very different). The ending was very weak, typical Hollywood last minute re-write I'd bet. I don't have so much trouble with the story, the costuming (like the absurd lock on the dye market that "Blue-Robe" TM must have had ;-) My problems are where the story ignores the arch-types that it used to build the background. If you go and see the movie, accept that this is not an Arthurian myth, and take it as a story on it's own. I must say that having just completed reading Mallory a few weeks before the meeting, I would have much prefered seeing the real Lancelot on the screen (instead of the somewhat unsavory character named Lancelot that Gere protrayed). Seaan McAy Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West (Santa Cruz, CA) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:48:49 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy Subject: SC - Fetal Rabbits as "fish", et al. > From: "Anne-Marie Rousseau" > Subject: Re: SC - Lenten foods > The more I learn about the real middle ages, the more I realize that most > of the stuff I thought I "knew" was a bunch of urban legends and > misinformation propogated by undereducated (and underpaid) fifth grade > teachers and bad Errol Flynn movies. The only bad Errol Flynn movie I'm aware of is "Cuban Rebel Girls", but if you were referring to historical inaccuracy, I'm inclined to agree. I saw, within the last couple of years, the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood", complete, uncut, in a large-screen theatre. I was with a couple of friends from the SCA, and we spotted, in the scene where Robin busts in on the Norman feast, a large platter of cubes of blue Jello. When Robin slams that stuffed deer down on the table, the Jello quivers dangerously, which prompted one of my companions to shout, "There's ALWAYS room for Jello!", and another to shout, "It's alive!" So much for Mystery Science Theatre 1190... Adamantius troy at asan.com Subject: ANST - bad period movie alert! .... Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:16:57 MST From: "j'lynn yeates" To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG if you like Monty Python (and who dosn't) and bad humour (and who dosn't)check out a tape rental i stumbles across last night ... "The High Crusade" ... sounds familiar, no? as it should, it's based *very loosely) on the Poul Anderson novel of the same name (alien invasion scout sets down in england ... taken over by a medieval army ... attempt to use it to get to Jerusalem for a Crusade ... double crossed by pilot .. end up elsewhere .. the barbarians wreck all kinds of havoc in the process ...) ... cheesy special effect, bad dialog, plot? what plot?, see the points where the money for special effects ran out and they just went ahead and used the blue-screen backgrounds .... we have ....one silly frenchman, two smashed ponies (damage report!), three skewered saracens, alien roasted rabbit, alien lovefest with the lead singer from motly crew, clone-fu, ale fu, arrow fu, garbage-fu, male chastity belts, knitted fabric mail, clueless male virgin, medieval industrial rap, ... pay particular attention to who is playing brother Parvus (how far the mightly have fallen ... ) one the "groaner scale" we'll give this one a 4.5 ... 'wolf Subject: ANST - EVER AFTER Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 12:36:52 MST From: jhartel To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful. Moriel*** Subject: Re: ANST - EVER AFTER Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 06:41:19 MST From: njones at ix.netcom.com To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG Greetings Moriel! > Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I > know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie > was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn > drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the > entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is > marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful. I second the recomendation. I saw it last night. It's not quite the "MTV" story that the TV trailers might suggest. It's a delightful diversion. Like any good fairy tale, it requires some suspension of disbelief, but it's quite enjoyable. Angelica Houston is wonderful, fabulous and incredible, of course. Her best role since Morticia Addams. She is quite evil, yet manages to portray the character with a human side as well. She brings some depth to the "wicked stepmother" that could very easily have just been a caricature. I'm not really a costumer either, so I can't vouch for all the clothes, however, there were one or two mens outfits that were wonderfully done, and I could point to the paintings that they can be found in. All in all, a good date movie. Gio, Northkeep. Subject: ANST - movie Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 21:21:50 MST From: sabella Good gentles, on the local pbs station I just discovered a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas. A movie entitled ''kiss me kate.'' the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming of the shrew'' the costuming especially the males its truly interesting. Gives one some great ideas for tights. the woman's costuming is not far off, of course those hysterical green eyelids are unique....but hey its the movies. not truly period - but like I said some great ideas. anne Subject: Re: ANST - movie Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 08:11:43 MST From: Amberglyph at aol.com To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG sabella at gte.net writes: << a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas. a movie entitled ''kiss me kate.'' the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming of the shrew'' >> Ackk!!! NO!!! This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton instead. HL Oriana Corbizzi Subject: Re: ANST - movie Date: Mon, 03 Aug 98 08:49:02 MST From: zarlor at acm.org (Lenny Zimmermann) To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 11:03:14 EDT, HL Oriana Corbizzi wrote: >Ackk!!! NO!!! This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but >the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track >down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton instead. For fantastic costuming (and general details as well) in late 16th Century Venice (that's getting into the Early Modern Era, for Italy) try "Dangerous Beauty". It is based on the life of the famous Venetian Courtesan, Veronica Franco. Phenomenal settings, backgrounds, props and costumes and an exceptionally good movie to boot. I highly recommend it. Honos Servio, Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg (mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio) zarlor at acm.org Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:27:17 -0500 From: Melanie Wilson To: "INTERNET:sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu" Subject: Cadfael - Costume Accuracy I have to agree here, but I'm afraid that's the Media for you ! I was unfortunate enough to agreed to go with my group to the making of the recent BBC Ivanhoe series as an extra, we were told to have the correct kit etc etc. We arrived most of us in newly made stuff for the event (as we do 13th C) only to be taken out of it and put in nylon and polyester rags, have our faces smeared in mud and all traces of headresses removed. My poor daughter was in the most aweful rag (literally) WE then got to stand out in the hottest day that year with little offer of water or other refreshment. The pesant clothes were naff, rags mainly, we all had to be dirty. The 'stars' costumes were far too late mainly fantasy creations that appeared to be based on 15th kit or later. Never ever again. I'm sure there must be some Media costumiers who know their stuff, but nearly every production I've seen recently had glaring errors, which is sad when the UK production companies were once well know for their great productions ! Anglia's Hornblower, the Sharp series and Bramwell, though not without the odd error were in general pretty good I thought. Mel Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 01:39:10 MST From: "B.Byers" Subject: ANST - Gladiator: the movie To: "Ansteorra" Greetings unto the populace On a mundane note, after a long day of building prints at my mundane occupation of projectionist, I was rewarded. The reward was screening Gladiator. Well, It was quite a movie. I enjoyed it immensely. Although a work of fiction, based on history, it was a movie I would happily see again. As a whole, I think that we the public being more informed than ever before has forced Hollywood to at least have a basis in research. I'll not give away anything! :) But It was grand to see the Coliseum for what it was historically, a Wonder of the Roman Empire and a Marvel of Mechanics for it's time period. On a personal note, I am still vexed as to why we think it is acceptable in playing Romans to have an English accent? Immediately we think "phony" when we hear an american accent in such a role. Hmmmm..... Guess it's Shakespear's Legacy that all Romans have an English accent. :) I have gotten off track.... The movie...... Must see, I felt it marched (not plodded) toward an interesting climax, sparked with action. The characters I felt were believable and human, helping draw us into a world that remains only through study and research. Well, enough of this non-essential opinion. I thank you for your time Ld Magnus Shire of Mendersham Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:15:35 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy Subject: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall? Olwen the Odd wrote: > At the risk of sounding like I live under a bushel-- > What is Blackadder II? This a group of related BBC historical comedy series, starring Rowan Atkinson, based on the premise that Richard III was a kind man and a good king, painted as a rotter by his eventual sucessor, Henry Tudor, a.k.a. Henry VII. Seems he never killed his nephews in the Tower of London (which he probably didn't anyway), and his nephews grew up to be big, strong boys. Seems Richard _won_ the Battle of Bosworth Field, only to be killed in the aftermath by his sinister but incompetent grand-nephew, Prince Edmund, all of which places Richard's nephew, who was not killed in the Tower, on the throne of England in the brief, glorious, and entirely fictional reign of Richard IV of England. The rest of the series focusses on the machinations of evil Prince Edmund, The Black Adder (but originally styled The Black Vegetable) to take the throne of England over the claim of his virtuous, pinheaded elder brother, Prince Harry. There's a second (and to my mind, superior) series, in which the great-grandson of the original Prince Edmund, Lord Edmund Blackadder, is an impecunious courtier to Queen Elizabeth I, and in one episode Blackadder finds himself strangely attracted to his servant, "Bob", who is secretly a girl in disguise, fleeing the poverty of her childhood home to seek her fortune in London. Future series focus on Mr. Edmund Blackadder, butler to Prinnie, a.k.a The Prince Regent, later to be George IV of England, on Captain Edmund Blackadder, scheming to avoid the impending order to go Over The Top of the trenches in France, c. ~1916 C.E., and on excessively kind and generous banker Ebenezer Blackadder, taken advantage of by one and all, until being visited by three spirits who teach him the true meaning, and value, of being an S.O.B. There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never materialized. Adamantius Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:35:29 -0000 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nanna_R=F6gnvaldard=F3ttir?=" Subject: Re: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall? Adamantius wrote >There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never >materialized. No, but there is a new show, originally made to be shown in the infamous Millenium Dome in London, called Blackadder Back and Forth, in which Blackadder and Baldrick travel through thime. It will be released on video in November of this year, I believe. For more information (and summaries of each episode of every part of the series), try: http://www.blackadderhall.co.uk Nanna Newsgroups: rec.org.sca,soc.history.medieval From: djheydt at kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) Subject: Re: Period (Medieval & Renaissance) Movies Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:51:01 GMT David wrote: >> Oh, I'll happily defend _Ladyhawke_ as medieval any day of the week 8-) >> The main plot line is medieval romance, and the rest of it is more >> authentically medieval than many and many a "historical" I've seen. Do you know the side-story about that plot? When the film came out, the studio's publicists put out a statement that its plot had been based on an old medieval legend. The scriptwriter sued. "*I* invented the plot!" he said. "How dare you suggest that I got it from some old story?" The case did come to trial. Harlan Ellison came in as a sort of amicus curiae, looking after the rights of the screenwriter just on general principle. And various professors of medieval literature were called in, to testify whether the story was old and medieval or not, and of course what *they* all said was "No, can't say I've come across a medieval legend with that kind of plot, but then in the Middle Ages a writer never claimed to have made up a story himself, he always said he had found it in some old book somewhere, even if he really had invented it and the old book too." Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt Mists/Mists/West Albany, California PRO DEO ET REGE djheydt at kithrup.com http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt From: alchem at en.com (James Koch) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Movie Review: King Arthur Date: 29 Jun 2004 21:16:29 -0700 I have just returned from an advance showing of King Arthur. I am not quite sure as to why this movie was made, aside from the potential to rake in a large amount of money. I believe this is why our local SCA group was invited en masse for a free showing. We are expected to apprise all our on line friends and get them out to the theaters in their thousands. I shall not reveal any plot points. This movie was a total surprise since it bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to any of the Arthurian legends with which I am familiar. If you saw Troy and were annoyed by the way it veered from Homer's story, then you will absolutely hate the movie King Arthur. On the up side the movie does present a new twist on an old tale. I mean, in the middle ages people made up these legends, what's to stop Hollywood from doing the same today? So don't go in expecting Mallory, go in expecting Gladiator. Everyone in the SCA who sees this movie is going to get into the usual argument over authenticity, and there are plenty of anachronisms to go around. Enough said. Aside from the issue of authenticity there was the greater problem of believability. Some objects were beautifully made, like the Roman carrus and carriage driven in an opening scene. Then there were the villages which appeared to be built just so that marauding Saxons would have something to burn. These movies always have too many villagers and too few cows, sheep, and crops. On the up side the individual characters of the knights were presented and developed. The actors also did a great job of portraying believable fear prior to being sent off on one last dangerous rescue mission. These are characters who bleed and die. Think Seven Samurai. This movie also contained plenty of archery, which made sense since Arthur's knights were all Sarmation heavy cavalry. On the down side, this movie was one of the most anti-Christian propaganda pieces I have ever seen. All of the Christians in positions of authority, with the exception of Arthur, were portrayed as cowards, self serving opportunists, and insane sadistic fanatics. Of course the pagan Saxons were worse. But the most glaring anachronism of all was Arthur's constant cry of "freedom!". It just didn't make any sense in the context in which it was being shouted. When Mel Gibson cried "freedom!" in Braveheart, at least you knew he was talking about Scotland's freedom from the the English yoke. In this movie it would have made more sense for Arthur to have shouted "victory!", "Britons unite!", "senatas populusque Romanos", or "death to the Saxons!". Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: Zebee Johnstone Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:34:30 GMT Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) In rec.org.sca on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:56:47 GMT Frank Thallas wrote: > I thought it was just me thinking that... I understand that costumers > have to play to the director's > "vision", etc, but if we're spending that much time and money to make the > thing, why couldn't they afford hairpins? Frenchoid hoods, gable hoods, (at > one point Anne had a "first communion" veil/tiara combo), all sorts > of headwear - and hair dangling out from under it... I expect because they wanted a look they thought worked for the audience. WHich is why modern cowboy movies have such a different look to 50s ones. Long hair and stubble, in the 50s not even the villains looked like that. Neither the 50s movie cowboys nor the ones of the last 10 years looked like the pics from the 1880s, but that's not important to the makers of the show. They want something they think resonates with modern ideas of what's "young" or "handsome" or "tough". Modern makers of plays or films about are period want the same thing. As long as the gear worn suggests the audience's idea of what the period dress was, that's as much period as they need, the main idea is to give the modern audience cues for "pretty" or "young" or "rich" or whatever. It's like stage combat - it isn't *supposed* to be accurate. It's supposed to be visible from the back seats and make the point the director wants it to make. Whether that's "The villain's a slimy cheating bastard" or "The hero is angry" or "we have to get the hero to stage left so the heroine can walk into him at the right moment". With minimal rehearsal time and badly balanced weapons that can still hurt an actor and cost the production a lot of money if that happens. If the fight director can make it sorta close to what swordwork is like while doing that, good oh! But don't expect it... Same with costuming. The costume designers job is to give modern cues about character and social position and position in the movie, while fitting in with the set designer and with the director's idea for set pieces and moves (eg flowing vs tight makes a difference to a character's appearance and therefore affect on the audience). If they can do that while getting close to period, good oh! But that's well down on the list. Silfren From: "Michael Grossberg" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:29:19 GMT "Peter Grooby" wrote > hardcorps at earthlink.net says... > > There are worse. What was the Viking movie with the "Six Million Dollar > > Man" guy? The movie was called "The Norseman". It wasted the (admittedly not great) talents of Lee Majors, and even more so of Jack Elam. I shame to admit that I actually _paid_ to see this stinker. The errors in accuracy were absolutely howling! Norsemen using crossbows? No wonder they couldn't seem to hit anything with them! Incidentally, the movie is immortalized in the old SCA filk song, "Freaking the Mundanes" --Went to "The Norseman"/ To hear Lee Majors shout "ODIN" The price was right/ we got in free And we sang as we sat and barfed into our paper bags You'll come a freaking the mundanes with me! Gardr Gunnarsson Barony of Settmour Swamp From: tmcd at panix.com Date: January 12, 2005 3:34:38 PM CST To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad Subject: [Bryn-gwlad] Braveheart (hochkhkhk PTUI) On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 Brian_Martin at dell.com wrote: > [tmcd at panix.com, Daniel de Lincoln] >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 kmarsh at cox-internet.com >> wrote: >>> Re: "Bravesmith"...good one. >> >> The word "good" doesn't belong anywhere near an allusion to >> _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI). > > And I thought that I was the only one who felt that way about > Braveheart. Freeeedooooomm!!! Give me a break. To address the second point: I suspect that "freedom" was a potent word in the Middle Ages, even if they weren't nationalistic in the same way as today. But as for loathing _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI): there's a reason why soc.history.medieval calls it TFWNSNBU, or "That Film Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered". Sharon Krossa discusses / disses it briefly at . Basically, as an historian, my opinion of Braveheart is that it is a work of fantasy, not history. Any resemblance to actual persons or events, in other words to real history, appear to be purely accidental. My best advice, for anyone interested in the real story of William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and the Scottish Wars of Independence, is not to believe anything, whether major or minor, depicted in the film, but instead read some reliable history books about the period. Enjoy the film as a fantasy film, by all means -- just as one enjoys Star Wars or any other work of the imagination -- simply do not mistake it for history. The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate -- in short, just about nothing is accurate. Admittedly, the film does have a few elements that coincide with real history. However, there isn't one of these elements that I feel I can mention without having to explain all of the many associated elements leading up to and/or inextricably intertwined with it that do not coincide with real history. And once started explaining the inaccuracies, there is no stopping -- they are so very numerous. (See Braveheart Errors: An Illustration of Scale.) And, of course, unless one already knows the details of the true history of William Wallace and the Wars of Independence, there is no way from just watching the film one can determine which aspects of which elements are those few that coincide with real history. It is far safer, and far more efficient, to just ignore the whole film, as regards history, and read a good Scottish history book instead. She then goes on to link to some bibliographies. is four pages (on my screen) of explanations with So, in the [first] two and a half minutes (of which a full 50 seconds is nothing but movie title graphics and a further 45 seconds is nothing but aerial scenery), the film manages to cram in the following errors: and lists 18 errors, some major. "The sons of knights did not dress in rags." "Edward I was a Christian." "There is no reason at all to think that late 13th century Scottish men had 'mullet' haircuts from the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or feathers in their hair. Further, there is no reason at all to think they hadn't ever encountered a comb..." _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI) is just another hatchet job by Mel Gibson, who has a massive hate-on against the English and is willing to lie through a nine-inch plank to blacken them. If you're going to be bigoted and hate the English, at least hate them for things that they actually did. Daniel de Lincolia From: Brian & Pam Martin Date: January 12, 2005 6:00:35 PM CST To: 'Barony of Bryn Gwlad' Subject: RE: RE: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven <<< I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was wrong with Braveheart? I'm not very well up on my Scottish history. Lai-Han >>> Well, from an historical stand point there are a lot of things wrong with it. Like Princess Isabella (or was it Isabelle?) was about nine years old, and therefore not a possible love interest of anyone let alone William Wallace. Her nickname later in life was the "She-Wolf of France" if that tells you how well liked she was by the English. Much of what was attributed to Wallace in the movie was really done by Bruce, and the movie version of the Battle of Sterling Bridge didn't have a bridge in it. (I'm still doing the math on that one.) Then there was the blue face paint, bad armor, bad costumes and, oh I could probably go on for a while but you get the idea. By the way; one thing the movie did get right was the Scots' nickname for Edward I - Long Shanks. But they failed to mention his more famous nickname in the move: The Hammer of the Scots. Edward only lost one battle to the Scots, and he didn't win because of Bruce's treachery. Edward II was a weak and lousy king which was another thing that the movie got right. Pendaran From: Marlin Stout Date: January 12, 2005 10:46:20 PM CST To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad Subject: Re: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven Ryan Saathoff wrote: > I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was > wrong with Braveheart? I'm not very well up on my Scottish history. > > Lai-Han Well, let's start with 5: -William Wallace wasn't a farmer. He also wasn't a Highlander. The film depicts him as both. -Edward I wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk. If memory serves, he was dead by the time the battle was joined. -Not only did Wallace not sleep with the Princess of Wales, he likely never even met her. -Edward I didn't kill his son's lover by throwing him out a window. -Robert Bruce wasn't the wishy-washy non-entity the movie makes him out to be. He was, in his younger days, considered one of the five best knights in Christendom. His main reason for not fighting Edward I wasn't that his father told him not to, but because he realized that Edward II would be a much less formidable opponent. Randall Wallace, the guy who wrote Braveheart, says in the author's notes of the book that it's not an attempt at an accurate history. That pretty much says everything about it: when the author admits it's fiction, what more needs be said. I found it telling that the only 'historical' piece that Wallace has gotten right is We Were Soldiers, which also starred Mel Gibson. Of course, when he did We Were Soldiers he had the real Col. Moore looking over his shoulder, and in position to thump him severely if he didn't get it right... Charles From: mmagnusol Date: January 6, 2007 9:19:43 PM CST To: - Adrian Empire - NC - Shire of Galloway , - Austlend - Vikings-NA in NC List , - Authenticity List , - BARONY of WINDMASTERS' HILL , - IrgenTLA , - Manx Subject: Beware! Grendel Cometh Next Saturday, Jan 13, at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time will come the Sci-Fi Channel premiere of Grendel. This looks to be the one they have been filming in the States [I know they did some at Fork Union, VA.] Instead of being a big budget Hollywood type movie, it apparently was one of the SC)I-FI Channel Clones. Which can be OK at times. If you like Vikings in helmets with huge horns on their helmets working a trebuchet a few centuries out of their time-line boy/girl is this the movie for you. The rest of us will grin and bear it, well probably not the soapeaters, but the rest of us. Ben Hur it ain't. Personally I am waiting for the new season of Rome. Magnus Reminding all those Atlantians out there to program the VCR before heading to Twelfth nite........... Edited by Mark S. Harris movies-msg Page 40 of 44