Professor David Peimer
Medieval Epics in Cinema
Professor David Peimer - Medieval Epics in Cinema
- Okay, thanks so much, Emily, and hi to everybody, everywhere around the world and hope everyone is well. So today we’re going to dive into mediaeval stories on film. And I think one of the reasons Trudy requested this was to focus obviously on not only France, but on Europe and the transition from the Roman era to, shall we say, Renaissance or post, you know, Middle Ages era. And I think the main idea really would be what is the connection between stories and myths and history, and how do we imagine history or reimagine history? And I want to propose today that we can only look back through our own imagination and through the prism of our own eyes, in a way, of our contemporary times, of our beliefs, our social values, our morals, in order to cast an eye on the past in memory and in history, as to how we can interpret it today. We can read factually what happened, but if we try to imagine it, and then tell it in a story, whether film or literature, whatever, it can only rarely be through our eyes. We cannot pretend it to be documentary. We can only say it’s fiction. So it’s that connection, which is fascinating between history and myth and storytelling. And just to add a little bit on from what I was saying last week with the story of Homer and “The Odyssey,” which I do believe is the foundational story for all western literature, is the idea of is it fantasy? Is it fiction? Is it a connection between fact and fiction? You know, how do we go about it? And when we look at it through the lens of film, we are naturally focusing on various qualities of entertainment, storytelling, characters, which character do we identify with, the goody, the baddy, the villain, the comic character who gives relief, the love story and so on. Very classic story structure.
And of course filmic techniques of editing, you know, colour, costume and et cetera. We can only do it using and celebrating our contemporary times and our imagination. In the end, it is imagination. The one point that struck me about Homer, we were talking about last week, the phrase from George Steiner that the myths in “The Odyssey,” which probably predate Homer, if Homer existed, and if Homer wrote “The Odyssey,” probably predated a couple hundred years, it may or may not have even happened, the story of Troy, Ulysses, et cetera. Steiner suggests that myths are not about just making fiction memorable, but to tell us something about our own times. And myths are ways of telling stories that actually capture some essence from our unconscious in human nature. Myths are not just about making fiction memorable, but tell us something about our own times. And I think that these stories which have been created over the last, you know, decades and years in film of mediaeval times, when are they telling us something about our own fantasy, our own wish, our own reality, and when not? When is it much more pure fantasy, like I’d suggest “Braveheart,” Kevin Costner’s “Prince of Thieves.” No personal disrespect to those fantastic filmmakers and actors. It’s just much more about the fantasy of the underdog versus the tyrant, you know, and fighting for freedom, et cetera, or steal from the rich, give to the poor, the “Robin Hood” stories. And those myths echo through the ages, very powerfully. They go way back, predate mediaeval times.
So these stories that I’ve chosen are to try and capture something which perhaps give us a little bit more of a flavour of the mediaeval period and something about the beliefs of those times, which we have deemed to be important, which we, I think today looking back, trying to be minimally nostalgic or romantic or sensationalist, try to look back and say, well, what is actually speaking to me today from these mythical stories? Or is it pure fantasy? Which I’m suggesting some of them are, even though they may be fantastically entertaining movies. The story of King Arthur’s obvious, that’s one of the classics. King Arthur, Camelot, their Round Table, the Knights, you know, the goodies and the baddies, help the underdog against the tyrants. The stories of honour and chivalry and loyalty and bravery. You know, all these values which we project into the mediaeval era are in a way values idealised, or set up idealistically and then played with, and perhaps profoundly disturbed. The values of looking at the conflict, which is so crucial between Christianity and paganism in the mediaeval period. These are all we know, these are all ideas which emerge from this period. You know, the knights and the bravery and loyalty and chivalry, et cetera. But also, which I think is a very profound import on Christianity and paganism and the profound dramatic and social and historical conflict.
Together with that is the conflict between a sense of modernity and a sense of ancient times, which goes with the old binary of superior and inferior. Who is superior, who is inferior? Which values are more superior, which are less? Do we need to always paint the past as inferior? And we are, of course, superior. Which is the classic, you know, the Romans did it. They called everybody else the barbarians, from the Gauls to the Brits, to the Goths, to the Spains, the German, whoever. They were concrete, everybody was barbarian. And in our times, in a way we almost have to build a sense of collective memory that we are perhaps a little bit superior, and in the past they were a bit inferior. Maybe nostalgic, we can idolise, romanticise, but you know, bit crude, inferior. I think it’s almost inevitable. Then the themes of war and heroism, which is, you know, Shakespeare, “Henry V,” which I’m going to show a clip from the Kenneth Branagh film. Contrast that to what Olivier is doing is amazing. But again, it’s a God-given victory. It’s a story of heroism, and how is heroism portrayed in the ‘40s during the War by, in the Olivier film, which was purposely set up to be obviously pro the Allies compared to the Kenneth Branagh, a much more recent movie of the Shakespeare, “Henry V,” where Henry’s a much more calculating, cunning, devious character who’s also capable of being a wonderful, popular, young charismatic leader. So there’s always a twist on historical reality, or the historical facts can be used because in the end, it’s about storytelling. Storytelling must take over and therefore fiction will take over from the facts that come from historical times. Just a couple of myths, which I want to debunk before I show anything, which is quite fun, 'cause I thought we could have a bit of fun with this as well. You know, in these mediaeval movies we see torches everywhere and it’s a staple of the Hollywood production as the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages torches, torches, but torches actually don’t provide much light, scientifically.
But we have endless mobs and there running through the paths, the streets, wherever, the castles, torches, darkness, it’s actually pretty hard with a torch to see very far at all. We have executions left, right, and centre. Execution abounding, off with his head. Penalty for pretty much every crime seems to be execution or beheading. The reality, as far as I can understand is that the death penalty was really only reserved for pretty serious offenders who really committed crimes of serious treason or murder, or arson, or of course if the tyrant or the king didn’t particularly want that person to carry on living. But it wasn’t as common as the stories make out. It was reserved primarily for the aristocrats and the people who’d betrayed and people who’d done things against the power at the time. Torture, it’s debatable how widespread torture actually was. And there’s a reason I say this is because the most common form of punishment was actually going back to the ancient Greek idea was, and partly the Roman, was public humiliation and exile and fines. So that was seen as far more damaging in a way than, you know, brutal crude torture. Torture does come in as Christianity takes over from paganism more and more and more towards the end of the mediaeval period.
And then it does change, especially with the burning of witches, the torture of witches, and so many. The figures are totally are almost random, but from the research between 200 and 500,000 women in Europe might have been burnt or at least severely tortured as witches. Beheadings and burnings. Well, death by burning became much more prominent after the Protestant reformation, between the Catholics and the Protestants, primarily, at first, to burn the heretic, basically. You know, I’m not going to comment, but it’s obvious how ironic that it comes from religion, and it’s in a way that beyond almost the triumph of Christianity. Wasn’t all that common, beheading and burnings were not all that common before the 15th century. A typical beheading took four or five swings. You know, so it’s not just one that we see in the Hollywood and chop, et cetera. The most common form of execution was hanging. Why? It’s easy, it’s cheap and usually works first time round. And you hardly have to pay much. You just, you know, get on with it. And the bodies might have been left out to hang for a couple of days as a warning. And the last myth, second last myth I’ll debunk is turkey legs. We see that in so many Hollywood movies, turkey legs for dinner every night, and potatoes. Well, the mediaeval diet was primarily eggs in Europe. Eggs, bread, fish and cheese, maybe some oats, maybe vegetables like cabbage and turnips, although those have been used not only by black adders, but others. No turkey and no potatoes.
The Middle Ages were so uneducated. Well, in a way, yes, but in another way, not. Because ironically through, as I’m sure many know, through the Catholic church, the monks, especially the Irish, interestingly, have been regarded from what I can gather as being amongst the most educated. They were highly literate, highly articulate, and had huge libraries full of the works from ancient Rome and ancient Greece, developing the idea not only of Alexander the Great from Alexandria, but the idea of libraries becoming much more commonplace than we can imagine, and much more complex. The notion of, you know, the monks as educator, the monks as controller and the the monks as the priest, as part of the ruling power, aristocratic power. And much of their time was spent obviously copying manuscripts. So a couple of these little myths to debunk and play with, but the demands of the movie and storytelling and fun needs to come in. And of course we have the adventure story, the romance, the damsel in distress, the maid, whoever rescued by the chivalrous knights, et cetera. These, what are they really about? They’re really about a sense of lost honour, perhaps a lost chivalry, an era which we can nostalgically, perhaps, imagine. How real it was or not, we don’t know, but this is going by some of the stories that have come down.
Underneath everything though, what I do think is so powerful is the sense of adventure, before the era of modernism kicks in. And the irony is that we celebrate science and reason in the age of the enlightenment and modernism. But the reaction, which as a reaction to paganism and you know, God is responsible, religion is responsible for everything. You know, the plague, the Black Death, et cetera. And through that other people or other groups, the Jews, obviously, and so on. But it’s also fundamentally, I think we can’t get away from the idea of adventure story when they’re told in film, the goodies and the baddies, and adventure story told from the perspective of us trying to almost imagine a pre-scientific era, a pre-rational era, a pre- shall we say, dominated by Christianity era. An era before the absolute domination of religion and religious power. So I think that there, and that sense of the paganism has a romantic, an adventurous feel. It has incredibly brutal, harsh, but we have to look at our own 20th century for extreme versions of brutality. We probably can’t go much further than the obvious ones from the 20th century, in terms of the, you know, to the combination of industrialised science. Boldly, rationally applied to brutality and murder. Okay, so these are some of the interesting tensions I think that play up. If we can start, please, Emily? The first slide, slide two. And this I’m going to start with, this is the one of the first silent movies ever made by Carl Dreyer, which is a silent movie on the Joan of Arc story. A remarkable movie which was made and we’re going to contrast, when he made it, in the very beginning of the silent movies, to much later, very recent. Okay, we can play it. Silent movie, so this is when the church is condemning Joan of Arc. “You knelt before Satan, not Saint Michael.”
Wait, just minute.
Thank you, Emily. If we can freeze it? And so that’s just showing from very beginning of the silent movie era, the very early on. And this fantastic idea of Carl Dreyer, just to focus on the face and the camera angle, you know, always looking up at the face and how there are, you know, going from one to the other to condemn the young Joan. In the religious scene where she’s condemned, I’m sure everybody knows the story. Right, if we can jump to, please, to slide 10. And in this one, this is a very contemporary film where Mila Jovovich plays Joan of Arc and John Malkovich is in it, et cetera. It’s a . Forgive my pronunciation of the French. A much more, very contemporary version of the Joan of Arc story. There she’s portrayed as mad, the devil, Satan, and the emphasis on the face. Look how the same story is told with very contemporary eyes in the last decade or two. Thanks.
CLIP BEGINS
I was about 10 years old, I was taking a shortcut home through the forest, when a a strange wind began to blow. It was such a strange sound, almost like words calling me. Everything was moving so fast. I couldn’t move, I couldn’t breathe. God had given me a message, a message to deliver.
What was the message?
He said that I must save France from her enemies and bring her back into the hands of God. Follow me!
[Man] She was on her white horse facing the whole English army and she drove them away.
That’s too easy.
We must be absolutely certain that she is not an instrument of the devil.
The girl is crazy.
We are of course, enormously grateful for your past efforts, but now your task is done.
I want that girl burned.
You are not helping yourself by refusing to submit to our judgement .
You will claim to be my judges? You be careful!
Do you think that God made the right decision to take an ignorant girl to save the kingdom of France?
Who are you to even think you can know the difference between good and evil?
I’m just a messenger.
CLIP ENDS
- So if we can just hold there for a second please, Emily? So what’s fascinating to me is this is such a contemporary version, which is trying to tell the story of the religious conflict, that they can’t bear the fact that a young teenage girl can be inspired by God, not Satan. To obviously, you know, to take, to unite the French army, take on the English and so on. And lead them in battle, never, you know, experienced, no history, no experience of it. No religion, no, I’m sorry, no education, knowledge of military and so on. But the way it’s told for me is what’s fascinating, using this ancient myth, is it’s like this upstart teenage girl who is going to lead the army to freedom, and how the power that be cannot bear it. So it’s the old story of the person who seems to come from nowhere. This case, she’s a teenager, she’s a young girl, thrown into a world and becomes the most powerful imaginable. The underdog overcoming, in a sense, the internal tyranny in her own country of France and of achieving. Goes back to a very archetypal myth of, obviously, of mediaeval times. The “Robert Hood” story, the ordinary small guy takes on the baddy, you know, the Sheriff of Nottingham, et cetera. King Arthur with his few knights take on all the evil and the baddies. So it’s often the small group or the small individual who takes on the big. And I think we have a need, when we go way back in history, to personalise an historical story, find our human connection.
We can’t do it to thousands, hundreds of thousands. We can do it to individuals. So I think the further we go back or different times of history, the more we need an individual to personalise and then we can maybe understand patterns of history, you know, of the various factions within Christianity versus aristocratic leadership. You know, who’s really ruling, what a girl’s doing in those times compared to what the men would do, et cetera. So, you know, then we get the bigger picture. But certainly for storytelling and our imagination, we have to go through the individual. You know, there’ve been so many plays, Schiller and so many others since the story of, you know, the last count was a couple of hundred plays and stories and variations and versions in storytelling of the Joan of Arc story. And when we come later, more specifically onto France, I’m going to go a little bit more into the George Bernard Shaw and one or two other plays, which are the fantastic plays which go really in depth into his story from very contemporary perspective. This is about the filmic techniques, and notice how we use the zoom, goes right into the faces and back and then quick, it’s so fast, the action. Time is speeded up, action, and we go so close to the face and back. and Carl Dreyer’s using this with a silent film, is one of the very first it goes so close into the face. Okay, if we can. The next one is from Bergman, “The Seventh Seal,” which has been voted by quite a few groups around the world as one of the best movies of all time. In essence, it’s about a crusading knight who comes back to his homeland and bumps into the devil or to Death, rather, and offers to have a game of chess. And if he wins, you know, he can have life. Sorry, it’s the same slide two, after the last clip we just showed. So it’s slide two. Yep. So it’s just after the Joan of Arc. It’s the clip after this.
CLIP BEGINS
But I give no reprieve.
You play chess, I understand.
How do you know?
Oh, I know it from poetry and from old legends.
If I may say so, I am considered an excellent player. You cannot be more skilled than I. Why do you want to play chess with me?
[Max] That’s my affair.
As you wish.
The bargain is you let me live as long as I withstand you. If I checkmate you, I go free.
CLIP ENDS
- Thanks, if we can freeze it there, please, Emily? Thanks. What’s fascinating to me is that Bergman chooses this whole mediaeval period. A Crusader knight who comes back, bumps into Death, and offers to have a game of chess. And if he wins, give him eternal life, if not, and so on. And it’s, for me, it’s such a fantastically surreal image and surreal imagination just set it against the sea and the sky. I think he’s trying to go way back to ancient Greek times, to Homer, the myths. I’m full of Homer today and have been for the last week from last time. But trying to find some way of these crusading knight’s religion, and he’s trying to almost step outside of religion and Christianity and the crusader, and the knight story, the mediaeval, and have a game of chess with Death. It’s an extraordinarily striking surrealist moment in film. And I know a lot of people feel it’s very slow and very long, the whole movie, but this scene for me is brilliant. And I still think the image of Death holds. I don’t think it’s over acted or too much makeup, you know, it’s just the white face. Of course it’s been lampooned by Woody Allen and Monty Python brilliantly. Okay, the next slide, next section after this we can show is from, for me, one of the greatest films ever made, Kurosawa’s “Ran.” And this scene I’m going to show is towards the end of the movie. And Kurosawa’s “Ran” was based, the Japanese film, was based on the story of King Lear, or inspired by King Lear, where a samurai, a king, tries to divide his country up amongst his three sons. And disaster hits very similar to the King Lear story, which we’ve dealt with before. But it’s obviously set in Japan and the mediaeval period in Japanese history. This scene is at the end of one of the biggest battle scenes ever filmed. Mediaeval battle in Japan with I think quite a lot of historical accuracy with costume, swords and many other things. And it’s an amazing scene of how the king at the end goes mad and realises the madness, the insanity of war, of killing, of everything that he has done, the disaster he’s set up and the disasters that the sons have done. So if we can show that, please?
CLIP BEGINS
[Emily] Is that in the same video, David?
Yeah, it’s the same straight after this one, thanks. We can just run this to the end. And now this is “Ran.” Incredible image and then straight on to Monty Python. If we can carry on with this, we have to have lampoon and fun. Thanks, Emily.
Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britains. Oh, don’t grovel. One thing I can’t stand, it’s people grovelling.
Sorry.
And don’t apologise! Every time I try to talk to someone, it’s sorry this and forgive me that and I’m not worthy. What are you doing now?
I’m averting my eyes, oh Lord.
Well don’t! It’s like those miserable psalms, they’re so depressing. Now knock it off.
Yes, Lord.
Right. Arthur, King of the Britains, your Knights of the Round Table shall have a task to make them an example in these dark times.
Good idea, oh Lord.
Course it’s a good idea! Behold Arthur, this is the Holy Grail. Look well, Arthur, for it is your sacred task to seek this grail. That is your purpose, Arthur. The quest for the Holy Grail.
A blessing, a blessing from the Lord!
God be praised.
Thanks, we can hold this here and go on to the next slide, please. So I’m going to come back to this in a sec. And the next slide is going to show one short clip from the same Monty Python movie. It’s set to-
[Narrator] Three, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”
Let us ride to Camelot. ♪ We’re knights of the Round Table ♪ ♪ We dance whenever we’re able ♪ ♪ We do routines and chorus scenes ♪ ♪ With footwork impeccable ♪ ♪ We dine well here in Camelot ♪ ♪ We eat ham and jam and spam a lot ♪
[Narrator] Still lovingly memorised and quoted by fans of the world over, this Monty Python period adventure remains one of the best comedies ever.
You don’t frighten us.
[Narrator] Though initially intended as a string of vaguely related sketches, it turned into a full length story about King Arthur and his knights, when the group realised they had enough material for a full script.
[Arthur] Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
[Black Knight] 'Tis but a scratch.
A scratch? Your arm’s off!
[Black Knight] No it isn’t.
Well what’s that then?
[Black Knight] I’ve had worse.
[Narrator] And while it may not be painstakingly accurate in its representation of the era, it’s still hilarious.
Go on, Bors, chop his head off.
[Bors] Right, silly little bleeder. One rabbit stew coming right up!
Look!
Jesus Christ!
[Narrator] Number two, “Seven Samurai.”
CLIP ENDS
- Okay, we can hold it there, please. Thank you. There’s another Kurosawa movie, and I’m going to show another clip from “Ran” rather a little bit later. What I think is an amazing for me about Akira Kurosawa and the film “Ran,” you know, basically a King Lear story, that image of him just walking through and he’s not looking at the soldiers, he’s not even looking at the dead. Has he gone mad? Is he thinking of everything that has happened in his own life as a version of Lear? Is he thinking of his children who’ve in a way betrayed and gone against him, who’ve turned out to be pretty evil? Is he thinking of the madness of humanity, the craziness, you know, hubris, pride, arrogance, an ancient Greek idea, such hubris that he had to try and still rule his three sons and then divide the kingdom up amongst the three, King Lear story. You know, we can imagine so much going through, and I keep feeling it as echoes for us so much today and the role of the leader, when the leader moves into elements of being a tyrant or demagogue or dictator, whatever we want to call it today. And then the journey of into madness and the dissent finally and then ascent into some compassionate awareness of human nature, you know? But the extreme cruelty and brutality that can happen. And I think it’s that contrast that Kurosawa brings that makes it so contemporary. The extreme brutality and be able to step back and aware of what’s going on makes us, the audience, experience the film on those two levels. Like I think we would do, if we are watching a stage version of King Lear.
We’re in it and we’re out of it, in it and out of it. And that’s one of the powerful ways to do, I think, films which are based in stories which come from such, you know, ancient times, from so many centuries ago. So they don’t become pure fantasy adventure story because they involve ironic self-reflection. The Monty Python, the reason I put it straight after, is because they obviously take irony all the way to the end. Ironic self-reflection on storytelling itself, the received myths, the romanticising, the idealising of chivalry and honour and religion and pagan, all these series I’ve mentioned. The maiden in the King Arthur story, which captures so much I think in our imaginations of mediaeval period is debunked, played with, you know, is shown up to be one elaborate joke. And I, that’s the satire of them is brilliant in the film and how they capture it. Okay, if we can go on the next slide I’m going to show is Polanski, who is one of my favourite of all time directors and anybody who’s seen “The Pianist” and oh so many other films, brilliant. So this is Polanski and it’s a trailer from his “Macbeth.”
CLIP BEGINS
My name’s Macbeth!
[Commoner] Macbeth!
[Macbeth] Stars hide your fires, let not light see my black and deep desires.
Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under it. Leave all the rest to me.
Macbeth?
Awake! Ring the alarm bell! Murder and treason!
Hail, Macbeth!
[Crowd] Hail, Macbeth! Hail, King of Scotland!
[Macbeth] Macbeth, does murder sleep. Macbeth shall sleep no more.
All hail, Macbeth.
[Woman] All hail, Macbeth.
[Woman] All hail, Macbeth. Macbeth, Macbeth, Macbeth!
CLIP ENDS
- Thanks, if we can hold that there, please, Emily? So “Macbeth,” and what I think Polanski is trying to do is, and obviously we have the massive advantage of taking Shakespeare, you know, writing about this era from from the Middle Ages. We have the pageantry, we have the pomp, we have the costumes, the colour, the swords, the king, the nobles, the peasants, you know, trying to create a panoramic picture of the life. But then we can zoom right into what we call in theatre and film, the inner life of character, which is what we really emotionally identify with. We go into the inner lives and Macbeth’s qualms, does he have the ambition? He has the ambition, does he have the guts to do what, he’s going to kill Duncan, kill the Banquo’s children, et cetera, et cetera. Banquo, and you know, does he have the courage to do it? You know, stick your courage to the pail, we’ll not fail, or doesn’t he? Or is he too kind to the milk of honey? So the milk of kindness, sorry. And I think what Polanski’s so brilliant, it is combining the big picture with a small. For me it does it the same in “The Pianist,” and others, the huge picture of what’s really going on visually and fairly accurate, I think, with costume, set, and staging, and then with the ordinary human story inside it.
And that for me is amongst the most successful. I think it’s what Bergman tries to do and it’s certainly what Kurosawa, I think, achieves, possibly the best of them all. That ordinary human story in and amongst these massive stories of armies and knights and chivalry and all sorts of other things. And I think that’s when history becomes memorable fiction and goes further into a myth coming from our unconscious, because the individual with caught up within, you know, massive times of historical change, whether it’s mediaeval, Roman, ancient Greek, wherever. I think it’s that combination that enables a film to really last beyond its time. And Polanski certainly does it and Kurosawa, the most successfully. A little bit Bergman and some of the others. Okay, if we can go on to the next one, please, is “El Cid,” which is the great adventure story of the baddy tyrant king and Spain and the goody who comes to rebel and take over and reestablish good order. Scorsese called it one of the greatest epics ever made. That’s the next slide.
CLIP BEGINS
Among our people, we have a word for our warrior with the vision to be just, and the courage to be merciful. We call such a man El Cid.
[Narrator] From the blood and conflict of mediaeval Spain came the greatest hero of all times. The beautiful Jimena de Gormaz. Theirs was so great a love, that the full fury of a cruel fate could not extinguish its passionate fight.
You bought your honour with my sorrow.
There was no other way for me. The man you chose to love could do only what I did.
Why did you come, Rodrigo? Did you think the woman you chose to love could do less than you?
But my love won’t die.
Kill it.
You kill it! Tell me you don’t love me.
[Narrator] Here amid the pomp and the pageantry of the Spanish court, one man’s unswerving loyalty enriched the splendour of chivalry. A man who knew the warmth of happiness and love, and yet before his fearless integrity, even the king was humbled.
Do you swear that you had no part by way of design in King Sancho’s death?
I swear it!
If you are forewarn, may you die such a death as your brother did, struck from behind by the hand of a traitor. Say amen.
You press me too far, Rodrigo,
Say amen.
Would you take me with you?
No, I… have nowhere to take you.
I love you, Rodrigo.
CLIP ENDS
- Yeah, we can hold that there. Thanks. So this here is a great adventure story. I think it’s one of the great classics to look at the period of the mediaeval times. The action film, the adventure story, the costumes, the soldiers, the war, the heroism, the, you know, the underdog, which is a bit of the Robin Hood, and even the King Arthur. The underdog who comes to save the country and reestablish good justice and good morals and good laws, to take over from the tyrant, who’s usually usurped the crown. There’s the maiden story, the Sophia Loren, the love story, Charlton Heston, perfectly shaved, which would have been unlikely in those times and many other things. But it’s got all those elements, and put it together in a brilliant way. And again, it’s got that panoramic view of the historical time, probably pretty well costumed and set. And at the same time, the human story. And even “El Cid” is grappling with things. Can he achieve it, can’t he? There’s an inner conflict inside, and that’s what we also emotionally need to connect to. And that for me is a bit different to Mel Gibson, the “Braveheart” and Kevin Costner’s the “Robin Hood” story where we don’t really connect to the inner life of those characters. It’s just literally goody and baddy. You know, steal from the rich, give to the poor, “Robin Hood” or the Mel Gibson “Braveheart.”
You know, injustice, terrible. I’m going to lead you and we’re going to overcome the baddies, the English, the Scottish against English. But when we take time to nuance the inner life of character, I think it comes alive much, much more. And through that we can experience some of the real tensions of the mediaeval period, right? If we can, the next one is going to be from Umberto Eco’s novel, the great Italian writer, “The Name of the Rose” with Sean Connery, which is about religion and the dogmatism that came in with Christianity later in mediaeval times, as we know, once it’s overcome paganism, and the dogma of Christian religion versus reason. Beginning ideas of enlightenment. Okay, if we can show you the next slide, please.
CLIP BEGINS
[Narrator] Within these walls, men come to seek God. He has come to seek a killer.
We found the body horribly mutilated under a window which was-
Which was found closed.
Somebody told you?
[Narrator] A man of reason in a world of blind faith.
Yeah, small blood here.
You mean that he committed suicide?
Elementary.
[Narrator] And a crime that could not be suppressed.
[Adso] Ink stains?
He did not write with his tongue, I presume.
[Adso] I don’t like this place.
I find it more stimulating. Should we tell him?
No.
I am most curious to see the library for myself. May I do so?
No.
But what if he should learn it on his own accord?
[William] Written with lemon juice. Hey, who’s there?
[Monk] Your overestimate his talents.
This one, I grant you, did not commit suicide.
[Narrator] When he is challenged by a man of cruelty and power, the hunter becomes the hunted.
Brethren, if you please!
[Monk] A matter has occurred of the utmost gravity.
Had someone else not chosen to look in the wrong direction, several men of God might still be with us. Our monks will meet their deaths here, and they also will have blackened fingers and blackened tongue.
His tongue is black just as Brother William foretold.
Yes, I was right.
He knew, just as I, too, would’ve known had I been the murderer.
You go that way.
Lock them up!
[Narrator] One final murder has been planned.
Master? Master? How did we get out?
With some difficulty.
[Narrator] And it’s his. Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham, “The Name of the Rose.”
CLIP ENDS
- If we could just freeze it there. So this for me, what I think is brilliant in Umberto Eco’s novel and in the film is that, as I say, in the trailer reason versus blind faith. So before we have the notion of Christianity versus paganism, which we see in some of the earlier films about that theme. And then trying to show here how a monk, ironically, of always dramatic irony works the most powerful in storytelling. How the irony of a monk coming with reason to argue against blind faith. Well, we don’t have to go back to mediaeval times only to see how utterly contemporary Umberto Eco’s novel is of that exact conflict, science, reason versus blind faith, driven by religion or cult or whatever. Okay, if we can go on to the next one, please. The next slide is from a fantastically underrated, underrated but fantastic film called “Black Death,” and it’s about the bubonic plague in mediaeval times, which we all know only too well.
CLIP BEGINS
[Narrator] Within.
What’s the plan?
Identify the heretic, put him in the cage.
Split any man from his arse to his apple.
[Narrator] Fumes of the dead hung in the air like poison. The plague, more cruel, more pitiless than war had descended upon us. This was not God’s work, witchcraft.
[Monk] Word has reached the bishop of a village that does not suffer as the rest.
I must see for myself how this village has kept safe.
[Ulric] This village we’ll headed to, they’ve cast God aside. In his place sits a demon.
[Soldier] The journey into Hell.
[Osmund] God travels with us.
Where we go?
What brings you to our village?
Word of the pestilence has not reached you.
Word is all that has reached us.
[Osmund] Nothing here is what it seems.
We have no fury, we have no pestilence, we have no God.
[Ulric] I see no evil here, just a simple village that has not yet been ravished.
[Osmund] Do not be fooled. Evil looks within this place, within these people.
There is no God.
Demons, necromancers-
Thanks.
Are among us, which you’ll find out, soon enough.
CLIP ENDS
- If we can freeze that there, thank you. So this, in this film, extending the religious theme of superstition and religion and trying, you know, a contemporary way of looking back at the Black Death, of looking back at the bubonic plague, which killed about a third of the European population. Of course we all know Jews are blamed, et cetera. The reasons why we have a sense of we’re going to go into it. So it’s about, in a sense, blind faith versus reason, beginnings of ideas of the enlightenment. And the omnipresent role of and dictatorship of religion. You know, in this case, Christianity. Is it so far from the cults of today? Is it so far what we’ve gone through with Covid? You know, we call it conspiracy theory today, many other things, but it’s a similar psychology emerging. Completely different clothes obviously, and a completely different forms, but the content remains. In the storytelling, we have a couple of characters we can emotionally connect with, and the panoramic picture of the director’s vision visually in terms of the story trying to capture this core theme speaks to us today.
Okay, so the next one, and I’m picking, as you can see, I’m trying to isolate some of the main themes from this era of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years and some of the contemporary storytelling. So the next one is showing Kenneth Branagh, “Henry V,” Shakespeare’s, “Henry V.” The great battle, just a quick story before is that the original one was by Olivier, and was shown in 1944, obviously as a propaganda sense to show the heroism in war of the Allies versus, obviously, you know, the Germans. There’s an anecdotal story. Eisenhower watching it and saying, “Well, you know some of these people, "how these people love war.” Anyway, let’s not go into that. I think what’s much more interesting is that Branagh is shown because it’s a 21st century film, he is full of doubt and conniving and cunning and calculations and so on. A young charismatic king taking on, you know, the much bigger French army, and of course Shakespeare using the heroic myth of the young charismatic leader for mediaeval times. Who can you show that please? Slide eight.
CLIP BEGINS
[Narrator] It was a time of courtiers and kings. It was the turning point for the English throne.
May I with right and conscience make this claim?
[Narrator] It was one of history’s greatest adventures, led by a soldier who wouldn’t retreat.
Once more into the breach, dear friends. Once more!
A lover who wouldn’t give up.
Is it possible that I should love the enemy of France?
But in loving me, you should love the friend of France.
[Narrator] A leader who upheld justice.
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, The gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
[Narrator] A rebel who wouldn’t give in.
What say you? Will you yield?
Now forth, Lord Constable and princes all, and quickly bring us word of England’s fall.
[Narrator] A king who defied the odds to prove himself a man.
This story shall a good man teach his son, from this day to the ending of the wall. But we in it shall be remembered.
We few, we happy few. We band of brothers.
[Narrator] The Samuel Goldman Company presents a bold new film by Kenneth Branagh, “Henry V.”
CLIP ENDS
- Thanks. What I like about so much, he presents this complex young character who has to use cunning, Odysseus type cunning, but also some of Achilles type action man hero stuff, in order to take on the much bigger conquering French army and the underdog versus, you know, the big tyrant of France, unite the country, bring it together, you know, that kind of charismatic leader. But because he’s shown with that inner life of all these other qualities I mentioned, the cunning and so, and manipulation and of course the love story. I think it’s got a contemporary way in, but it’s still told with a big panoramic picture. And I think some of Shakespeare’s greatest historical tragedies, greatest historical plays, absolutely do that, as we all know. Right, the last one I want to show, if we can go to slide 11, please, is from, back to Kurosawa and “Ran.” A mediaeval era from Japan, given that I what I’ve said about the influence of King Lear on the film. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Emily. So just to put a few things together.
The past may well obviously be a foreign country, but a world plagued by political, ideological conflict, division, internal, external, war and conflict between religions, whether it’s one religion versus the other, whether it’s paganism, Christianity, other religions of our times, the more so-called the extremist version of religion compared to the less, worldwide disease, pandemic, lost notions, perhaps, of honour, chivalry, compassion. Who do we burn today? We may not burn them literally at a stake, but who are our heretics today and how does the media or whatever, how do we exile people today? How do we metaphorically burn them, you know, with fire today? How do we behead their role in society, as it were? So all of these, I think, ancient stories which come into our times, I think these are the ones that I felt in a way just capture something of some of the great themes of our times. You know, and yes, well beheading is done literally by ISIS and others, but how we do these same things, but perhaps in more inherently sophisticated ways. You know, whether it’s through trial by media or whatever it is. So for me, they capture something so profoundly contemporary that I think they go beyond idealistic and highly romanticised adventure stories that I’m suggesting “Braveheart” and some of the “Robin Hood” stories that Earl Flynn, the Kevin Costner ones do, where I think it’s much more in the realm of romantic fiction. Fun, but romantic fiction, ultimately.
And because they’re so one-sided, they don’t try to deal with the panoramic picture at all of what’s really going on that I think Kurosawa does and I think Polanski and some of these others do. Even Carl Dreyer tries to in silent movie way. They’re always going to sensationalise some aspects of it. It’s human. They have to find a hero and a baddy and antagonist. You can’t have drama without conflicts. There is something of that. But when we show, as I said, the panoramic, the big picture and the human story inside it, and we try and get into the nuanced complexities of the human character, what Homer does with Odysseus and Achilles for that matter, in “The Odyssey” and “The Iliad,” what these people are trying to do inside their films, where yes, it’s full of archetypal myths, great stories, adventures, but they try to find something very human inside. And where these major conflicting themes of our own age play out in the human heart beating in our own times. Okay, so thank you very much, everybody. This is a little glimpse in of history and fiction and faction, and historical fact and myth. And of course, let’s never forget to have an ironic bit of humour about it with Monty Python. Thank you. So I can take the questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Q: It’s from Dennis. “Would you comment on the the Coen brothers? "They take on 'Good Omens,’ ‘Odyssey’ "and O Brother Where Art Thou?‘”
A: Yeah, it’s fantastic. And if it’s okay, Dennis, I’d rather hold that for another time, because I love the Coen brothers work so much and I need to get that a little bit more, you know, in depth.
Saul, from Thelman. “I thought the ruins of the ancient city of Troy "were found in Asia Minor or modern Turkey.” Yes. Schliemann, the German businessman become amateur archaeologist. So far the theory is that it was found there. There’s no concrete evidence, but that’s the strongest theory.
Lilly, “Schliemann excavated and found ancient jewellery, "which he gave his wife to wear.” Exactly. Lilly, thank you. It’s, you know, better than me. Irv, “Another interesting film, 'The War Lord.’” “The War Lord” is fantastic because it shows the right of the lord to grab the wife of a peasant or an underling, sleep with her after her marriage, or before the marriage and then send her back to the husband. And that’s the story of “The War Lord,” which was a right of the lords of those times. Very powerful film. “The Lion in Winter” with Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole, again, fantastic. “The Name of the Rose,” we’ve done here. “Ben-Hurr,” I’ve done before, quite a long time ago. So these are all wonderful and powerful films capturing, you know, some of these ideas I’ve tried to tease out today.
Andrea, “‘The return of Martin Guerre’ is brilliant.” I agree entirely. The idea that a husband go to war for years and doesn’t recognise his wife when he returns. Absolutely. And how war has completely and the shock we’d call it, you know, PTSD today, but have a shock coming back. Can’t recognise the wife, can’t recognise his former life, is what the real meaning is of the shock of being at war.
Okay, Mark, and apology, she might not recognise him, which is partly linked also to the Penelope story in the Odyssey.
Q: “Any comments on ‘The Last Duel?’”
A: Oh yeah, to be honest Mark, I need to look at that again. It’s a long time, so I would need to refresh my mind before being honest with you.
Alice, “‘The Seventh Seal’ is my favourite film.” It’s a brilliant film by Bergman. Woody Allen and many others talk about it. I agree, Alice. You know, I just wanted to take you out of the Crusades, ‘cause I think we’ve all seen films about the Crusades and the army, et cetera, et cetera, the marching. So I chose to show it in “El Cid,” but “The Seventh Seal,” what’s fascinating is that sudden game of chess with Death. You know, it becomes, because it’s such a surreal moment lifted out of the reality of the world of the film, it becomes such a memorable scene of Bergman’s imagination.
Adrian, “The modern 'Joan of Arc’ "didn’t get very good reviews.” I agree. And I think it’s because the modern film compared to the Carl Dreyer silent movie, it tries to show much more of an action adventure. It’s a Wonder Woman story. Yeah, she’s persecuted and the religious, and the kings and lords, the aristocrats of France turn against her, persecute and burn her at the stake. But they don’t show the real complexity of the character and the panoramic view of history of the time. And I think ironically Carl Dreyer, with far more technological limitation, beginning of the silent movie era, I think he captures much more because he focuses in on the face, he focuses in a human emotion. Just those religious figures and that shock horror madness of Joan looking up at them all. There’s terror, there’s madness, there’s fear, there’s belief, there’s God, where? It’s a teenager caught in all this. Suddenly the madness of the world that she’s in kicks in, and her desire to save France is thrown out the window. And we go through it all through, I think, the psychology of madness, fascinating with Carl Dreyer in the silent film. I think it’s one of the great movies, not only silent movie of all time. The modern one, I don’t think he gets it. I think it’s too obsessed with a one-dimensional sense of the character being this sort of adventure, all action hero. Not quite as bad as “Rambo,” but got elements.
Anne, “I didn’t like the recent film, ”‘The Green Knight.’“ Did I like it with Dave Patel, based on the long poem. I know, we all had to study it at university. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” God I remember it. It was the first one we had to study in English literature. “I did a new translation,” Anne, that’s amazing! I’d love to read it if you adapted it on stage, perhaps if you could send it through to us, it’d be wonderful to read. Love to, Anne, thank you. I remember that so well, you know? Reading it and studying. We fascinated how crazy it seemed. The Green Knight and the stories are so influenced by Homer, sort of fantastical adventure, but magical stories about, you know, elements of human nature.
Q: Rose, “You said a filmmaker’s depiction of what happened "in history is ultimately storytelling. "Do you feel that documentary filmmakers "essentially do the same?”
A: Yes. And I think there’s a wonderful, I would call it a creative tension between documentary filmmaker and fiction filmmaker, based on something in its history. But they’ll both have to use techniques of storytelling. And these are very profound, well studied from Eisenstein all the way through. The techniques, you’ve got to make the story work. And, you know, how you work with the characters, the goody, the baddy, the underling, the other characters, how you bring in the set, the costumes, how you move from scene to scene and so on. But it’s the elements of storytelling, as Aristotle reminds us in 33 pages of brilliance in his poetics. It’s the storytelling. You’ve got to evoke pity or fear. It’s got to have the character of who has the undeserved misfortune that we feel the most for, with Aristotle. So I think documentary filmmakers try to find similar elements in the telling of the documentary. Of course, they try to stick much closer to the fiction, to the fact, sorry, the historical accuracy of what actually happened as opposed to making it up, but they still have to dramatise it in some way. So yes, they try to lean more towards documentary, but I think ultimately can’t. Except for Claude Lanzmann’s masterpiece with the “Shoah,” where he’s just interviewing survivors. You know, that is a very different kind of documentary, compared to the usual, you know, 50 minute, 55 minute, or shorter, 28 minute documentary. Also remember documentary, we’re trying to tell a huge story in a much more compressed sense of time.
Q: Lorna, “Can we have a series on Greek myths as well?”
A: Oh, I’d love to. I love the Greek myths. You know, that’s what we started with “The Odyssey,” last week. The thing I mentioned there are over 2,000 gods that the Greeks created, and I’m sure I think Homer wrote a lot of extra gods, you know. It’s extraordinary culture. What they set up, the more I read, the more I understand, you know, these ancients, and how much they’re really originated.
Adrian, “It was actually a French TV series "with Gerard Depardieu about the mediaeval "French royal family based on the,” yeah, those novels, yeah, absolutely. You know, and I mean I know I chose a bit more today to focus on, on Kurosawa, just because I think he’s a remarkable filmmaker. But I’ll have a look, I’ll try and find him. Or if you could email that’d be great, Adrian, thank you. The French TV series. The first “Henry V” film with Lawrence Olivier was made ‘44 and is just as good. Very, very powerful what Olivier did. 'Cause whats fascinating with Olivier, is that he also took it from the stage production of the times. So he already adapted the stage production he had done for film and that makes it even also very, very interesting. But we cannot forget that it’s in '44, you know, in such an important moment in all our histories and human history.
Clara, “Thanks, 'Copenhagen.’” Ah, great. It’s great that you watch “Copenhagen,” and “Goodbye, Mr. Chips.” Yeah, great films, Barbara, thank you, that’s kind. Patricia, thank you kindly.
Q: Catherine, “Practise of public shaming of individuals "as punishment for offences was prevalent in mediaeval times. "It’s a psychological punishment. "It is simple to administer and cheap. "Why is it no longer used?”
A: It’s a great idea, Catherine. I have a PhD student in the moment who’s doing a thesis on the notion of shame in the coming of age musical theatre and film. “Westside Story” and “Fiddler on the Roof” and others. So the notion of shame is such a powerfully, really interesting idea in psychology and in society, that perhaps only when people are ashamed does something happen and change. And the public shaming absolutely came in mediaeval times, because the idea of exile, taken from the Greeks and the Romans, was often seen as a, you know, a terrible punishment, you know, close to being killed. So sent in, it’s sent into exile, you know, and hence the whole idea taken by the Pope and the religious, you know. Excommunicate, you shame the person. And in that way you give them a punishment for the crime. Why is it not today? I don’t know. You know, that would be a fascinating discussion.
Sarah, “Less serious, more fun. Danny Kaye, ‘The Court Jester.’” No, that’s great. It’s taking from these ancient mediaeval times and finding it today. You know, as Boris Johnson, is he the court jester and the court crown? You know, all that, we can play with so many. Susan, thank you. There’s an element of PT Barnum in “the Court Jester” all the way through when they become big political leaders.
Estelle, “Ingrid Bergman played St. Joan.” Yeah, I know there’s so many who’ve played St. Joan, but great point, and a great performance.
Jillian, “I lost the name of the film that had "a theme of black magic.” Yeah, “The Name of the Rose,” was that, or no, that was “Black Death” with Sean Bean, the brilliant British actor. It’s an underrated film, but I think it’s brilliant. It shows the plague and all these conflicts between religion, faith, reason, blind faith, certainly, and trying to find and burning witches, heretics, finding other heretics to blame. Of course they blamed the Jews, but it’s not in the film, blaming for the Black Death. So when something terrible happens, who, not the Ghostbusters, who you going to call? It’s who you going to blame? Well, how many people blamed various people, various cultures with Covid?
Susan, “Just a laugh on the writer of ‘The Odyssey.’ "One of my professors called student bloopers. "A favourite was Homer was not actually written by Homer, "but by another man of the same name.” I know, it’s great. And I love that Homer Simpson, one of my favourite comic strips. Yeah, the name Homer. And what his myth symbolises.
Adrian, “The series on YouTube.” Great, thank you. If you could email us, that’d be great.
Mark, “If you observe policy, public shaming does not work.” That’s a fascinating point, Mark. That’s a really, that’s a such an interesting thought. You know, that we could maybe do something on public shaming in the past and today. Does it work or has it lost its power as a punishment device or as a critical device on humans? It’s a actually a really interesting thought. Probably doesn’t.
Marion, “The French TV series with Gerard Depardieu.” Gerard Depardieu, that’s great.
So, thank you very much everybody and really appreciate and we sparked some ideas and we’re going to much more specific detail. This is to give just an overview of hundreds and hundreds of years and a few movies which try and capture some of the main ideas.
Have a wonderful rest of the weekend and hope everybody’s well.