Main > The Library

Black Death, the 2010 Film

<< < (4/6) > >>

Sir Brian:
Maybe you misheard them when they meant to say cannons?  ;)

Sir Wolf:
nope they said longbows, cause they said the French couldn't reach them.

it was ok for what it was. no historical accuracy at all but mindless entertainment :) all things come full circle so it shows. always shows how evil can have its hold over the weak minded or even show the sins of the believer.

it did seem like it was more of a made for TV movie or a Sci Fi movie than one for film in theaters.

Sir William:
Probably because it was an indie flick and not a big budget Hollywood mishmash.  So none of the costumes, armor or weapons was in-period?  I thought otherwise but I've still got a lot to learn so...

As for the longbow comment, I missed that but it wouldn't be that out of place...how many people currently know what 'Waterloo' means or how it is significant?  That sort of martial ignorance I would take to be quite applicable...imho.

Frater de Beaumanoir:
Black Death review (the currently unpublisized version)

It was an interesting film. I thought it was trying to deliver a message that religions were like plagues, and best to be avoided by isolation. There was a strong anti Catholic feeling in it, much like Ridley Scott’s film. The attempt to display how pain or the threat of can change anyone’s belief was interesting, but wouldn’t support the Warrior Monks’ sacrifice at Hattin in 1187.

The story takes place after the demise of the Templar Order, and the lead character sports items hinting he’s a member of a powerful Order (by his cape maybe a Hospitaller, but more likely a Dominican: they did have a militant arm at one time) as attested by the difference of the Abby to his presence.

During this time, under Pope Gregory XI, Hospitallers and Dominicans were used to promote the inquisitorial pursuit of heretics in Europe. (see: The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries By Kenneth Meyer Setton, or Gregory XI bio)

So maybe he was…..all I know is, if my horse were stolen, there’d be a lot of local villages pretending to be large piles of kindling!

The young monk follows the reverse route of experience than Brother Cadfael. It was asking too much of him to make those vows, and the “enemy” plays on that fact. On the other hand you have Brother Ulrich’s character; hardened by life’s events, and he chooses a path much like some of the historical Warrior Monks did. (loss of family, a chance to exercise your skills/trade in the pursuit of an idea larger than one’s self)

Some of the events led me to say that if you make an example in a harsh way with someone, you quiet possibly harden the resolve of those you’re trying to “win” over. (See the Knights in the cage, or the young monk, who ended up displaying just this line of thinking)

It was a “No Brainer” that they’d kill any knight who turned faiths, because to set him free, was to risk retaliation when he returned with a larger army. It was also to prove to the young monk, that even the strongest would break, to save their skins, and that faith had no deep found roots.

Seeing the young monk give up the cloth, so to speak, and live a life of violence is not exactly the same as what Ulrich did. Ulrich was a trained soldier from the beginning, plying his skills in the cause of the faith. The monk/turned warrior, learned violence to exact revenge for what occurred years before. Although in pursuit of the aims of the Church, his was motivated by revenge, and not piety.

All in all I liked the movie.

Sir Brian:
Excellent review and very well expressed. I readily agree with your perspective of the film! Well done!  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page