Hollywood Knights: Snow White and the Huntsman

Today I saw Snow White and the Huntsman, and I thought of it as the perfect opportunity for a review of a new film. The movie was surprisingly better than I expected, but less than I had hoped. It was supposed to be a gritty, darker version of the typical Snow White we all grew up with. I guess it basically was, but it was still much more fairytale style than I really expected. Overall, I’d say it’s worth buying when it comes out on DVD, but it’s nothing that should be considered great cinema. Also, I feel the need to avoid as many spoilers as possible – but it’s still Snow White, so many of them should pretty much already be known.

The criteria by which I will grade films will differ from many critics to better fit the point of this blog. While entertainment obviously takes precedence when talking about film, historical accuracy, costuming, and action sequences will also play major roles in my grading. The criteria are as follows:

·         Plot: Does the story make sense? Does it flow well? Is it original?

·         Cast: Are there notable actors? Do they act well? Is the dialogue good?

·         Cinematography: How does the film look? Are the special effects good?

·         Music/Sound: Is the music good? Does it fit the film? Is the audio of good quality?

·         Historical Accuracy: Is the film realistic? Were events portrayed correctly? There shouldn’t be much nit-picking here.

·         Costuming: Are the costumes historically likely? Do they reflect the characters well? Do they look good?

·         Action: Are the fights well choreographed? Do they capture the spirit of historical combat?

·         Overall: The average score for the film.

Plot: 6/10

While it ultimately comes down to the same-old Snow White we have always known, this film packs enough differences and twists into the story to feel pretty fresh. The film begins with filling in the back-story of Snow White, which I don’t recall in any version I’ve seen or read. We are shown how Snow White lost her parents and came under the control of the wicked Queen Ravenna. In this version, Snow White grows up in a prison cell in the Queen’s castle. When the Queen finally utters the fateful line “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” the story is off and rolling. The Queen is revealed to be a little Bathory-esque, in that she remains youthful by stealing the youth from beautiful young girls. She decides that she needs Snow White’s heart.

Luckily for Snow White, she escapes and flees into the Black Forest. Ravenna sends the Huntsman (that’s his name, his character doesn’t have a given name. I’ll use Thor.) after her. When he finds Snow White, he is convinced to help her escape to the castle of the good Duke Hammond. While fleeing, they eventually meet up with the motley seven dwarves, and ultimately, Snow White’s childhood friend William. Snow White eventually eats the poisoned apple and is brought, lifeless, to the Duke’s castle.

William (billed early on as “The Prince”) tries and fails to kiss Snow White back to life, and eventually Thor does the deed (spawning the question: are you team William or team Thor?). Snow White delivers her “stirring” speech to the Duke’s men and then they’re all off to storm the castle. Eventually, it all comes down to a duel between the comically bad fighter Snow White and the incredibly over-powered Ravenna. But of course Snow White wins and becomes Queen and everyone lives happily-ever-after. Except for maybe William, who doesn’t get the girl.

Cast: 7/10

This was a very difficult cast to grade. On the one hand, they have undeniable star-power. On the other… they have Kristen Stewart (Twilight) as the eponymous character. I’m going to take a lot of heat from the twihards out there, but this girl just cannot act. I like to say she lives her life with only two emotions: “pouty” and “more-pouty.” As such, moments such as her “stirring” speech, her “excitement” in battle, her “happiness” in fairy world, her “fear” of a troll – they all look and sound exactly the same. Good writing lifted Stewart up, making this character relatively worthwhile. This is their one weakness in the film: their choice of lead actress.

Charlize Theron (Monster) on the other hand, is delightfully unhinged as Queen Ravenna. We are introduced to the cause of Ravenna’s psychosis, and Theron crafts a character around that that is despicable yet sympathetic. We can’t help but feel a little sorry for her. When considering cinematic psychopaths of the 21^st century, we had Commodus (Gladiator), the Joker (The Dark Knight), and now Ravenna. High praise is due for her wonderfully portrayed character.

Chris Hemsworth (Thor) played the Huntsman better than expected. He showed some range and became a likable and believable character. He plays a stereotypical role as protector, but he is able to communicate his character’s motivations well enough that we don’t question it. In the end, he did well enough to not deserve criticism, but not well enough to deserve praise.

Playing alongside these “big three” actors are a myriad of other quality actors, none of which are typically recognized by name: Ian McShane (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead), Ray Winstone (Beowulf), Eddie Marsan (Sherlock Holmes), Toby Jones (Captain America: The First Avenger), and Sam Claflin (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides).

Cinematography: 9/10

This film is beautiful. From the sets, to the landscapes, the camera work, the lighting – there is little to criticize. I only complain about some of the action shots – they’re a bit jumpy and un-imaginative.  There is a wide variety as well. From the beginning we are led to fear a movie that is grey and completely unsaturated color-wise, but we are then treated to new vistas full of color and imagination. If nothing else, this film is at least worth seeing for the visuals. And there are several great effects in the film: with characters exploding into clouds of crows and then reforming from a tar-y, feather-y mess. The effects with the magic mirror, while not necessary, are at least cool looking.

Music/Sound: 8/10

The score of this film is quality and for the most part is completely non-distracting. In fact, there is a moment at which a character complains about “this damn fairy music” and it takes a moment or two to realize that there is music playing for him to complain about. This isn’t to say that the music is bland or fails to be noticed, but that the music actually becomes a part of the ambiance and emotion of the scene. I think this is true of nearly every scene in the film with the exception of perhaps the dirge sung halfway through the film, it started well but ended poorly. If not for that, the score would have been a perfect 10/10.

Accuracy: 4/10

It’s hard to grade a fantasy film for historical accuracy, so it is important to grade it for adhering to medieval themes and standards. For one, the fact that the throne was usurped and no one contested it except for the “rightful heir” faction seems unusual. This film is conveniently divided into “Good vs. Evil,” which is fine for a fairytale, but I have no doubt in thinking the real world is not nearly as black and white. Where are the wars of successions like those surrounding the reign of King Stephen or the Wars of the Roses in English history?

And as misogynistic as it might sound, no one would be following a completely inexperienced girl into battle. The power that the Queen and Snow White exert in this film is completely unrealistic for a medieval setting. This is not to say that women of the medieval period were without power, theirs was simply more subtle. No doubt, there were women in the Middle Ages who fought in battle or defended their homes: Joan of Arc fought in the Hundred Years’ War,  the mythic Madame Carcas led the defense of Carcassonne,  Matilda of Canossa defended the Papacy, and Eleanor of Aquitaine went on crusade. But more often, women played the roles of negotiators, plying their power in more subtle ways. Snow White might have inspired her followers to war, she probably shouldn’t have led them.

There might be a lot here to nit-pick, but as a fantasy film, I doubt anyone expected the accuracy rating to be very high anyway.

Costuming: 8/10

This is another place where the film suffers from “Fantasy Genre Disorder.” The costumes in this film are beautiful, but when looking at them from a historical perspective, some don’t deliver. Namely: Charlize Theron’s wardrobe. It’s by far the most interesting and also the least historic. Where this film makes up for its FGD is in the armor department. While many fantasy based films would endeavor to put the female characters into the most preposterously revealing armor as possible. But instead, Snow White dons some realistic plate armor. And as the Huntsman notes, she looks “pretty fetching in maille.” I hope this goes out as a notice, women can absolutely look good in armor.

Action: 5/10

For a film that has been touted as “Snow White turned into a war movie,” and a “darker, grittier fairytale,” the action was kind of tame. I guess that’s largely to be expected in a movie called Snow White, but the combat, while relatively plentiful, was mostly bland. The movie suffered from action-camera angles that distracted from what combat there was by not allowing us to see what actually happened. The shot focuses on the character’s face while the action occurs in the periphery.

Besides that, there are cavalry charges through forests, ninja flips, and Legolas-style archery. The kicker is the knight in plate armor fighting a melee battle with a bow and arrows. The castle assault was pretty nice in that it involved subterfuge rather than bashing against the walls, and that the invading army had to create a defensive foothold once inside the gate.

Overall: 6.7/10

This film was overall enjoyable and worth seeing in theaters and someday owning on DVD/Bluray. Charlize Theron is a treat, Kristen Stewart a bore, and everything looks really, really pretty. Completely recommended for a fun day out.

Hollywood Knights: Robin Hood

Robin Hood (2010) has generated a few arguments between my friends and I. Many seem to believe that it is a terrible film, while I generally do not. While it did not quite meet the standard set by director Ridley Scott and lead actor Russell Crowe in Gladiator, it is actually quite a good medieval film. I think the most outrage stems from it not following the traditional Robin Hood storyline of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, but instead serves as an origin story.

The criteria by which I will grade films will differ from many critics to better fit the point of this blog. While entertainment obviously takes precedence when talking about film, historical accuracy, costuming, and action sequences will also play major roles in my grading. The criteria are as follows:

·         Plot: Does the story make sense? Does it flow well? Is it original?

·         Cast: Are there notable actors? Do they act well? Is the dialogue good?

·         Cinematography: How does the film look? Are the special effects good?

·         Music/Sound: Is the music good? Does it fit the film? Is the audio of good quality?

·         Historical Accuracy: Is the film realistic? Were events portrayed correctly? There shouldn’t be much nit-picking here.

·         Costuming: Are the costumes historically likely? Do they reflect the characters well? Do they look good?

·         Action: Are the fights well choreographed? Do they capture the spirit of historical combat?

·         Overall: The average score for the film.

Plot: 7/10

This film is a fictionalized account that seems very plausible and entertaining. While not meeting the highest standards in film or writing, the story is good.

Robin Longstride serves as an archer in Richard the Lionheart’s army. While fighting their way through France, the king is killed and Robin and his merry men flee in search of passage to England. On their way, they stumble upon the aftermath of a French ambush, and Robin and his men come into possession of the English crown and all the accoutrements of the knights of Nottingham. Robin meets Robert Loxley, who in his dying breath asks Robin to return his sword to his father in Nottingham. Robin and his men disguise themselves as knights and sail for England.

Upon hearing the news of Richard’s death, John is crowned King of England. He immediately falls into the trap set by his treacherous friend Godfrey and Phillip II of France. Godfrey sets out to turn the barons of England against John while Robin travels to Nottingham. There he meets Lady Marian and Walter Loxley, and he is propositioned to pose as the deceased Robert Loxley. Eventually, his past is revealed to him and Robin helps unite the barons and King John against the French.

William Hurt as Sir William Marshal

Again, the story of Robin Hood is at best rooted in myth, but the story seems to be quite plausible and entertaining.

Cast: 7/10

This film has two great actors in Russell Crowe (Gladiator) and Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth), but few other notable actors. The others perform very admirably and deserve praise, but the star power of the film is not on the high-side.

Crowe’s Robin Hood is admirably played without falling into any of the clichés of the character. He is wry and occasionally funny, but also displays the world-weary mannerisms of a long-time soldier. Crowe’s accent is not what many would expect, but it is a passable enough accent for the midlands of England. Blanchett delivers her usual “defiant medieval female” character, but it fits the plot and feel of the movie quite well. She plays well with Crowe and delivers her lines wittily and purposefully. It is the interplay between Crowe and Blanchett that make this film good. The story of the soldier returning home after years of war is always a bit bumpy (think The Best Years of Our Lives), but adding the twist that the man returning is not actually the same man that left (think The Return of Martin Guerre), and the problems really take off. These two actors capture these problems and the growing relationship between the characters deftly. 

Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Robin Hood and Marian Loxley.

 Oscar Isaac (Sucker Punch) plays John, in one of my favorite portrayals of the figure ever. This John is clearly struggling with having lived in the shadow of his older brother, Richard the Lionheart. He craves respect, but doesn’t understand how to garner it. He is a young man thrust into a position of power before he understands how to wield power, and it all becomes wonderfully apparent in Isaac’s portrayal. He is a villain we love to hate, and is my favorite character in the film.

Prince John and his French mistress, Isabella d'Angouleme.

Other characters in the film stand out. Max von Sydow (The Seventh Seal) portrays the blind father of Robert Loxley and is perhaps the most sympathetic character in the film. It is not because of the character’s blindness, but because he so well fits the father figure, that we can’t bear to see him die. Mark Addy (A Knight’s Tale) plays Friar Tuck and is quite likable in the traditional role of the Friar. Eileen Atkins (Cold Mountain) plays an older Eleanor of Aquitaine. She doesn’t meet the standard set by Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter, but does a fair job in what little screen time she has.

Cinematography: 8/10

I have always loved the cinematography in Ridley Scott’s historical films. The large panoramas of the beautiful landscapes create the epic-ness in movies such as Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. The Tower of London and Nottingham sets are superb, and the use of both natural backdrops and manufactured ones mix well. The film captures the violence of medieval combat, but is not excessively gory. And the use of actual horsemen instead of digitally created armies is very satisfying and adds to that epic feeling.

Music: 6/10

As you may have noticed by now, I am not an expert on music. I believe that a quality score will go by relatively unnoticed because it becomes a part of the fabric of a film. You should not be made aware that you are hearing music, but the music should add to the atmosphere of the film in a positive way. The music in Robin Hood seemed to do this at times, but at other times it was very noticeable. And when it was, the music didn’t seem very original – there were moments I felt I was hearing Pirates of the Caribbean, or Kingdom of Heaven, or even some old John Wayne western. I would rate the music on the positive side of the 1-10 scale, but not as being exceptional.

Accuracy: 6/10

This film is especially difficult to grade for accuracy: we can’t quite say it’s entirely a historical film because it’s founded in the myth of Robin Hood. But it’s not quite a fantasy film either. I think overall we can say it’s a pretty accurate film – but it does not adhere to the Robin Hood myth and includes several incredible moments and assertions. Their timeline is twisted, Robin Hood’s dad wrote the original Magna Carta, and a bunch of orphans on mules fight the French army. I think the film captures a lot of the struggles of the time period, but it does not accurately reflect the history or the myth.

Costuming: 9/10

This is an area in which we can always expect a Ridley Scott film to excel. The armor, surcoats, boots, crowns, dresses, and everything else seem right on. The rich wear beautiful, colorful, flowing garments. The poor wear bleak, grey, ratty garments. But none of it feels stereotyped or manufactured as we see it, it seems the natural state of things. There is very little to complain about without nit-picking certain costumes, so we’ll avoid doing that.

Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

 Action: 8/10

Ridley Scott learned the value of good sword fight scenes in his blockbusters Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, and he continues that tradition here. The combat is accurate in the way things are done from overt movement to the small adjustments made during a fight. Multiple weapons are used, including the rare use of a war hammer by a main protagonist and even the formations used by the French in ground combat seem exceedingly plausible. The place where this film loses points is the D-Day-esque beach landing for the climactic battle and the fact that Marian leads a charge of mule-mounted-orphans into the very same battle. It just does not seem plausible. And that is definitely not how “amphibious assaults” were carried out in the Middle Ages.

Robin Hood on D-Day.

Overall: 7.3/10

As we’d expect, Ridley Scott scores well on the technical aspects of the film, but there is enough substance to the story and good enough efforts from the cast to make this a good film. It is one that medieval enthusiasts should own. Regardless of whether or not it’s a good Robin Hood movie, it’s a rollicking epic of the Middle Ages and deserves more respect than it has heretofore been given.

She Loves Him Not

Eleanor of Aquitaine, wife of two kings and mother of three kings, was one of the most famous women of the Middle Ages.  She was known far and wide for her beauty, intelligence, and charisma.  But she was also known for her promiscuity, incestuous relationships, and general disloyalty to her husbands.  Alison Weir, in writing Eleanor of Aquitaine, uses what little written evidence exists from the period in order to piece together a portrait of the life of this fascinating and unique woman.  In studying the relationships Eleanor built with the important men around her, we can view her life as a tragedy.  Eleanor, often characterized as cold and calculating, never seemed to find lasting love.  After spurning the love of Louis VII and Henry II, Eleanor was robbed of the one true love she ever experienced, the bond between mother and son, by Richard I’s crusade and early death.

Eleanor was married for the first time in the year 1137 CE to Louis VII, King of France.  This marriage came about due to the dying wish of her father, William X, Duke of Aquitaine.  This was a political marriage arranged by Louis VI, her future father-in-law, but Prince Louis did not lack any love for the lovely young duchess.  Indeed, after their marriage, it is evident that Louis VII “loved the Queen almost beyond reason” (30) and that “he showed his devotion by allowing her to have her way in most things, and by showering her with extravagant gifts: she took her pick from luxury goods brought to the palace by merchants trading with the Orient” (31).  If Eleanor could have remained content with the devotion she received from Louis, it seems she could have lived comfortably and well-loved.  But Eleanor sought more out of her husband.  Louis was known as a very pious man and seemed to go about life as if he were a monk.  As a result of this, he rarely came to Eleanor’s bed.  Eleanor seems to have had quite a sexual appetite, and even complained that she “had married a monk, not a king” (73).  Eventually Eleanor would seek outlets for her sexual frustration.  When she accompanied Louis on the Second Crusade in 1147, the army was received in Antioch by Raymond of Poitiers, who was Prince of Antioch and Eleanor’s uncle.  Their close relationship quickly led to rumors of an incestuous affair. Eventually Louis was forced to threaten to drag Eleanor from the city by force so that the crusade could continue on to Jerusalem, and this is when Eleanor truly ruined her relationship with her first husband.  She claimed that “’it was not lawful for them to remain together as man and wife, since they were related in the fourth and fifth degrees.’ […] she wanted an annulment. She would relinquish her crown, resume her title as Duchess of Aquitaine, and remain for the time being in Antioch, under Raymond’s protection” (66).  This ultimatum, coupled with the rampant rumors of her incestuous relationship with Raymond, ruins Eleanor’s reputation and her marriage.  While the pope did manage to temporarily reconcile the couple, it was inevitable that they would eventually have an annulment.  Knowing this, Eleanor began searching for a new husband, and quickly took a liking to Henry, Duke of Normandy.  It is recorded by William of Newburgh and others that “while she was still married to the King of the Franks, she had aspired to marriage with the Norman duke, whose manner of life suited better with her own” (85).  By 1152, Eleanor had had her annulment.  That same year she would marry that Norman duke, which would eventually lead to her becoming Queen of England.

Eleanor’s second marriage, to Henry of Anjou, was performed “without the pomp and ceremony that befitted their rank” (90).  Eleanor’s second marriage seemed destined to be happy. There was mutual attraction and love between Henry and Eleanor, and they “had a great deal in common: they were both strong, dynamic characters with forceful personalities and boundless energy. Both were intelligent, sharing cultural interests, and both had a strong sex drive” (92).  When Henry became King of England in addition to Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, he allowed Eleanor “a certain degree of autonomy with regard to her own lands” (93), though he did not allow her complete political control or freedom.  It seemed that their marriage was going smoothly, and Henry certainly allowed Eleanor to exercise her own rights and powers in a way that should have satisfied her.  But after giving birth to eight children in thirteen years, the relationship began to sour slightly.  Having provided Henry with plenty of sons to secure his succession, Eleanor “may well have felt that, having done her duty, she had no need to remain in a marriage that had gone stale” (173).  In 1168, she separated from Henry, choosing to live for the most part in Poitou along with her third son, Richard.  When her second son, Henry, known as the Young King because he had been crowned as the successor to Henry II, decided to challenge his father in rebellion, Eleanor supported him and encouraged her sons Geoffrey and Richard to support him.  This was the fundamental switch in Eleanor’s marriage to Henry II: she no longer felt that her chief loyalties lied with her husband and king, but “her sympathies lay wholeheartedly with her sons and […] she was prepared to resort to drastic measures to ensure that they received their just deserts” (196).  Henry II eventually discovered her part in the plot, and after defeating and forgiving his sons, kept her confined for the remainder of his reign.  Her marriage to Henry fell into complete ruin as “never again would he trust her, nor—for his own security—did he allow her much contact with her children” (211).  For more than a decade she was kept apart from her most beloved son, Richard.

Richard, known to history as the Lionheart, was probably the only man with whom Eleanor ever had a truly loving relationship. He was her heir to the Aquitaine and her favorite child. It is said that Eleanor “idolised him, referring to him as ‘the great one,’ while he, she knew, ‘reposed all his trust in her, next to God” (193).  And Richard loved his mother as well.  When Richard finally became King of England in 1189, one of the first things he did was to free Eleanor from her captivity (248).  Richard made full use of his mother’s political expertise, allowing her to rule in his stead while he was away, and she did all in her power to support him.  As Richard introduced certain measures to improve his standing with the people of England, “Eleanor introduced others designed to win the people’s love for their new sovereign” (249), supporting her son like she had never supported either of her husbands.  But only a year after becoming king and reuniting with his mother, Richard left on crusade.  Richard’s only surviving (legitimate) brother, John, used the opportunity to try and seize control of England.  Eleanor continued to support Richard when she “publicly proclaimed her loyalty to the absent Richard and made every English magnate swear a new oath of fealty to him” (274).  It was Eleanor’s unfailing love and support for Richard that kept the kingdom from falling to Prince John and Philip II of France when Richard was imprisoned in Germany first by Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and then by Henry VI, the Holy Roman Emperor.  Eleanor grieved for her son and sent letters to the pope pleading for his aid in freeing Richard and relieve her of her state as a “condemned and miserable creature” (284).  When Richard finally returned to his kingdom in 1195, he returned to a land rife with revolt and an emboldened enemy in Philip II.  He spent the rest of his life fighting battles with rebellious vassals and, more often, with France.  In 1199, Richard was fatally wounded by a crossbow bolt. He died on the 6^th of April at Châlus and was buried at Fontevraud. Eleanor was present at his death as well as his funeral.  Eleanor “had lost her favourite son, the man whom she called ‘the staff of my old age, the light of my eyes.’ It had been a terrible blow to her, possibly the worst of the many blows she had been called upon to endure” (313).  Of the twenty-seven years of Richard’s adulthood, Eleanor witnessed only six. Her years in captivity, Richard’s crusade and imprisonment, and his early death robbed Eleanor of her greatest love.

Eleanor of Aquitaine was loved by many, but in her long life she truly loved only one person: her son, Richard.  She spurned the chaste Louis VII because he could not satisfy her lust.  She angered Henry II, the only man that seemed to be a match for her, because she could not reconcile her husband and her sons.  She missed the life of her favorite son.  Her contemporaries demonized her in her youth, and they admired her in her old age.  If they looked a little closer, they would have pitied her.

~Written by Shelby Harris