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

Hollywood Knights: Flesh + Blood

Flesh + Blood (1985) came to me recommended by a family friend. I had never heard of it before, which is strange when considering medieval films, but decided to give it a try. It’s kind of a tough film to get into, and hard to follow. The best I can understand, it’s about Stockholm Syndrome, which I’ll explain later. For now I’ll explain that the story follows the entangled stories of Martin, a Landsknecht of indeterminable origin, Agnes, a noble-girl of either Italian, Russian, or English origin, and Steven, a nobleman of presumably Italian origin.

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: 4/10

I give the writers and director some credit for trying something that, while rarely done well, is potentially great. This film has no real protagonist or antagonist, and tries to leave the audience to decide who they will side with. The problem is, as the audience, I didn’t really care to side with anyone: they all sucked. In this film Martin is a mercenary who is betrayed (read: not paid) by a nobleman. When he doesn’t get paid, his whore girlfriend (she really is a whore) has a stillbirth. Martin, deeply aggrieved because of his dead son (we assume it’s his, as does he), vows to strike it rich at the expense of the nobleman as he drops the dead child into a muddy grave. That’s right, his motivation isn’t really revenge, it’s greed. So much for him being a likeable character.

Meanwhile, the nobleman has a son, Steven, who he’s arranged a marriage for. Steven is appalled at the idea, because he knows a wife will interfere with his pursuit of science. But when he sees Agnes he’s at least attracted to her. But she still gets shunned, so she rides off in search of men who have been hanged, which she luckily finds nearby in an orchard. She digs for mandrake roots, because she believes they have a magical power to make people fall in love. Steven suavely explains that they’re just the byproduct of a dead man’s semen. But they eat the damn thing anyway and fall in love.

So now, Martin and his band of misfits ambush Steven and Agnes and the nobleman-father and run off with all of their wagons, including a captive Agnes. While cavorting with all of their newfound wealth, the mercenary cardinal (yes, you read that right) tells the group of mercenaries to go ahead and rape Agnes (yes, you read that right, too). Martin rapes Agnes, but it’s okay, because we’re told that Agnes likes it (yes, you read that right, too). Agnes falls in love with Martin as a defense mechanism to keep her safe from the other rapist mercenaries. So there’s your Stockholm Syndrome.

In the end, Steven attacks the mercenaries, and Agnes is forced to choose between the two of her loves. This is an excruciating process of back and forth that just goes on forever. In the end, Martin wants to kill her because he loves her so much (yes, you read th—oh, forget it). Finally, Agnes is rescued by Stephen, who says he did it all for the Mandrake. Yes, if he hadn’t eaten the cum-plant, he would have left her to be raped repeatedly.

I hope this summation wasn’t as difficult to follow as the actual plot of the film, but obviously the film was at best an appreciable attempt at good storytelling—without really attaining that goal.

Cast: 3/10

Rutger Hauer plays Martin. He’s probably best known for his role as Roy Batty in Blade Runner (1982), and that’s probably how he got his role in this film. I said earlier that Martin is of indeterminable origin, and that’s because his accent is most reminiscent of a cowboy twang (which is weird, because Hauer is Dutch). He probably delivers the only good acting in the film, and that’s only true when he portrays his character going completely off the deep-end at the end of the film.

Jennifer Jason Leigh plays Agnes. Her acting credits include Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) and Road to Perdition (2002). Agnes seems to be the character we are meant to sympathize with most, but between the way the character was written and miss Leigh’s acting, we are left without much to care about. As stated earlier, her accent keeps changing, which really breaks the suspension of disbelief. And if they were shooting for a woman agonizing over her predicament and choosing discomfort in order to survive, we are left wanting.

Tom Burlinson plays Steven. That’s really all there is to say about his character: he ranges from annoying to boring. At the end of the film, like Hauer, he comes alive when he starts acting out the rage of his character, but until then there’s not much to mention.

Cinematography: 6/10

This is one of the strengths of the film, as much of the imagery is actually quite good. There are great moments of symbolic imagery – Martin with a flaming halo, for example – and some great landscape shots. The special effects are tacky, particularly during the freak lightning storm that arises at a convenient plot point. While I’ve never actually seen lightning strike a tree and an attached chain, I’m pretty sure those things don’t glow bright blue when it does.

Also, a word that comes to mind with this film is gratuity. This film seems to include things for no other reason than to include them. We get the story of a girl who was raped as a child and her tongue cut out. Why do we get this story? No one really knows. It’s not important to the plot. She doesn’t even have a name, she’s credited as “Tongueless Girl.” It seems like they just wanted to show a girl with no tongue in the film. The same goes for the nun that was injured, so they stripped her naked and showed her off for no apparent reason other than getting extra nudity into the film. Considering three of the female characters are whores who enjoy stripping down, and the fourth female character spends half the film naked and being raped, I don’t know why they need to add extra nudity.

Music/Sound: 4/10

Not much I can really say beyond this: cheesy. Classic ‘80s soundtrack and sound effects. Music should add to the atmosphere of the scene, not distract the viewer.

Accuracy: 2/10

Okay, so there’s some problems with this film. I’m sure you get that by now. I won’t get too much into the major inaccuracies beyond just listing them.

1.       A wooden tank with telescoping covered bridge.

2.       Lightning strikes that melt chains but do not kill or seriously wound the people attached to the chains.

3.       Bubonic Plague manifesting itself within 5 minutes of exposure, and killing within an hour.

4.       Unless the victim performs surgery on himself, after overhearing someone argue about the correct treatment.

5.       Rocket-powered spears.

6.       That are accurate enough to impale people’s faces.

7.       Tumbling wine-barrel bombs.

8.       Invading a castle by climbing down a chimney that is in use rather than just dropping straight into the bailey and opening the gates.

So yeah, there’s some of them. This is classic ‘80s over-the-top-ness, and it only serves to build certain stereotypes about the middle ages (and ‘80s).

Costuming: 6/10

I’m kind of torn when it comes to the quality of the costumes. At times they seem great, at others, they’re pretty lackluster. I would say that they tend to stray just to the side of good quality, which is why they end up just to the side of good scores. Some of the dresses are great, some look like cheap Halloween costumes. Martin typically wears good costumes. The armor is well portrayed. The rest of the costumes are adequate but not interesting.

Action: 5/10

This movie has plenty of action, and it is often pretty entertaining. But none of the combat actually captures the reality of medieval combat. There is next to no blood or gore, even after a sword strike that would disembowel a person. There is nothing to demonstrate the understanding of how a sword is actually used. Hauer at times takes a stance that looks relatively convincing, but is not a convincing fighter. Some of the hand-to-hand combat in the closing moments of the film is pretty good. It’s unpolished with no technique, which is to be expected from a scientist and a man who’s pretty much lost his mind.

Total: 4.3/10

This was just not a very good movie, which pains me because it was recommended. I guess if I had the nostalgia attached to it that our friend does, then it might be more favorable to me, but as it is, I couldn’t wait for the end. I wouldn’t personally recommend this film, unless you’re really into ‘80s movies (to paraphrase a close friend of mine, there’s ‘80s movies, and then there’s movies that happen to be made in the ‘80s. This one’s clearly an ‘80s movie). But at the same time, this seems like the type of movie that could eventually grow on someone. So I don’t know… go ahead and try it out if you’re really interested.