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.