Recent content by Barry_bon_Loyale

RC-1136 said:

when they reached France and took Harfleur (which the film rebrands into a castle) in a matter of hours/days (?)

Click to expand...

Ah yes, I was baffled that they created full-size trebuchets that fast.  Contrary to what movies suggest, trebuchets were almost always created on the spot of the siege - existing ones would be transported if a siege was going to be highly prolonged.  Some parts would be transported as well.  Going up that quickly?  No.  Henry V deployed a more mobile, practical, and equally menacing technology: cannon. Even though it makes way more sense and it's what happened historically, no cannon in the film.

The King (2019) is another entry into the list of passable but not good/great films.  Some people praise it to the rafters, others call it a tedious misfire.  I think part of it is people liking the cast and therefor extending goodwill towards a sluggish effort.  The film is no different from the trailer; you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie.  For my part I found the overall concept spineless; figuring the audience wouldn't be interesting in Shakespearean verse but didn't want to show an accurate Henry V.

Some performances were serviceable.  Dean-Charles Chapman as Thomas of Lancaster was over-the-top with his brief role.  Robert Pattinson oh my God what a ham.  Even IMDb Trivia is trying to explain away his performance and deflect criticism.  Was it a deliberate choice?  Yes.  Does that mean it works?  No.  I'm also not sure why the usually excellent Sean Harris chose to play his entire role like he desperately needed a new mattress.

Factually it's a just a headache.  Hotspur, pushing 40 in real life, is a child here.  There's no Battle of Shrewsbury, just a completely unhistorical one-on-one combat with Prince Hal and Hotspur (at least Shakespeare included the battle).  Hal's tiny scar is never really explained (what, his helmet dented?), unlike his nasty real-life war wound.  Prince Hal is unwilling to become king.  Here Henry is intent on peace and manipulated into war which is risible.  In reality, he broke decades of a truce to make war with France and wanted his advisors to give him legal justification.  The Dauphin commands at Agincourt and meets with King Henry several times prior.  Hell, Azincourt was a castle, not a village (read a book, screenwriters).

The period details are simply put - ****e.  The clothing is all over the place.  The armour is poorly fit, a mix of periods.  Some weird helmets.  Henry V's distinctive armour is replaced with fireplace mesh.  The real Henry V wore his coat of arms and a crowned helmet, which was clipped by a French axe.  A French chronicler and veteran of Agincourt noted he could identify King Henry and Sir Thomas Erpingham (absent from this film) based on their appearance.

Also, why are the interiors so dark?  Do people think castles or even noble homes were that way?  Actually... go to one.  They make excellent use of natural light.  And then they pointlessly have all these candles burning in broad daylight and it's still too dark to see the foreground  .

The battle is the usual inaccurate, unrealistic mud wrestling.  The plan in this film, unlike the historical strategy which worked, is incredibly stupid.  This devolves into a brawl where you absolutely cannot identify anyone.  King Henry will grab someone, who wears completely blank armour and covered in mud, having no way to tell if they're English or French, and fight them.  A lot of people called it "realistic" which proves the adage that audiences don't know enough to know what's realistic anyway. According to the people who were actually there, the English maintaining good order in formation was crucial to their victory.

About the Dauphin:

And the Princess:

Overall, I managed to get through it. Definitely won't be revisiting it.  I'd rather revisit Chimes at Midnight (1965) or one of the versions of Henry V.

HoJu said:

It's clearly inspired by Shakespeare's play rather than actual history, which isn't bad by itself, as long as they don't claim otherwise.

Click to expand...

It is, but misses what sells Shakespeare: the beautiful language.  Henry V is my favorite Shakespeare play but the plot couldn't be more simple.  That's fine; what makes it great is the prose.  This film takes all the things that Shakespeare invented about the story, sometimes doubling down on the errors, but skips what makes Shakespeare work.  An historically accurate version has been done in fiction, from the French point of view, and while it isn't as beautiful as the Bard it has it's own unique appeal of being dramatic and truthful to the events.

Like I said before, I love Shakespeare's take, also would love to see an accurate version.  This is deliberately neither.

HoJu said:

The armor is quite bad but at least it isn't black leather biker gear

Click to expand...

It isn't biker gear but if filmmakers and their audiences keep setting the bar that low, you'll never see well-done armour.

Getting a closer look it actually looks worse.  The usual incorrect armour.  Weird the movie shows the Dauphin being in command; he died young, wasn't a martial prince, and wasn't at Agincourt.  Shakespeare incorrectly put him at Agincourt but at least didn't suggest he was in command.

Seems like another passable entry into the "broodingly whispering in corners" genre.  They had an opportunity to show an historical Henry V, which I think would be interesting, but passed. Oh well.

I saw the press conference and wondered why the chap playing Henry "Hotspur" Percy looked like a literal child.  Then I remembered that Shakespeare had the two Henry's set up as around the same age (to enhance rivalry?) but even other movies didn't cast Hotspur that young.  Hotspur was 39 at Shrewsbury.  What, did the filmmakers think Hotspur was a 3-year-old commanding at Otterburn  ?

I find it a bit odd.  It's Shakespeare's narrative (which is fictional and doesn't resemble the real Henry V) but without his beautiful prose.  I'm all for more Shakepeare, on the other hand would totally welcome an historically accurate version (like Hella Haasse's) but this is neither.
Plus, Henry used cannon at the siege of Harfleur, not trebuchets.  Otherwise I don't know what siege that's meant to be given the film's likely timeline.

Generally, armor or maille would cover that area in the front.  This is especially true of the longer hauberks of the Norman period and after.  During this time, however, and for most of the Middle Ages (with few exceptions), leggings came in the form of individual hosen that go up the thigh; the part that covers your actual man bits was white linen braies that wouldn't necessarily offer protection. 

Medieval example:

Good modern reproduction:

Maille chausses (leg protection) only covered the area of the hosen and didn't meet in the middle:
If there are exceptions to that I'd suspect they were ahistorical or fantasy.

Later transitional armor and early plate armor would have similar vulnerabilities.  Early cuisses (plate leg protection) also didn't meet in the middle.

So, does that leave the groins exposed?  Sort of, yes.  That said, for what it's worth, it wouldn't necessarily be a priority target on the body in formation-dominated medieval warfare.  It's a very specific spot when you're better off attacking the head, neck, chest, or gaps in armor if the opponent is well armored.  Detailed examinations of the skeletons from the Battle of Visby (1361) and Towton (1461) reveal all manner of gruesome injures; faces split in half, the front half of feet chopped clean off, but few indications of groin injuries.  Granted, if a weapon only hit flesh it probably wouldn't appear on a skeleton, but with that much force it would probably damage something with it.  Also: for the best shot at your opponent's John Thomas you should be at a downward angle and that doesn't always present itself.

This is of course predicate on the idea the knight is dismounted.  This happened sometimes, sure.  Knights and even squires were usually mounted for battle in which case you have a nice thick saddle protecting your best leg of three.

Duels are a different story since you can focus on only one opponent.  Enjoy this 12th century description of a judicial duel between Guy of Steenvoorde and Herman the Iron:

Both fought bitterly.  Herman the Iron fell prostrate on the ground, and Guy was lying on top of him, smashing the knight’s face and eyes with his iron gauntlets. But Herman … by cleverly lying quiet made Guy believe he was certain of victory. Meanwhile, gently moving his hand down to the lower edge of the mail coat where Guy was not protected, Herman seized him by the testicles, and summoning all his strength for the brief space of one moment, he hurled Guy from him; by this tearing motion all the lower parts of the body were broken so that Guy, now prostrate, gave up, crying out that he was conquered and dying.

Click to expand...

Now, we are talking a span of 1,000 years of armor evolution from the Early Middle Ages to Norman armor to the codpieces you mentioned which arrive half a millennium after "chivalry" really becomes a part of society.  How effective are the codpieces?  As late as they appear that's a little out of my wheelhouse.  They did arrive towards what is considered the end of knighthood as you and I know it.  The majority of knights throughout history would never have conceived of such armor.  It is speculated that it was for ceremonial armor.  There are considerations, such the distribution of the force of a blow; armor that snug on your wedding tackle would probably save from a stabbing wound but what about percussive damage?  Some brave soul should try it in real life.

Hope that gives you some information.

BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:

Am I an idiot for thinking that death in drama fiction is kinda cheap?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily because you're entitled to your own taste.  There are certain dramatic conventions I'm easily annoyed with that most people seem fine with.  I will say I think it'd be odd for all, or even most stories, to avoid it.  A story can be good with or without it.  But since it is the only possible conclusion to all human life it'd be odd to not see that reflected in fiction.

Kharille said:

Ok, not great.  Not sure why theres always sex scenes, makes it awkward if you're watching it with family.  Lacks a certain classic feel, not sure if thats the script or wooden acting.

Click to expand...

True, but filmmakers will take any excuse to show off Florence Pugh's chesticles.

F.F.C._fritz said:

Lindybeige fan, aren't you? 

Click to expand...

Haha, he does cover a lot of these tropes but I was first made aware of these clichés by an English linguistics professor and have noticed them since.

F.F.C._fritz said:

The armors are by no means perfect, but they aren't that bad either - with the exception of Edward, which has horrible fantasy gear. They may be some of the best I've seen in western movies in a while.

Click to expand...

I wasn't happy with the armour.  Aymer de Valence wears a visored bascinet.  The maille is a terrible cut, tunics don't fit, and as I noticed before, none of the Scots wear the White X.  That's just goddamn lazy.  The English helmets are unadorned and unpainted, few use lances (I mostly saw swords).

We do have good resources for this time, which seemingly went unused.

Jock said:

Are there even any medieval movies where at least some of these tropes aren't present?

Click to expand...

Yes, there's Jeanne la Pucelle I - Les batailles (1994) and Jeanne la Pucelle II - Les prisons (1994) about Joan of Arc.  Definitely not a traditional Hollywood romp, but thankfully does away with most incorrect Medieval tropes.  Castles have painted interiors, use natural sunlight as they were designed to do, armour is not casual clothing, people armour up when their lives are on the line, no fire arrows.  Two great details are Joan being a captive directly of the knight who captured her and not the respective ruler, and a scene where they budget weapons for a siege.  Most importantly, people think and act like Medieval people instead of 21st century people speak who speak in platitudes.  The only thing that bothered me was their leggings and footwear, which I guess can be chalked up to the budget.

But it's absolutely possible.

There's also The Advocate (a.k.a. The Hour of the Pig) (1993) which does a pretty grounded job without the clichés if memory serves.

The similar approach these films took is that they looked at sources and worked from there instead of simply trying to make their movies look like other movies.

Saw it and it was... alright?

The Medieval clichés were on full display.  Fire arrows, bare stonework (which they avoided once, yay!), all those candles burning in broad daylight, always remove your helmet when you need it most!  The characters were done with 21st century sensibilities in mind, to make us relate or care about them more, which has the opposite of the intended effect for me because it's lampshading the clichés of the day.  The film also fundamentally misrepresents motivations and some of the events.  Not quite as revisionist as Braveheart but seemed like it was trying to be at times. 

As I noticed before, some armour is fantasy, there are articulated pauldrons, and then a visored bascinet.  In 1307.  The heraldry is sometimes correct (not always!) so credit where it's due there. 

Chris Pine was serviceable but not great.  I don't think he detracted from the film but I certainly can't help but feel there was a better actor out there for this.  And it is the director and casting director's job to get the best available actor for the role so no excuses.  His emotional range is not where it should be.

The movie's portrayal of Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II) is closer than Braveheart's "But Daaaddd, I just want to sing!" but still misunderstands him.  He was not that hotheaded and didn't show proclivity to rule until he was absolutely forced to.  The actor who plays him, Billy Howle, Jesus what a ham.  As I'm sure you'd imagine, all the English are one-dimensional cartoonish villains.

I'm fine with it ending at Loudoun Hill.  Some wanted it to end at Bannockburn but I'm fine with this decision.  The battle was good, probably won't rank up with the best of all time.  It does start to play fast and loose with events though.


Spoilers...ish (but they shouldn't be):

In the film, Edward of Carnarvon is actually at Loudoun Hill and engages in personal combat with Robert de Brus as the English army falls back.  Edward loses the bout, starts... puking?  Too yellow if that's supposed to be blood.  Then gets up and... walks home.  The whole concept is unnecessarily and ****ing risible.

Also, Douglas shouting, "What's my fookin' name?!" is supposed to be badass but here comes off as more unintentionally funny than anything.  Shame because Aaron Taylor-Johnson was otherwise doing very well in the role I thought. 

The directing was humdrum.  A lot of people seemed to applaud the directing and cinematography but this is paint-by-numbers for me.  Swerve the camera during the conversation, shot/reverse shot, shot/reverse shot, wide shot of marching, some more shot/reverse shot.  Maybe the director was hampered or out of his niche but at no point did I think I was watching great filmmaking.

That said, it's not bad.  Entertaining enough.  I wasn't bored and didn't find myself checking for the time.  Worth my two hours, if forgettable.

Haha, this hits all the right notes.  Well done!

Feragorn said:

Re-upping this because it's Tennessee Hate Week.

Click to expand...

And we opened it up by doing a 21-0 blowout.  You're welcome.

Arvenski said:

Lumos said:

Timothy Dalton.

Click to expand...

Timothy Dalton was really good as Bond; it's a shame he only did two movies. I really liked his portrayal of Bond, as his Bond was more mature and serious than Connery or Moore, and even moody. I think The Living Daylights is my favorite pre-Craig Bond movie.

Click to expand...

Agreed.  I love The Living Daylights.  Early in the role, Dalton (diplomatically) said in an interview that the previous Bond films (Moore's later tenure) had devolved almost into self-parody, and they wanted to steer away from that.  He was essentially Fleming's Bond in terms of demeanor and I'd say the closest physical resemblance to Fleming's idea (sans facial scar).

Lord Winters said:

Been trying to watch Macbeth (2015) now. Heard its good and from what I've seen from the trailers...the cinematography is amazing as all heck.

Click to expand...

Saw it and for me the cinematography was the best part.  Gorgeous to behold.  However, the acting for me felt odd, as if it had no subtext and half the movie is spoken in a daze.  Also some decisions about interpreting the text didn't make sense (references to a castle that wasn't actually featured, Macbeth dealing with assassins within feet of his guests, Macduff addressing a famous line to no one).

Shakespeare's Macbeth has had some great incarnations.  My favorite remains Roman Polanski's 1971 The Tragedy of Macbeth, although Orson Welles' version and Kurosawa's Throne of Blood are great as well.  Justin Kurzel is unfortunately up against three masters.  Still, decent and worth a watch.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said:

How is it suddenly controversial to say that braveheart is abysmal in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity?

Click to expand...

Search me, haha.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

No its just pedantic to claim that *you* (Barry) can make a better movie, its just childish nonsense.

Click to expand...

No, the "you can't do better" cliché is the epitome of childish nonsense.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

It's a film made by a cinema,

Click to expand...

It was made by a cinema?  A cinema became sentient and directed a film?

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

I can read Dan Jones* if I need that.

Click to expand...

No wonder you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  You should read some chronicles from the time, more up-to-date academic assessments, look at some manuscripts and artifacts from the era.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

No one wants to see a poorly paced film about historically accurate villagers I'm sorry. Even if you had 700$ million dollars, your movie would play out like ****.

Click to expand...

First, where the hell did I say a film had to be about villagers?  What?  You just made that up in your head and ran with it.  I want to see films about nobles and important people.  That said, there are mesmerizing films about common people doing mundane things.  You should watch more movies.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

Even if you had 700$ million dollars, your movie would play out like ****.

Click to expand...

And you know this... how?  For that amount of money, you could hire top of the line screenwriters, a great cinematographer, the best editors; even if you weren't confident just stay out of their way.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

I am a conceited piece of ****e so 

Click to expand...

That would be understandable... if you knew what you were talking about.

Jock said:

I think the keyword here is entertaining, which you have pretty thoroughly proven as being incapable of.

Click to expand...

In the post right above yours:

Barry_bon_Loyale said:

And look, enjoy whatever you want and I mean that.  I don't give a good goddamn. 

Click to expand...

And incapable of...?  I don't get the concept of entertainment because I criticized Braveheart's accuracy while never telling anyone not to enjoy it?  How's that "jump to conclusions mat" coming along?