Monday, May 17, 2004
Troy wasn't sacked in a day
Some random thoughts on Troy.
1. Brad Pitt as Achilles? Suuuure.
2. Eric Bana as Hector? Believable.
3. Brian Cox as Agamemnon? Oh, yeah.
4. The battle scenes are nice, and realistic-looking. The opening confrontation -- between the armies of the Aecheans and the Thessalonians -- reminded me of a contemporary description of the Greek way of war, paraphrased from John Keegan's A History of Warfare: "When the Greeks fight, they find the flattest, widest place they can, and go down and have their battle there." The entire Greek concept of decisive battle -- standing toe-to-toe with the enemy and having it out until one side is utterly victorious, the other utterly broken -- is nicely presented here... though whether the filmmakers were conscious of it, or whether it arises naturally from the source material, is something I can't comment on, as I have still not read The Iliad. (And I'm not so sure that the translation in that nice leather-bound Barnes & Noble edition, a translation that dates from the 1890's, is the best available. I think maybe I'll try some of the newer ones.)
5. The real highlights of the movie -- as of the book, I'm sure -- are the personal combats: Achilles vs. Boagrios, Paris vs. Menelaus, Hector vs. Ajax, Hector vs. Patroklos, Achilles vs. Hector, Paris vs. Achilles. They're worth the price of admission for an action junkie like myself.
6. A glaring exception to the "realistic battles" and "personal combats=highlights of movie" points above is Achilles. Of course, Achilles was a great warrior, the strongest of the Greeks, the leader of the Myrmidons, blah blah blah... but did he really have those cool wuxia moves, or that Mortal Kombat-style jump-thrust with the sword? Were all those flourishes and exaggerated balletic moves -- first shown in Achilles' training session with Patroklos -- really part of any real fighting style? Highly doubtful -- movies are always more concerned with looking good than with being correct. And Achilles' fighting style -- so out of place with the fierce, sudden-death fights of the rest of the movie -- saps much of the emotional involvement out of his fights. Fortunately for the filmmakers, both Pitt's and Bana's performances at the fateful duel between Achilles and Hector redeem most of that scene's intensity from the pansy theatrics of Pitt's fanciful swordplay.
7. Why no gods? Mad gods plotting against each other would have added so much to this movie.
8. And why does it seem, from the movie, that the war lasted no more than a few days? Everybody knows it lastest ten years.
Overall, I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. I plan to see it again.
|
1. Brad Pitt as Achilles? Suuuure.
2. Eric Bana as Hector? Believable.
3. Brian Cox as Agamemnon? Oh, yeah.
4. The battle scenes are nice, and realistic-looking. The opening confrontation -- between the armies of the Aecheans and the Thessalonians -- reminded me of a contemporary description of the Greek way of war, paraphrased from John Keegan's A History of Warfare: "When the Greeks fight, they find the flattest, widest place they can, and go down and have their battle there." The entire Greek concept of decisive battle -- standing toe-to-toe with the enemy and having it out until one side is utterly victorious, the other utterly broken -- is nicely presented here... though whether the filmmakers were conscious of it, or whether it arises naturally from the source material, is something I can't comment on, as I have still not read The Iliad. (And I'm not so sure that the translation in that nice leather-bound Barnes & Noble edition, a translation that dates from the 1890's, is the best available. I think maybe I'll try some of the newer ones.)
5. The real highlights of the movie -- as of the book, I'm sure -- are the personal combats: Achilles vs. Boagrios, Paris vs. Menelaus, Hector vs. Ajax, Hector vs. Patroklos, Achilles vs. Hector, Paris vs. Achilles. They're worth the price of admission for an action junkie like myself.
6. A glaring exception to the "realistic battles" and "personal combats=highlights of movie" points above is Achilles. Of course, Achilles was a great warrior, the strongest of the Greeks, the leader of the Myrmidons, blah blah blah... but did he really have those cool wuxia moves, or that Mortal Kombat-style jump-thrust with the sword? Were all those flourishes and exaggerated balletic moves -- first shown in Achilles' training session with Patroklos -- really part of any real fighting style? Highly doubtful -- movies are always more concerned with looking good than with being correct. And Achilles' fighting style -- so out of place with the fierce, sudden-death fights of the rest of the movie -- saps much of the emotional involvement out of his fights. Fortunately for the filmmakers, both Pitt's and Bana's performances at the fateful duel between Achilles and Hector redeem most of that scene's intensity from the pansy theatrics of Pitt's fanciful swordplay.
7. Why no gods? Mad gods plotting against each other would have added so much to this movie.
8. And why does it seem, from the movie, that the war lasted no more than a few days? Everybody knows it lastest ten years.
Overall, I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. I plan to see it again.
Comments:
Post a Comment
