I recently (January 2010) saw The Vikings (1958) again. As I have mentioned in
previous posts, Viking movies tend to be disappointing. There have been
several Viking movies in the last 10 years or so (Pathfinder,
Outlander, The 13th Warrior) and all have failed to match The Vikings.
As many historical tales did at that time, the story opens with a
narration to give the viewer some background on the period then leaps
into a Viking raid led by Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine). Ragnar slays the
king and rapes the queen (off camera) before returning to Norway with
his spoils. The story resumes twenty years later, pitting Einar (Kirk
Douglas) against Erik (Tony Curtis) in a battle for Morgana's (Janet
Leigh) affections. Unknown to Einar and Erik is that they are
half-brothers. Erik was born to the queen in the aftermath of the
opening raid but had the misfortune of being enslaved by the Vikings
while still an infant. Thus the stage is set for a son to betray his
father, and brother to fight brother. The visuals are magnificent. The
long ships sailing up the fjords are awesome. Kirk Douglas running the
oars is something that I am amazed has not been duplicated.
The Vikings was well-researched and that shows. There are no horns on helmets, the swords and axes are correct, and armor mostly consists of shields and helmets. Oddly, the English were not as well researched so they have a Norman castle that was built centuries later.
Despite being the best of all the Viking films I have seen, it too has its problems. Though I like the actors, the principals are too old for the parts they play. Tony Curtis (age 33) is playing a character that can't be more than 20 years old. Janet Leigh (30) is playing a marriageable princess who shouldn't be out of her teens. Kirk Douglas (42) is far too old to be Ernest Borgnine's (41) son. Such casting was (and still is) common in movies. For instance, Jimmy Stewart (54) was supposed to be fresh out of law school in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence or Steve McQueen (36) opens as a teenager in Nevada Smith. Even today, you find Meryl Streep (60) playing Julia Childs in the late 1940s and throughout the 50s, when she was in her 30s and 40s. Another problem is the apparent distance between Norway and England. To watch the film, you'd think it is but a day of rowing from one to the other. Also, the film just ignores Erik's status, either as slave or heir to the Northumbrian crown. How did he become a leader of Vikings during the attack? Only Englishmen know that he is Ragnar's son.
The story borrows from history. There really was a Ragnar whose sons avenged the death of their father at the hands of Aella. This same incident is used in Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Chronicles. The siege of the castle stands in for the fall of Eoferwic (renamed Jorvik by the Vikings and called York today) in 867.
The Vikings was well-researched and that shows. There are no horns on helmets, the swords and axes are correct, and armor mostly consists of shields and helmets. Oddly, the English were not as well researched so they have a Norman castle that was built centuries later.
Despite being the best of all the Viking films I have seen, it too has its problems. Though I like the actors, the principals are too old for the parts they play. Tony Curtis (age 33) is playing a character that can't be more than 20 years old. Janet Leigh (30) is playing a marriageable princess who shouldn't be out of her teens. Kirk Douglas (42) is far too old to be Ernest Borgnine's (41) son. Such casting was (and still is) common in movies. For instance, Jimmy Stewart (54) was supposed to be fresh out of law school in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence or Steve McQueen (36) opens as a teenager in Nevada Smith. Even today, you find Meryl Streep (60) playing Julia Childs in the late 1940s and throughout the 50s, when she was in her 30s and 40s. Another problem is the apparent distance between Norway and England. To watch the film, you'd think it is but a day of rowing from one to the other. Also, the film just ignores Erik's status, either as slave or heir to the Northumbrian crown. How did he become a leader of Vikings during the attack? Only Englishmen know that he is Ragnar's son.
The story borrows from history. There really was a Ragnar whose sons avenged the death of their father at the hands of Aella. This same incident is used in Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Chronicles. The siege of the castle stands in for the fall of Eoferwic (renamed Jorvik by the Vikings and called York today) in 867.
The Vikings TV series on the History Channel centers on the career of Ragnar Lothbrok. Director Richard Fleischer did a great deal of research for this film and it shows. It is amazing that the Viking films that followed didn't model themselves on this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment