Friday, July 15, 2005

Using History and Legend for Stories


Troy is an appallingly bad movie. At least to me. As I watched it grind through a sequence of plot points from a different time, a different day, using all of Hollywood’s tricks to add grandeur to a bunch of grown men running around in the sand with swords, I wondered if it would have been any good on its own. I mean, Scorpion King was certainly no better in any measurable way. In fact, in terms of acting, plot, story, sets, and scope, Scorpion King sucks way more than Troy. But Scorpion King is fun to watch, because it is what it is. Troy is Brad Pitt and a host of good-looking people trying to recreate medieval chivalry in an ancient Greek setting. To make sense of it, they invoke one of the oldest, most enduring epics in our literature.
Anyone who has ever marched through the book in an English course remembers the highlight, the section that made the professor grow excited. “And now we get to the Rage of Achilles.” Achilles is the ultimate Greek warrior, full of pride, skill, anger, and loyalty to himself. Good and Evil is defined purely in terms of his own ability to reach out, grab, and hold. Achilles had divine blood, and his version of honor is a form of worship of all things he holds. When Patroclus falls, it brings forth a righteous rage, a wrath which must be slaked with the blood of hundreds. Men not only die on the battlefield, captives are killed and thrown on Patroclus’ funeral pyre. Then Achilles goes off to kill Hector and drag the body seven times around the walls of the city.
Achilles’ rage is central to the nature of Achilles. Without it, he could be any of a million warriors over time who’ve killed their fellow man in the name of tribe, state, religion, pride, or even just homicidal instinct. The skill of Achilles is legendary, but in any warrior society there will always be one “greatest” warrior.
Brad Pitt stomps his foot and huffs a bit. He does put on his armor and calmly ride down to the city walls, where he challenges Hector to come out and fight him. All the press prior to the movie indicated that the film-makers where very, very proud of this section. The fighting was supposed to be well choreographed and dramatic, the background gave the simple fight the resonance of a duel that was not only historic, but legendary. The only thing missing was the rage.
Another movie that uses legend as source material is King Arthur. Like Dracula, this is a story that has gone through many versions, in print, on stage, and on screen. The latest version, directed by Antoine Fuqua, claims to be based on the “historical’ Arthur. What this apparently means is that they’ve stripped magic and the weight of destiny from the story we’re familiar with. Instead, we get a story supposedly placed near the end of the Roman occupation of Britain. This placement of the movie creates two powerful engines of expectation, dragging against the actual power of the movie itself.
The movie itself is a classic Hollywood epic, fully compliant with the conventions of heroism and sacrifice, beauty, principles, and love. The story is told adequately, the action is pretty good, and Keira Knightly manages to be very hot, especially for a woman who comes from a simple hunter-gathering society and then spends time locked in a dungeon. Then she gets covered in blue paint. The only thing that could make it better would be some nudity, at least in the “unrated” version. But no.
Still, the movie is unwatchable. The reference to the Legend of Arthur raises a standard of chivalry and nobility that nobody in the movie seems to even approach. The Legend of Arthur is about the creation of England, this story is about the rescuing of some villagers. The scope suffers by comparison. Also, maybe all that magic wasn’t real, but it’s a very real part of the story of Arthur. Without it, he’s just a guy with a sword.
The reference to an “historical” Arthur is equally destructive. The characters in this movie are melodramatically good and bad. The situations are artificial, from the timing of the discharges to the relationship between Arthur and the Picts. The story is decent, but doesn’t have the randomness, grittiness, or telling details of an authentic historical movie.
So why tie a movie to legend? Or to historical events that have become legend? One possibility is that the filmmaker wants the story itself. The fall of Troy is a legend because people love the story, both on a grand scale, and in the many little stories that surround it. Obviously you could write a fictional account of the struggle and fall of a walled city, but it takes time and there’s this one, just lying there, ready. Also, the back-story is familiar. Perhaps not to every viewer, but to enough that someone can fill in the gaps or at least say “yes, the book explains all that.” That doesn’t explain why you would take a story like Arthur, refer to it, then drop it entirely in favor of a more “historic” telling.
Another explanation is that the filmmaker wants to appeal to the cultural tropes and resonance of the legend itself. Arthur is the archetype for unifying kings. Achilles is the archetypal proud warrior. Taking on these legends is an almost irresistible challenge to the storyteller.
But the problem is that much of the source material is not sifted for a 21st century movie-going audience. Achilles not only “loves” his shield-bearer, he takes captive brides, sulks for years on end, and drags a corpse by its heels. The excuse that he is part divine doesn’t work with modern audiences.
The cynical answer is that filmmakers take on existing legends for the same reason that they take literary franchises to the big screen, built in audience. Every movie stands a better chance of bombing than succeeding. A built-in audience is a cushion, limiting the damage. This is why there are so many sequels and re-makes. Movies cost so much to make that cannibalizing the past is a way to cushion the investors from complete loss.
This decision probably isn’t made consciously. Filmmakers probably push a range of projects. But over time, the ones that attract investment and get greenlighted are more likely those that can show at least come guarantee of return. The return may not be in proportion to the cost of the project, either. Attaching a known literary or legendary source to a project might be enough to gain that early funding that gives films like Troy an advantage in getting made.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home