I went to see the film yesterday, eagerly expecting to learn something more about the man who probably was the greatest military and political leader of all times, and who is relatively little known in Western Europe, and even more so in such a provincial country as Italy. I am aware that one shouldn't expect films to be history essays; but then a great film about historical figures should be able to deliver an insight about their motives, their ways, their personalities, their achievements. Given that we are flooded with unnecessary rubbish coming chiefly from the United States (sorry, Americans), both on the big and on the small screen (I'm talking about the various "History" and "Discovery" channels which are often filled with gross inaccuracies, magnified by their horrible and hasty translations from English) I was also intrigued by the fact that this was a Russian and German production. Unusual: maybe better?
Definitely not.
I don't know much about the story of the Far East and about Genghis Khan in particular, but the film does not fit much, to use a euphemism, with that little I know; and comments by other readers who know definitely more than me (Rom Port from Israel, for example) bear out my suspicions. Now I know why I had never heard before about a Tangut kingdom (watching the film I thought it had to be some Chinese state): because apparently one such kingdom has never existed on the face of the earth. As far as I know, as a kid Temujin was far from the harmless and somewhat pretentious "cub" depicted in the film: he himself killed one of his brothers because the latter had hidden food in order not to share it with the rest of his hungry and beleaguered family. Some of his generals were boiled alive by Jamuka during the internecine wars among the Mongols.
What do we see instead? Genghis Khan is some sort of saint, as if he, like other great "statesmen" before and after him, had not built his power on cruelty and blood (sure they were more than just that, but that's the stuff REAL history is made of, whether we talk about Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon), out of ambition and thirst for power, justified or not; and, of course, a loving husband, a tender father, a generous leader, and, in a way, even a devout one: all in all, some sort of a funny maverick. If he was driven by revenge, as the saying in the opening titles seems to suggest, he must have shrugged it off pretty soon, or hidden it very, very well. Jamuka? A vulgar drunk, perhaps superficial but definitely not so infamously cruel. Tangutai (hope to remember his name well)? A vile coward. Borte? A steel-willed (and "skilful", if need be) wife. Is that what it takes to become a leader? Hard to believe if you've come of age, as much as it is hard to believe that a handful of knights can wreak havoc in a an army several times bigger by just using two swords instead of one: if that's "strategy", then we're talking about "Centurion" or "Risiko", but probably not at all about history. Some characters appear and disappear inexplicably, first of all Genghis Khan's mother; and his father's death looks really stupid. True? Maybe. Plausible? Hardly, overall.
The film is epic and often fascinating. But the authors take so much arbitrary liberty with fact and history that the film reminds me more of a mixture between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Gladiator" with Genghis Khan as a pretext than of a film based on a real, historical figure. Fun to watch, but perhaps not so worth spending so much money and time, both making it and watching it.
I will give Sergei Bodrov a second chance, when the time arrives.
But, on these premises, not a third one.
Definitely not.
I don't know much about the story of the Far East and about Genghis Khan in particular, but the film does not fit much, to use a euphemism, with that little I know; and comments by other readers who know definitely more than me (Rom Port from Israel, for example) bear out my suspicions. Now I know why I had never heard before about a Tangut kingdom (watching the film I thought it had to be some Chinese state): because apparently one such kingdom has never existed on the face of the earth. As far as I know, as a kid Temujin was far from the harmless and somewhat pretentious "cub" depicted in the film: he himself killed one of his brothers because the latter had hidden food in order not to share it with the rest of his hungry and beleaguered family. Some of his generals were boiled alive by Jamuka during the internecine wars among the Mongols.
What do we see instead? Genghis Khan is some sort of saint, as if he, like other great "statesmen" before and after him, had not built his power on cruelty and blood (sure they were more than just that, but that's the stuff REAL history is made of, whether we talk about Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon), out of ambition and thirst for power, justified or not; and, of course, a loving husband, a tender father, a generous leader, and, in a way, even a devout one: all in all, some sort of a funny maverick. If he was driven by revenge, as the saying in the opening titles seems to suggest, he must have shrugged it off pretty soon, or hidden it very, very well. Jamuka? A vulgar drunk, perhaps superficial but definitely not so infamously cruel. Tangutai (hope to remember his name well)? A vile coward. Borte? A steel-willed (and "skilful", if need be) wife. Is that what it takes to become a leader? Hard to believe if you've come of age, as much as it is hard to believe that a handful of knights can wreak havoc in a an army several times bigger by just using two swords instead of one: if that's "strategy", then we're talking about "Centurion" or "Risiko", but probably not at all about history. Some characters appear and disappear inexplicably, first of all Genghis Khan's mother; and his father's death looks really stupid. True? Maybe. Plausible? Hardly, overall.
The film is epic and often fascinating. But the authors take so much arbitrary liberty with fact and history that the film reminds me more of a mixture between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Gladiator" with Genghis Khan as a pretext than of a film based on a real, historical figure. Fun to watch, but perhaps not so worth spending so much money and time, both making it and watching it.
I will give Sergei Bodrov a second chance, when the time arrives.
But, on these premises, not a third one.