Michael the Brave ( original title: Mihai Viteazul ) - 1971
Michael the Brave ( original title: Mihai Viteazul ) - 1971
Genre: war & history, drama, biographical
Starring: Amza Pellea
Directed: Sergiu Nicolaescu
Original language: Romanian
WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
A biography of a famous wallachian ruler and military commander who managed to unite 3 different principalities from which todays Romania was formed and for years fought against the Turkish Empire as well as the Austrians and Poles.
IS IT UNDERSTANDABLE FOR FOREIGN VIEWERS?
Yes. I'd say so. Even though the movie is filmed in romanian language and takes place in South-Eastern Europe it's quite a universal story about a man with a dream of his own kingdom and who has to fight with everyone around him.
The opening sequences might be a little bit harder and would require a bit of historical knowledge as they throw a viewer directly into a complicated world of the past - vasalls, tributes, alliances and so on.
WORTH WATCHING?
No.
The movie, although it's surprisingly considered the best in the history of the romanian cinematography and one of the best historical movies at all, lacks real story and action, drama, and a character one could care about.
Surely for the Romanians, who had it all in school and Michael the Brave is kind of a national hero for them, it's different. But for me, even though I am a historian, it's more like a propaganda movie and not much of a real cinema.
I did like the actor, he does really resemble the hero, and they did take care about such things like historical clothing.
But the story itself is poorly written.
It's all Michael winning everyone around and beating the hell out of Turks or Transylvanians etc. until he loses... ups, SPOILER ALERT! ;)
And there's really no reason, no story behind the fact, WHY was he such a great leader.
The picture doesn't care to tell us, to explain to us, how did this happen that a simple ruler from a small country with a small and army, somehow managed to kick everyone around and to create a real war machine out of his miserable troops.
It's just like if ot was obious. The moment he becomes a ruler, he forms a large and well trained army and conquers a big part of that region on just a matter of few years.
There's no story behind HOW did he get the money to pay his soldiers, HOW did he managed to convince people to fight for him so bravely and HOW those soldiers managed to beat a numerous armies of the Turkish Empire or Austrians or other neighbours.
It just happens.
And of course, he doesn't make any mistakes on the battlefield. It doesn't mention the fact that he was badly beaten a few times, like by the Poles lead by grand chancellor Zamoyski.
Poles are only mentioned ( or showed, but I couldn't spot them ) as his enemies.
The whole part of his life, the moment when an intervention by the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania forced Michael the Brave out of Moldavia and Wallachia, and so led to his his ultimate doom is completely erased from the movie.
And it is a historical movies, based on historical facts, so it's lake chaning the history, just to show that Michael never really lost, and that it was only a treason that led to his fall.
...which is FALSE again.
I didn't read much about the history of Romania, but there are simply some facts that omitted in this movie. It shouldn't really happen. It's obvious that cinema has some rights to change things for the good of the story, but Michael did win a lot of battle anyway. They didn't have to make him invincible, and so lie.
I think that they perhaps wanted to say too much. As with Alexander the Great's movie and life, there's just too many things and battles to show all of them and combine them with everydays scenes and romance.
But they did a good job anyway. Why? Because not a lot of hitory's leader and military commanders can be honored by such a big picture. And it is big. By clothing, by the number of places and by the number of actors that took part in the movie.
About 10 thousand soldiers participated in the battle sequences.
So that's quite a lot, especially for a rather small and poor country.
They did a pretty good job with costumes, whether it comes to wallachian types of clothing, turkish, western-european, and military uniforms and armor as well.
Though, I think that some of the soldiers looked way too similar. I understand that they wanted to make the viewers be able to tell a difference between one army from another.
Although, they coudln't have done in a better and wiser way.
Plus, it's still not that easy to tell a difference anyway.
It simple when you have Turks on one side and Wallachians on the another.
Turks wear such original clothes with such colors that it's impossible not to spot them.
But it's harder when it comes to clashes with Transylvanians or the Poles, who used to wear similar outfits.
And I'm not sure if soldiers really used those strange medieval-barbaric like helmets during that specific era, that some of the Wallachians wear.
But out of all, my favorite part of the movie was the tournament, a mounted combat when Michael and Sigismund clashed with lances, wearing magnificent armor, just like medieval knights.
I'm not sure if such tournament's still existed by that period of time, but it was trully visually fantastic to see.
And of course Michael won... another SPOILER ;)
But hay!... this is a guy that wins every fight, even when he wears only a shirt when everyone around wears some kind of an armor.
So that's - an invincible hero in a shirt - a bit too much of propaganda as well. He was brave enough. He didn't have to wear that stupid shirt. It looked so silly I wanted to laugh.... which is not a thing that should happen during a historical drama, right?
I also liked females and their costumes, those were really well done.
So any other pluses or minuses?
Well, for me - as a historian - it's always nice to see events that weren't shown in any other movies or tv series. And same with historical figures. There's plenty of them in this flick. There are some Habsurgs, some Batorys, some Turks, and polish grand chancellor Zamoyski is being mentioned.
But of course, the main hero beats them all. And not just by the fact that he is invicible in the movie. But by the fact that the resembalnce is stunning, and Amza Pellea did a good job.
I din't take all of that "I have to unite my country, I fight for the good of my people" stuff. It's totally ahistorical and it's just propaganda, like the one Sergei Eisenstein used to serve to us in his flicks about russian history.
His pictures were/are considered cinema's classic, but no one cares about huge amount of propaganda inside them.
And it's kind of the same with Michael... though it's not beautiful movie at all.
I didn't care about the battles. Yes, the number of actors in them is amazing, costumes are fine and some shots are stunning... but all of those clashes were filmed badly.
There's no drama in them, nothing to enjoy, nothing to follow, nothing to care about.
Perhaps there were just too many of those battles, They wanted to show as many of them as they could and it didn't help the picture.
There's no comparison to Braveheart, to Alexander the Great, or other cinema's clashes. You won't be excited by anything that any army in this movie does.
They just fight, die, there's plenty of corpses in the aftermach... but that's all. You can watch that and knit at the same time.
And a priest (sic! ) leading wallachian into battles makes it even harder to watch.
So I don't think I'll ever return to watch it again.
I didn't even really want to stay trough all of it. And it's RATHER LONG. So I don't recommend it.
Only if You're really interested in the history of that region. Or if You'd like to see something about the Turkish/Ottoman Empire. Or Austrian/Hbsburg Empire. Or about the infamous Transylvania.
Or in that knight tournament scene... that sequence was trully amazing and the best in the whole picture!
WHEN IS IT SET:
Modern era, late XVI century, early XVII, 1593-1601,
WHERE IS IT SET:
Turkish Empire,
Today's Romania - Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania,
Austrian/Habsburg Empire
Stambul, Vienna, Prague
FACTIONS & NATIONS:
Romanians - Wallachians, Moldavians, Transylvanians
Turkish
Austrians
Italians
Poles ( mentioned )
WHAT HISTORICAL FIGURES DOES IT SHOW or MENTION:
Michael the Brave - ruler of combined dutchies of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia
Sigismund Batory - prince of Transylvania
Andrei Bathory - prince of Transylvania
Rudolf II Habsburg - austrian Emperor
Giogrio Basta - austrian general
Sinan Pasha - turkish grand vizier
Maximilian Hasburg - austrian archduke
Murat III - turkish sultan
Zamoyski - polish grand chancellor and magnate ( mentioned )
Genre: war & history, drama, biographical
Starring: Amza Pellea
Directed: Sergiu Nicolaescu
Original language: Romanian
WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
A biography of a famous wallachian ruler and military commander who managed to unite 3 different principalities from which todays Romania was formed and for years fought against the Turkish Empire as well as the Austrians and Poles.
IS IT UNDERSTANDABLE FOR FOREIGN VIEWERS?
Yes. I'd say so. Even though the movie is filmed in romanian language and takes place in South-Eastern Europe it's quite a universal story about a man with a dream of his own kingdom and who has to fight with everyone around him.
The opening sequences might be a little bit harder and would require a bit of historical knowledge as they throw a viewer directly into a complicated world of the past - vasalls, tributes, alliances and so on.
WORTH WATCHING?
No.
The movie, although it's surprisingly considered the best in the history of the romanian cinematography and one of the best historical movies at all, lacks real story and action, drama, and a character one could care about.
Surely for the Romanians, who had it all in school and Michael the Brave is kind of a national hero for them, it's different. But for me, even though I am a historian, it's more like a propaganda movie and not much of a real cinema.
I did like the actor, he does really resemble the hero, and they did take care about such things like historical clothing.
But the story itself is poorly written.
It's all Michael winning everyone around and beating the hell out of Turks or Transylvanians etc. until he loses... ups, SPOILER ALERT! ;)
And there's really no reason, no story behind the fact, WHY was he such a great leader.
The picture doesn't care to tell us, to explain to us, how did this happen that a simple ruler from a small country with a small and army, somehow managed to kick everyone around and to create a real war machine out of his miserable troops.
It's just like if ot was obious. The moment he becomes a ruler, he forms a large and well trained army and conquers a big part of that region on just a matter of few years.
There's no story behind HOW did he get the money to pay his soldiers, HOW did he managed to convince people to fight for him so bravely and HOW those soldiers managed to beat a numerous armies of the Turkish Empire or Austrians or other neighbours.
It just happens.
And of course, he doesn't make any mistakes on the battlefield. It doesn't mention the fact that he was badly beaten a few times, like by the Poles lead by grand chancellor Zamoyski.
Poles are only mentioned ( or showed, but I couldn't spot them ) as his enemies.
The whole part of his life, the moment when an intervention by the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania forced Michael the Brave out of Moldavia and Wallachia, and so led to his his ultimate doom is completely erased from the movie.
And it is a historical movies, based on historical facts, so it's lake chaning the history, just to show that Michael never really lost, and that it was only a treason that led to his fall.
...which is FALSE again.
I didn't read much about the history of Romania, but there are simply some facts that omitted in this movie. It shouldn't really happen. It's obvious that cinema has some rights to change things for the good of the story, but Michael did win a lot of battle anyway. They didn't have to make him invincible, and so lie.
I think that they perhaps wanted to say too much. As with Alexander the Great's movie and life, there's just too many things and battles to show all of them and combine them with everydays scenes and romance.
But they did a good job anyway. Why? Because not a lot of hitory's leader and military commanders can be honored by such a big picture. And it is big. By clothing, by the number of places and by the number of actors that took part in the movie.
About 10 thousand soldiers participated in the battle sequences.
So that's quite a lot, especially for a rather small and poor country.
They did a pretty good job with costumes, whether it comes to wallachian types of clothing, turkish, western-european, and military uniforms and armor as well.
Though, I think that some of the soldiers looked way too similar. I understand that they wanted to make the viewers be able to tell a difference between one army from another.
Although, they coudln't have done in a better and wiser way.
Plus, it's still not that easy to tell a difference anyway.
It simple when you have Turks on one side and Wallachians on the another.
Turks wear such original clothes with such colors that it's impossible not to spot them.
But it's harder when it comes to clashes with Transylvanians or the Poles, who used to wear similar outfits.
And I'm not sure if soldiers really used those strange medieval-barbaric like helmets during that specific era, that some of the Wallachians wear.
But out of all, my favorite part of the movie was the tournament, a mounted combat when Michael and Sigismund clashed with lances, wearing magnificent armor, just like medieval knights.
I'm not sure if such tournament's still existed by that period of time, but it was trully visually fantastic to see.
And of course Michael won... another SPOILER ;)
But hay!... this is a guy that wins every fight, even when he wears only a shirt when everyone around wears some kind of an armor.
So that's - an invincible hero in a shirt - a bit too much of propaganda as well. He was brave enough. He didn't have to wear that stupid shirt. It looked so silly I wanted to laugh.... which is not a thing that should happen during a historical drama, right?
I also liked females and their costumes, those were really well done.
So any other pluses or minuses?
Well, for me - as a historian - it's always nice to see events that weren't shown in any other movies or tv series. And same with historical figures. There's plenty of them in this flick. There are some Habsurgs, some Batorys, some Turks, and polish grand chancellor Zamoyski is being mentioned.
But of course, the main hero beats them all. And not just by the fact that he is invicible in the movie. But by the fact that the resembalnce is stunning, and Amza Pellea did a good job.
I din't take all of that "I have to unite my country, I fight for the good of my people" stuff. It's totally ahistorical and it's just propaganda, like the one Sergei Eisenstein used to serve to us in his flicks about russian history.
His pictures were/are considered cinema's classic, but no one cares about huge amount of propaganda inside them.
And it's kind of the same with Michael... though it's not beautiful movie at all.
I didn't care about the battles. Yes, the number of actors in them is amazing, costumes are fine and some shots are stunning... but all of those clashes were filmed badly.
There's no drama in them, nothing to enjoy, nothing to follow, nothing to care about.
Perhaps there were just too many of those battles, They wanted to show as many of them as they could and it didn't help the picture.
There's no comparison to Braveheart, to Alexander the Great, or other cinema's clashes. You won't be excited by anything that any army in this movie does.
They just fight, die, there's plenty of corpses in the aftermach... but that's all. You can watch that and knit at the same time.
And a priest (sic! ) leading wallachian into battles makes it even harder to watch.
So I don't think I'll ever return to watch it again.
I didn't even really want to stay trough all of it. And it's RATHER LONG. So I don't recommend it.
Only if You're really interested in the history of that region. Or if You'd like to see something about the Turkish/Ottoman Empire. Or Austrian/Hbsburg Empire. Or about the infamous Transylvania.
Or in that knight tournament scene... that sequence was trully amazing and the best in the whole picture!
HISTORICAL TRIVIA:
WHEN IS IT SET:
Modern era, late XVI century, early XVII, 1593-1601,
WHERE IS IT SET:
Turkish Empire,
Today's Romania - Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania,
Austrian/Habsburg Empire
Stambul, Vienna, Prague
FACTIONS & NATIONS:
Romanians - Wallachians, Moldavians, Transylvanians
Turkish
Austrians
Italians
Poles ( mentioned )
WHAT HISTORICAL FIGURES DOES IT SHOW or MENTION:
Michael the Brave - ruler of combined dutchies of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia
Sigismund Batory - prince of Transylvania
Andrei Bathory - prince of Transylvania
Rudolf II Habsburg - austrian Emperor
Giogrio Basta - austrian general
Sinan Pasha - turkish grand vizier
Maximilian Hasburg - austrian archduke
Murat III - turkish sultan
Zamoyski - polish grand chancellor and magnate ( mentioned )
Comments
Post a Comment