Customer Reviews

Black Death

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

1348 '-- a bit early for the widespread burning of witches, but there were a few. That year was also a bit late for villages where paganism is mainstream, but I supposed there could have been one or two. By the late fourteenth century, however, paganism had been driven into the deepest shadows of rural life and replaced by a Christianity that already had 300 years of resurgence under its belt. In other words, history gets telescoped in this film ' no doubt for the purpose of seeming darkly familiar to us, having just -- in 2010 -- lived through the mainstreaming of Christian fundamentalism, thanks to G.W. Bush.

What is accurate in the film is the violence, the ignorance, and the persecution -- especially the persecution. Jews were the major target during the plague years and were eventually banished from most of Western Europe by the end of the fifteenth century, at which point women took over as handy scapegoats for a superstitious clerical class known for its corruption and an inept ruling class. It wasn''t for nothing that Petrarch caused the era to be called the Dark Ages. '"We live in a dark age,"' he said, referring to the corruption of the papacy and the backwardness of the rank-and-file clergy. The image stuck -- despite the attempt by a whole school of modern historians to turn the later Middle Ages into a pre-Renaissance renaissance.

Director Christopher Smith''s vision of the so-called '"high"' Middle Ages is suitably dark. I haven't seen it this accurately presented since J.-J. Annoud's *Name of the Rose [Blu-ray]*, which was remarkably true to Umberto Eco''s novel in this regard. It is very easy to imagine Ulrich (Sean Bean) as a real historical figure, for the church did send enforcers into the hinterlands to ferret out the agents of Satan.

Langiva (Carice van Houten) is a bit harder to fit in historical context. She steps far more easily out of the pages of Kramer and Sprenger''s hallucinatory *Malleus Maleficarum*, the popular witch-burning manual that influenced the writings of later, far more important and influential theorists of witchcraft.

No, the powerful Langiva doesn''t quite fit. The powerless peasant girl who seduces the young novice monk in *The Name of the Rose* is more believable as the kind of woman medieval churchmen would persecute as a witch. Strangely, in *Black Death*, we are seeing the representatives of the medieval church through our twenty-first-century eyes, but we are seeing the witch phenomenon through the eyes of the medieval church. It''s the latter that''s supposed to deliver the 'horror' that makes this film a 'horror movie.' Frankly, I find the medieval church equally horrifying.

"Black Death" must have been a nightmare to market, and perhaps that is why it slipped beneath the radar in most cities. I'm not certain why I bought a copy, probably because Sean Bean is always excellent if badly underused in films. But it was a wise buy, even if I seldom watch the film again.
Hollywood loves to remake films that have been successful, and if Hollywood does not do it, the stage does. "Wizard of Oz" on stage is one of Weber's new attacks upon our emotions, and it is dismal. There was even a musical version of "Gone with the Wind" that died a painful death in Great Britain before it made it across the Atlantic, though Harve Presnell as Rhett should have been interesting. But film remakes are usually atrocious. "The Maltese Falcon" was a great exception with Warner Brothers trying it over and over, until Humphrey Bogart and the rest of that great cast made it work. And, too, "Casablanca". Unfortunately, there have been vile remakes of both since then. What has this to do with "Black Death"? A lot. This film is a failure on so many levels because it doesn't really know where to focus. But if one steps back a bit, looks at it objectively, and represses both the laughter at ridiculous make-up and the shudders of brutal moments of violence, there is a lot to think about that few movies have come close to suggesting.
It is a morality play, but not of the medieval kind. It suits this century perfectly. It also deals with perceptions and with 'realities', using religion more as a springboard than as the central issue. Clearly, there are no absolutes, but what is the range of decency, corruption, deception, and honour? Wrong or right may not matter at all as the two poles we run to or away from. But to what extent can we choose as the old rules fall by the wayside? I'm phrasing it badly, but for those who watch the film, I hope this will resonate, even though much of the film seems to be unaware of what a good deal of the rest of the film is doing. So I leave it to the experts to carefully study "Black Death", pull out the issues that it trips itself on so often, and remake the movie with a clearer sense of the issues. It could then be a memorable experience for the ages. As it stands, it will be sluffed off by the majority of the public who will see it as just another swords and witches bomb. But peel away that surface and imagine what a solid screenwriter and director would have done with this much to explore.
One spoiler alert - probably unnecessary - would Sean Bean start making movies in which he is alive at the end? Please. Yes, he had to die in "Lord of the Rings", but since then he has played too many characters who are dispensed with far too soon. I'll forgive "Game of Thrones", but when it lost him, it lost me, too, and probably a large chunk of the audience. But here, there was no need for his early death, and since it is now part of a pattern, it did not even surprise. It is time that he was offered roles that gave the general movie goer a chance to see one of the best at work. Perhaps cast him in "Black Death"'s remake, and leave him alive at the end. And please redo the end. Letting the witch live undiscovered is fine, but she is still too obviously the source of death and decay and should have been recognized. But, the film's makers thought her being ignored was sufficient irony. No. Death and decay are always to be with us. But more was at stake here (no pun intended), and they let a chance to explore deeper again slip through their fingers.

A smaller film with excellent production values. During the first outbreak of the plague in England, a group of soldiers is sent to investigate a village untouched by the pestilence and suspected of witch craft. It deals creatively with religious extremism, offering a look at two sides of this multi-faceted subject rather than simply focusing on the usual boogeymen of fantaticism (most commonly Christianity, with Islam as a close second).

The cast is good, though it could be argued that Sean Bean is underused.

Should appeal to most anyone who enjoyed In the Name of the Rose or The 13th Warrior.

Usually I enjoy watching movies where element of what occurred in the past is used but this one kind of left me on my appetite: Seems that what was going to happen next was very obvious. I dunno... Perhaps I should stop watching movies in my second language?