Another "sword" movie

[Allen Johnson]

There hasnt been much press about this but opening this weekend is another 'sword' movie, "Tristan & Isolde". Touting itself as a dark age Romeo & Juliet, it seems to be offering a healthy dose of violence. Check out the trailer here: http://www.tristanandisoldemovie.com/
It's supposedly taking place between 5th and 8th century AD... despite the fact that there is a nice looking bastard sword in the trailer, but who is really suprised about that? In the production notes it says, "Little has been recorded about the era between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, known as the Dark Ages." Really? Oh well, here's hoping its at least entertaining.

[John_Clements]

This is a classic and famous medieval tale, not really a "sword movie."

[Neil Bockus]

Little has been recorded between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance? Man, that's funny; I wonder who wrote these production notes. In a history class last semester, we had to read a good chunk of historical pieces written between the late 400's and the 1300's. I'm pretty sure that's the era in question. "City of God," (400's) "The Book of the Miracles of St. Foy," (800's) especially "The History of the Franks" describing in detail political struggles, murders, events and named persons in the 6th (I think) century, just to name three more major ones. There are even lists of things people owned! The Asnapium in 800 and the Domesday book in what 1085? offer whole insights to not only what people had, but even hint towards changing social or political climates. For example, the return of a cash economy around the 11th to 12th century can be seen with the Domesday book, as the lists of items are given monetary value (i.e. what can they be sold for?), while the Asnapium only listed what people had, so if the Emperor were to travel, he could know where he could best be accomodated. Maybe there wasn't as much being written or recorded, but I wouldn't say that there was too little either, and from what we have, with interpretation, research and logic we can find out even more from beyond what's written. I think these producers aren't as concerned with portraying history as they are making money.

[Allen Johnson]

Producers want money?!?!?!?! WHAT?! kidding <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> But yeah, just another aspect to pile on to Hollywoods slaughter of history. Im supposed to be seeing it with some people tomorrow night, so we'll see.

[s_taillebois]

Well to place it within a specific era, would actually mean research, and few would notice in the movie. And so perhaps the producers felt these factors to be less important.
And Tristan and Isolde is one of the Chansons which existed in several forms over a very long period. (as m. Clement's has noted) In that regard its not that much different from the Arthur, El Cid, Charlemagne, and even such as the Romeo and Juliet stories. So pinning it to one century could be done, but wouldn't mean much in some ways or to most of the potential audience. In the Gothic they were still recycling stories about Alexander, Theseus, and using the weapons, art and norms of the time to portray it all.
So nothing really changes...
And no doubt the weapons, equipage, and tactics accuracy will be appalling in this movie. Although it seems they did film it in Ireland, and one of the early versions of Tristan and Isolde was an Irish story. But just to have a Chanson de Toile/De Geste being filmed and presented to a mass audience is refreshing. Maybe if this one works, there will be more, and maybe of higher quality.

[Logan Weed]

Well Ridley Scott had a hand in it. Seems promising.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I saw it tonight....loved it-there was much in the movie that I thought was very cool, they show the youngsters training with wasters etc.....show a tourney with blunts, diffrent weapon combos that there seems to be evidence for and not to mention the story is well played out and super cool cinematography- I really enjoyed it-the battle scenes were cool as well, not really the hero triumphs over all kind of fighting much more down and dirty--see it-see it! Plus the lead actress is hot--but not that that matters---(well maybe a little)-

[James Hudec]

Sounds good. I'd like to go see it.

[ElizabethPangerl]

I grew up with the Arthurian legends (esp. Pyle, Malory). Tristan &amp; Isolde bears no resemblance to the stories I adored as a child. There's no connection to King Arthur, no other Knights of the Round Table, no love potion, Tristan's family/personality/life are different, etc. That being said, I was still very much entertained by this movie and I would enjoy seeing it again.

Highlights for me included a lot of action, a minimum of spinning moves, shots of wounded fighters (yes, weapons are dangerous, folks!), little boys training with intent with wasters, and a variety of weapons (mace, short sword &amp; dagger, etc.) being used during a tournament. I did cringe a little when some injuries didn't result in as extensive an immobilization or as quick a death as I thought it might. Despite a few unsettling moments like that, the movie did entertain me.

From a woman's perspective, I would recommend Tristan &amp; Isolde as a great date movie. It has action as well as tragic romance - bring a hanky. Depending on personality, some children might even be okay with it. It's PG-13, but my mother-in-law let me take my 11-year-old sister-in-law and she was fine with the consistent violence, hid her eyes for the love scenes, and only got upset when a horse was killed.

[s_taillebois]

On the spinning moves, I'd wonder if that's something which is arising from another source in addition to simple theatrical flash and convention. In some of the old grimoires, swords were used for tracing a circular pattern, used for protective purposes in various rituals. I'd wonder if the spinning nonsense is a re-interpretation of the grimoire sword symbolism? Mayhaps it turned up in some long ago novel, story or whatever, in an allusion to it's original context. Then from there it got recycled by others without the tie to the original context.
Grimoires tended to be a modern era invention, starting with the Elizabethian's and on...But although the original knights/aristocrats and etc were very superstitious contingent, and swords were used in some rituals. I'd doubt many were doing grimiore rituals with swords prior to a fight (either judicial or warfare). That kind of thing wouldn't be done in public, unless one was overly fond of smoke.
From a pragmatic view, obviously all the spinning and such is wasted effort, and a completely stupid thing to do when representing sword tactics.

[Allen Johnson]

id think that would be a pretty far stretch...even for Hollywood. There never seems to be anything ritualistic even implied in it. If it was some sort of styleized kata or something a fighter did as mediatation or something before a battle I might be able to say its a possibility- but nothing like that is mentioned or implied.
Aside from that, I felt the film was ok. Ive certainly seen a lot worse. It was nice to see lower legs as targets, weapon varieties (though markedly little pole arms or spears), grappling, and hilt strikes. The were still the problems of armour appearing useless, a kick to the chest taking a guy out imediatley where a full sword thrust through the cest permitted a guy to live for at least another 30 mins or so, ect. I was pleased to see a sword and dagger vs sword and dagger match up, but unfortunatley the dagger was hardly used. They had it in the off hand but didnt really use it. There was also a fair amount of 'attacking the blade' stuff.

[JeanryChandler]

Is this movie out at theaters or avaialable for rental now?

Jr

[Allen Johnson]

its in theatres. This is its second weekend of release.

[s_taillebois]

Oh well, just a deluded hope that scriptwriters might be drawing from something else besides lingering memories of "Johnie Quest", "kung Fu" or "power rangers'.
In the original period they did have some rituals relating to swords, but in general these were linked to Christianity. Anything out of a griomoire, would not have been done in a public environment.

[Jonathan Scott]

I just saw the movie this afternoon, and I think it was pretty cool, and at least it's not the usual Hollywood "Zorro/Musketeer/Pirate Swashbuckler" flick.
I also thought the brute's (umm the big irish general guy) falchion was awesome, though I don't know if that was a weapon used at the time (and did they put poison on their sword blades? Seems like a pretty good idea to me)...and it probably wouldn't have been two handed (though the guy used it one handed I think). Also I think they should have thrown more sword and shielders in there (well they had a little shield wall at the end, but that wasn't a big deal), but apparently someone with only one sword able to "beat" other non-main-character opponants is "cooler".
Still, not a terrible effort, and not your usual hollywood either (which is usually centered on flashyness, large scale numbers, special effects, big name actors/actresses, etc, which can cause so much distortion to reality)