The Vikings

This film is never boring, and I don’t know a lot about Viking history to know if it is credible, but it is a film that is meant to entertain with a story of a conflict between Vikings and an English rulers and also between half-brothers, played by Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, who eventually have to fight over a beautiful dame played by a gorgeous Janet Leigh. It doesn’t matter at all that the plot has pseudo-historical moments mixed with fantasy, romantic triangles, and illegitimate son who accidentally winds up with his true father. I give Fleischer credit for a film that never stops.Kirk Douglas is the older son of the Viking ruler, and he is mostly drunk or acting like an uncontrolled animal. As I see him getting all drunk and talking lots of nonsense, I recall Douglas’ other major character a couple of years later, Spartacus, when he says (paraphrasing), “We can’t just be a gang of drunken raiders?” Spartacus was more dignified, someone who stood for justice and doing the right thing. It seems as if Douglas wanted to tell audiences that Spartacus, the film, wasn’t anything like The Vikings. In fact, his licentiousness in The Vikings echoes in my mind an earlier character Douglas had played in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, also under Fleischer’s direction, Ned. When seeing drunken Einar in Vikings, I couldn’t help but seeing 20,000 Leagues’ Ned all over again. The difference is that Ned has opportunities to show he has qualities worth admiring in this film: courage and a love for freedom. This is not such with his Viking role: Einar. We always see him drinking and eating huge drumsticks, being a drunkard, and killing. His Einar is primitive and bestial. There is no reason with him. And this is what I would learn about Vikings if I were watching it as a real historical drama. On the other hand, Curtis plays the role of his half-brother, Eric, who for some unknown reason, is more dignified than Einar. A third element is added to this tale, the beautiful Janet Leigh who plays princess Morgana. In technicolor, she is quite a looker. Inevitably, both brothers fall in love with her at first sight (I would), the motive of each not being difficult to figure out. While Eric’s love seems dignified, Einar’s love is predictably more lustful.Far from being a historical epic, I had the impression that film was not meant to be taken to seriously. Its mixture of fantasy in one of its early scenes, the drunken orgies, and a soundtrack made me believe at times that perhaps I was watching a Disney movie. After all, Fleischer and Douglas had worked together in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. There was even a scene, that believe it or not, the Vikings are jumping on the oars of one if their ships in a playful manner and to the movie's soundtrack. This would’ve been a great scene for a Disney flick.In spite of its weaknesses, the film does move quickly as if it were trying to solve its conflicts as fast as it can. The film has also other strengths. One thing I really enjoyed very much were the Viking ships in water. These were just spectacular, magnificent. Fleischer, the director, and Jack Cardiff, cinematographer gave their best with these scenes at sea. Cardiff’s colors get the best out of technicolor for this film. I thought they would’ve been worth the admission ticket back then.Anyhow, this was fun and entertaining even though it’s lighthearted if you really believe that this can be called a historical epic.

This film exhibits a curious blend of meticulous attention to detail in presenting historical accuracy and gross historical inaccuracies and anachronisms. According to the director commentory on my DVD, the Viking ships were constructed as authentically as possible. The horses were genuine fjordland horses, distinctively small to survive in that habitat.The Viking village was built according to our information. The bounding from oar to oar as the ship entered home port was said to be a real Viking tradition. Perhaps the most glaring anachronism to the casual viewer is that Norman-style castles, such as the restored fort La Latte, where the action takes place late in the film, didn't exist in Britain until after the Norman invasion, several centuries after this story takes place. No doubt, this anachronism was ignored because this Norman castle provided a visually much more dramatic structure and setting for the final confrontations than anything actually in Britian in this historical time frame. The historical Vikings this story is based upon were from Denmark, not Norway. No doubt Norway was chosen because of the dramatic fjord scenery and because Americans tend to associate Vikings with Norway, ancestral home of Eric the Red and kin. When Tony Curtis(Eric) was staked at the ocean shore to drown at high tide, he should have died of hypothermia long before drowning. A striking brunette, such as Elizabeth Taylor, would seem a more attractive prize princess than the blond Janet Leigh, to these Vikings, surrounded by blonds. The dramatic, if misogynistic, incident where Prince Einar cuts off, with thrown axes, the pigtails of a wife accused of adultery is (of course) pure historical hokum, if entertaining(especially since the audience knows that the womanizing Einar has been bedding this comely woman). The victorius Vikings are portrayed as spending most of their spare time in drunken orgies, in competition with some of the classic pirate films and the Roman orgies in some of the historical spectacles of this period. Nothing is shown of the farming, animal tending, fishing, and weapons and clothing making that occupied most Vikings when not on raids. There is the question of why Einar held off killing Eric when Eric's sword broke during their duel. Only Einar knows for sure, but the obvious possibilites include 1)He was not clear if Eric was his half brother 2)He decided a hateful queen Morgana(Janet Leigh) was not worth killing Eric for 3)He was afraid of the sorceress's prophesy that he who killed Eric would be cursed. Perhaps a blend of all these considerations caused Einar's fatal hesitation. The script would appear to have pretentions of Shakesperian greatness, with one(Eric) of 3 rivals for the hand of Princess Morgana being a mere Viking slave, but unknowingly by birth, having a claim to the thrones of both the English principality of Northumbria and the Viking settlements ruled by Einar, after his father's death. The former rulers of each kingdom vanquished and his true heritage revealed, Eric now represents the potential amalgam between the various prior settlers of the British Isles and the encroaching Vikings, who not only loot the English, but also establish settlements and petty kingdoms, culminating in the Norman invasion of 1066. As I see it, the greatest failing of this film as an epic story is the failure to exploit this symbolism after the funerary rites for Einar. In the parting scene, Morgana appears to be wearing the same crown that the previous queen wore, suggesting she is queen and presumably Eric is king of Northumbria. If so, this change is status happened unbelievably quickly, before Einar's funeral! It would have been much more definitive if we had observed Eric's successful campaign to convince the powers that he was the rightful king of Northrumbria, if not also the Viking settlement he was a former slave in, and to witness his conversion to Christianity(if he was not already a Christian) to fit in better with his queen and English subjects and to symbolize the potential union of northmen and English. In the absence of this extension, this film is merely an elaborate swashbuckler tale.

Love classic movies.

Alles bestens. Blu ray ist nicht fälschlicherweise eingeschweißt, sondern auch wirklich NEU und unbenutzt. Danke!!

子供の頃、母に連れられて劇場で観た時はとても面白かったのですが、いま観るとストーリーは面白いのですが、映画の出来としては中の下くらいの娯楽映画。ただし、音楽、そして何と言ってもジャック・カーディフの撮影が素晴らしい。BDで観ると、DVDよりさらに奥深く重厚な映像になっています。日本語の字幕はなくても、持っている価値はあります。

ras

Parfait

Clásico del antiguo Hollywood, está en castellano y buena resolución. 👍