The Tartars

Why do I do this to myself?

I think there is something wrong with me.  There are a lot of movies I have never seen before that are considered genuine classics, iconic films like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Gandhi, and Stagecoach.  And there are also some films that I haven't seen in decades that I have always wanted to see again.

So how do I keep finding myself in this situation?  One day, The Tartars popped up on TCM and I immediately DVR'd it.  I am a sucker for an epic, even a bad one.  And while I didn't know a lot about The Tartars, I did know its reputation wasn't very good.  The film stars Orson Welles (Citizen Kane), who is clearly here just to collect a paycheck, Victor Mature (The Robe), an actor I've never particularly liked, and it was directed by Richard Thorpe (Ivan Hoe), a director I have also never particularly liked.  And within 2 minutes of watching the movie, I knew I was in deep trouble.

And I looked over at my movie shelf and all those good movies I had to watch.  And then I looked back at the TV and the cheap costumes and bad dubbing, and decided to settle in for the night and finish watching this train wreck.

What is wrong with me?

The Tartars is the story of Oleg (Mature), a Viking king settled in Russia.  He is allied with the Tartar khan, Togrul.  When Togrul announces his intention to invade the Slavs, Oleg refuses.  The Slavs are also allied to the Vikings and Oleg refuses to break his word.  I suppose he could have been diplomatic about the whole thing, but instead he ramps up the insults, kills the khan and kidnaps his daughter Samia (Bella Cortez), bringing her back to his fortress as a hostage.   The khan's brother Burundai (Welles) ascends to the throne of the Tartars and now must decide how to deal with these meddlesome Vikings who won't bend to his sword.  Stupid stuff proceeds to happen. 

Where to start.  Well, I think it is important to mention this is a peplum film.  Basically, this refers to low budget Italian films, usually set in the ancient or medieval world, where the Italian studios would fly in Hollywood star to headline the picture and guarantee some sort of box office return.  The rest of the actors were all Italians and were dubbed, often poorly, into English before the film was released back in the U.S.  Though there had been some earlier peplum films, the genre really exploded when bodybuilder Steve Reeves played Hercules in 1958, which was a huge box office hit.  Suddenly, horribly cheap Italian films were all the rage.  And Hollywood's studios, which were getting battered by television, were desperately trying to find ways to make oodles of cash with very little investment.  Well, MGM decided to get in on the act and sent over an over-the-hill actor in Mature who at this point in his career was more interested in playing golf, as well as one of their more reliable directors, Richard Thorpe.  To guarantee they had a good actor playing the villain, they also hired Orson Welles, who was desperately trying to raise cash for his own projects.

But I do want to make an important point about peplum films - just because they are low budget doesn't mean they all necessarily bad.  There was some really talented filmmakers working in the genre, including Sergio Leone, who directed the fun Colossus of Rhodes with Rory Calhoun.  Sadly, I don't think any of those people worked on this movie.

Almost everything about this movie is terrible.  And I think it starts with Richard Thorpe.  I know he was considered a solid filmmaker who made a lot of hits for MGM, but I have always found his style to be slow and plodding.  The story is ridiculous and the acting across the board is atrocious.

Hey, at least the Khan's palace was cool.  That was a really good set.  And the matte painting that shows the fortress in its full magnificence is kind of neat.  There is a random Viking named Sigrum, played by Furio Meniconi, who has a line or two.  I liked that guy.  Arnoldo Foá plays an advisor to the Khan and he is appropriately wise and stoic.

And yeah, that's about it?  So how about everything else?

This film is so miscast.  Victor Mature might be the worst cast Viking I have ever seen, and his character is a relatively inept and ineffective ruler.  I think he was chosen to rule the Vikings because he is the only one brave enough to never wear pants.

He looks old and tired, and there is so much grease in his hair that I got nervous whenever he walked near a torch.  He certainly didn't make any effort to participate in the action scenes and they found the world's worst stunt double to take his place when he is fighting, swimming, riding a horse, and sometimes, you know, walking.

Orson Welles isn't cast much better.  He at least delivers his lines with appropriate menace, but he is never believable as a warrior chieftain.  And his stunt double is even worse.  It's just a short guy that they stuffed into a costume which looks like it was then inflated with helium.  The final fight between the antagonists is almost sad, as the two try to swing cheap swords at each other, one desperately trying to keep his wig on as the other tries to swing his arms from inside his balloon.  I stared at the screen in disbelief.

Oh, something else.  Spoiler alert for those who have made it this far!  This film seemingly takes place over a week or two.  Oleg has a brother named Eric (Luciano Marin) who falls in love with the imprisoned Samia.  Even though Eric is the one who killed her father, she quickly succumbs to his advances and they decide to get married.  The very next time we see the lovebirds, seemingly the next day, Samia asks if the Vikings will let her stay now that she is pregnant.  I'll admit, I don't know a lot about the Tartars.  Maybe their pregnancy tests really were that good.  Seems awful quick to me, though.

I can keep going, but I won't.  I need to put this behind me.  I need to calm myself, reset and breathe, and re-evaluate my life.  Why do I feel the need to torture myself this way?  How can I stop myself?

But then I glance up at my DVR...and I see Steve Reeves' Son of Spartacus is about to start on TCM...and I feel myself reaching for the record button...


MVP:

I really think I am going to Furio Meniconi, who plays one of the Vikings named Segrum.  He just appears occasionally in the background and even has a line of dialogue every once in awhile.  At first, I just thought he was a cool looking dude with a cool hair and a cool beard.  He actually looked like he knew what he was doing when he swung a sword.  So, points for him.

Then later in the movie, maybe about 30-minutes from the end, you realize he is Oleg's right hand man.  I hadn't realized that, but that would have been good to know.  And then 15-minutes from the end, he has a short speech where he says that he helped raise Oleg and Eric and he wished the brothers would stop arguing.  And again, I thought, well, that would have been interesting to know earlier.  Never mind the fact that he looks the same age as Victor Mature.

Anyways, he still looks cool.  So he gets my MVP.

BEST LINE:

This dialogue isn't that great, but like I mentioned, Orson Welles provides the right amount of menace in his performance.  It helps when you have one of the coolest voices in all of Hollywood history!

Burundia: Why should I spare you, then?  You give me no choice.  I, who stand on the threshold of glory...What does your little life mean to me?

Ciu Lang:   Less than nothing.  It means no more to me.  We have no choice in the matter of death.  It comes for us all. 

Burundai: You seem to desire your own.

Ciu Lang: No, I have no desire. I follow the way. 

Burundai:  The way.  Your way is mystic humbug.  It leads nowhere.  Mine is forward...into greatness. 

TRIVIA:

We had a wasted opportunity with this film.  Victor Mature and Orson Welles had hated each other since the 1940s when they were both competing for the affections of Rita Hayworth.  They really could have used that antagonism to their benefit and played up the tension between the two.  But sadly, I think that would have required better actors, a better director and a better script.  Or perhaps a different movie, altogether.

The Vikings

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the longevity of films.  As I have gotten older and talked about movies with today's youth, such as my company's interns, I have been shocked about the movies they have not seen.  At first, I thought the problem was with them or with their parents for doing a bad job raising them.  But sadly, I can no longer delude myself into thinking that's the case.  I think I am just getting old...and I've reached the point in my life where the movies that everyone has seen are...well, movies that a lot of people have actually not seen and maybe haven't even heard of.  Some of the younger people I've talked with do have a vague notion of the popular movies of my day.  They've at least know Back to the Future, even if they haven't seen it.  But there are a lot of movies they just haven't heard of.  For example, just picking two hit movies at random: The Usual Suspects and Four Weddings and a Funeral were both award-winning films and big financial and critical successes.  When I mention these two films to the next generation, I am met with blank eyes.

So what makes a movie stand the test of time?  And I don't mean to film buffs, but to the everyday, average person.  Of the most successful films of 1942/1943, why is Casablanca the one that has gone down in history?  Why not Random Harvest, Reap the Wild Wind, Road to Morocco, Song of Bernadette, or Somewhere I'll Find You.  ALL of those movies were bigger hits than Casablanca (according to Wikipedia). Now, I know that is an extreme example.  Casablanca has became part of the culture, inspiring imitations ranging from Neil Simon to Bugs Bunny.  But it is still an interesting question.  In 1948, Samson and Delilah made $28 million dollars. That is almost $300 million today.  And I think most people will not have heard of that movie, much less seen it.  And I don't mean to equate money with longevity, but it is crazy to me that a movie that was that big of a hit has started to vanish in the public consciousness.  I've asked young men and women if they have heard of Ghost.  The answer is no.  Ghost made $217 million dollars in 1990.  In 1990, that is HUGE.  Today, that is $419 million.  The film was also nominated for five Oscars, included Best Picture, and it won two of them.  And it has completely disappeared?

I suppose what this all comes down to is, I owe my parents an apology.  Because I was one of those kids.  I must have made them feel so old when they talked about the popular movies of their day.  When I was young in the 1980s, they would tell me about a movie... something like Tammy and the Bachelor, and I would laugh and say there is no way that was a big movie.  I would have heard of it if it was.  Tammy and the Bachelor, by the way, was a romantic comedy starring Debbie Reynolds and Leslie Nielsen and it was an Oscar nominated hit that spawned three sequels.  Three sequels.  All erased by our cultural amnesia.  And it is shame because a lot of great films are being lost.  Yes, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and The Godfather will always be with us.  But what about the lesser movies?  What about the movies that aren't even classics, but are just fun rides?  What about strange curiosities like The Vikings?

First, let's establish the credentials.  The Vikings was the sixth most successful movie at the box office in 1958 and was fairly well reviewed.  It had a big enough impact on Hollywood that the early 1960s were littered with cheesy ripoffs like The Long Ships and Erik the Conqueror.  The movie also had a terrific cast, featuring Kirk Douglas (Spartacus), Ernest Borgnine (Marty), Tony Curtis (Some Like It Hot) and Janet Leigh (Psycho).  It was directed by Richard Fleischer (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), shot by brilliant cinematographer Jack Cardiff (Black Narcissus) and written by Calder Willingham (The Graduate).  That is an excellent team.

It seems the epic Kirk Douglas film that has stood the test of time is Spartacus, and there is good reason for that, but let's not ignore The Vikings because this movie is one helluva good time.  I would never call it a classic, but it certainly deserves to be remembered.

The Vikings is the story of two half brothers: Einar (Douglas) is the handsome, popular son of the Viking chief Ragnar (Borgnine) and Eric (Curtis) is a slave in the village, and the unknown son of Ragnar and the English queen he had raped two decades earlier.  The new English king, the villainous Aella (Frank Throng), now watches the coast warily for another Viking attack.  When Einar captures Aella's bride-to-be, Morgana (Leigh), events spiral out of control, setting the two half-brothers against each other and the English crown.

I do want to make it clear that this movie is not perfect.  There are some really goofy and dated things in this movie. For example, I don't really buy the love story between Eric and Morgana.  While Eric is a prince, neither he nor Morgana know that, and I have trouble believing the princess would fall in love so quickly with a slave, even if he is played by Tony Curtis.  The whole subplot is convenient in a very 1950s way where chaste love will always win the day.  There are also some uncomfortable spots where it seems the film is condoning the abuse of women.  Are we supposed to be laughing along with Ragnar when he tells his son that if a women struggles against his advances, that makes the conquest more worth it?  That really bothers me, and is hard to overlook.  But then again, I understand that this very well may have been what the Vikings really felt - pillaging, murder and rape were basically in their job description. So I understand that, but at the same time, it makes it hard to sympathize with certain characters when they talk like that.

But ultimately, in other ways, the treatment of the Vikings themselves is what makes this movie so interesting, and better than many 1950s films of this genre.  Most period adventure films of the period were clear in their villains and heroes.  Everything was very black and white and easily digestible. And The Vikings does have this element.  Eric is the brave and handsome slave who is really a prince. Aella is the villainous and scenery chewing king who sits on Eric's rightful throne.  Morgana is the wholesome princess who needs rescuing.  All very 1950s adventure.  But the difference with The Vikings is actually the titular characters - the rampaging Northmen themselves.  They are the ultimate wild card.  They are not heroes or villains.  They are, well, Vikings.  And yes, they raid and pillage the poor and innocent English.  But they also bring the booty back where it is distributed to families in their own village.  They aren't a cartoonish tribe.  They have a society and a culture, neither good or bad.  They just exist.  And it may be hard not to judge them by our modern standards, but it is impossible to classify them into classic movie archetypes.   In short, the movie gives us as realistic a depiction of Viking society as they can, and implant it in the middle of this silly 1950s adventure.  A lot of research went into this film.  The clothes, ships, buildings and weapons were all created to be as historically accurate as possible, and the hard work pays off.  These Vikings feel sort of authentic.  Not completely authentic, of course.  It is still a movie, after all, and there is only so realistic you can be in Hollywood.  But it is still pretty impressive to see these characters and not know how they fit into the puzzle or what actions they will take.

I also admire that the movie is surprisingly brutal for a film from this era.  A bit of a SPOILER alert here, but I was not expecting Einer's eye to get gouged out.  And I certainly didn't expect Eric's arm to get hacked off.  The movie isn't particularly graphic.  This doesn't happen on camera, but still...I was genuinely surprised.  And I don't get surprised easily.

I also have to take a second and mention the climactic battle at the end, when the Viking army assaults Aella's castle.  This bloody attack is terrific, well staged by Fleischer and superbly shot by Cardiff.  I especially respect the final duel between Einar and Eric, an energetic and dangerous fight on top of the castle's tower that looks way too high to be safe for either the actors or the crew. 

So all in all, despite its flaws, The Vikings is a fun and exciting movie, featuring a cast and crew at the top of their game.  Is it a classic?  Definitely not.  But does it deserve to be forgotten?  I don't think so.  There are hundreds of movies that are slowly fading into cultural oblivion.  Movie lovers out there can't let that happen.  We have to tell our family and friends, and pester them until they see some of these movies, and hopefully continue to pass them on to the next generation.  There are a lot of fun, forgotten movies out there.  I hope The Vikings does not become one of them...


MVP:

There are a lot of things I like about The Vikings, but I have to give the MVP to cinematographer Jack Cardiff.  Cardiff is one of the best directors of photography in Hollywood history, with a career spanning seven decades.  Cardiff does magnificent work on this film, but what seals the deal for me is the scene when the Viking ships travel across the North in a deep, deep fog.  And then as the sun is rising with that gorgeous morning light, we see the three ships emerge from the fog - imposing and ghost-like.  It's a truly stunning image, and it won Cardiff my MVP!


BEST LINE: 

Einar: I want this slave to live.  The sun will cross the sky a thousand times before he dies.  (turns to Eric) And you'll wish a thousand times that you were dead.  

TRIVIA:

One of the more entertaining scenes in The Vikings was the oar walking sequence - where the Vikings would run alongside the outstretched oars of the ship and try not to fall into the freezing water below.  This was a game that the real Vikings really played, and the director Fleischer commented at the time that they were filming something that hadn't been seen in a thousand years.  The stunt men practiced for weeks and even Kirk Douglas got in on the fun.  That's really him, not a stunt man, skipping across the oars in the scene.  I thought that was a fun bit of trivia.  And looks like a fun game that I wouldn't mind trying someday!