Taras Bulba

 

Before we get into this, please be warned.  There are going to be a lot of SPOILERS in this review!  

I think by now, we all know that epics are my favorite genre.  Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Spartacus, Ten Commandments and Ben Hur are among my favorite movies, and I even make time for those lesser epics like El Cid and Cleopatra, flawed messes that are nonetheless fun for me.  I try to seek these movies out when I can.  But there was always one movie that eluded me for one reason or another - 1962's Taras Bulba.  I remember as a kid seeing that badass image of Yul Brynner, confidently mounted on his horse, the sun reflecting off his iconic bald head, his scimitar flashing in the sun, and I knew this was movie I had to see.  

As I got older, I learned more about Taras Bulba and most of what I read wasn't good.  It was a box office success, but had still underperformed and lost money.  While it wasn't considered an outright disaster, I guess you could say everyone involved walked away disappointed.  And it is a shame because there is a lot of talent on display here.  Director J. Lee Thompson was coming off two powerhouse hits with Gregory Peck, Cape Fear and the Oscar-nominated Guns of Navarone.  The script was adapted from the iconic Nikolay Gogol novel by two well regarded screenwriters, Waldo Salt, who would go on to win Oscars for Coming Home and Midnight Cowboy, and Karl Tunberg, who was one of the writers who worked on Ben Hur.  Tony Curtis was in the midst of a remarkable run of hits that included Some Like It Hot, Operation Petticoat, Spartacus and The Great Imposter.  And the title character, Taras Bulba himself, was played by Yul Brynner, the major box office star whose last big role was in the iconic western The Magnificent Seven.  

I also really appreciated that Taras Bulba focused on a time period and location in history that largely goes ignored in movies.  The story picks up in the 17th century Russian steppes.  The Cossacks, a fierce band of nomadic cavalry, ally with the Imperial Polish army to defeat the invading Ottoman Turks.  Instead of celebrating, the Polish army turns on their allies and uses the opportunity to conquer the steppe.  Taras Bulba, infuriated by the betrayal, vows to never rest until he has his revenge on the Poles.  Decades pass and some semblance of peace returns to the land.  Taras Bulba agrees to send his two sons Andrei (Tony Curtis) and Ostap (Perry Lopez, Chinatown) to be educated in Kiev - the goal being to learn more about the Polish so that information could be used in any upcoming war.  But instead of focusing on his studies, Andrei falls in love with the daughter of a local aristocrat, Natalia (Christine Kaufmann, Last Days of Pompeii).  And of course, we all know that is going to lead to all sorts of problems.  

But the biggest problem is that this movie kind of stinks.  No wonder it was considered such a disappointment, when there is this much talent behind the scenes and in front of the camera.  So what went wrong?  I think the biggest problem is the critical miscasting of Tony Curtis.  Never in a million years could I believe that the middle aged Tony Curtis could be the son of a middle aged Yul Brynner.  It makes all of their scenes together utterly ridiculous, whether it's their giddy wrestling matches or their bonding over upcoming battles.  I just can't get past it.  Whenever Curtis says, "yes, poppa" or "no, poppa" (which is often), I just roll my eyes.  But it's more than that.  I often read people criticizing Tony Curtis's performances in period films.  Though he made a lot of historical movies, critics these days really seem to prefer him in comedies or more contemporary material.  I've read reviews that joke that he has trouble hiding his New York accent or that his acting just isn't good enough compared to his co-stars.  I don't agree with that.  I found him to be very effective in both Spartacus and The Vikings.   But in Taras Bulba, all of those criticisms are completely justified.  He isn't even trying.  Everyone else seems to understand they are in a movie about Russian steppe in the 17th century, and Tony Curtis just strolls on in with his 1960s swagger and his 1960s haircut, and he tries to woo young Christine Kaufman with his 1960s charm.  He just sticks out like a sore thumb.  

It does not help that Christine Kaufman was 16 at the time, and Curtis was 37.  It also does not help that in real life, Curtis fell in love with Kaufman, shattering his marriage to Janet Leigh.  Curtis and Kaufman were married a few years later, when she turned 18.  I know it was a different time, but this really bothers me.  But this behind-the-scenes drama didn't ruin the love story in the film for me.  It ruins itself because it's just not well done.  I read about the romance after I had seen the film, and it just kind of made everything worse.  

At a certain point, the movie has to make a choice.  During post production, it became clear that the film was going to be too long.   So what to cut?  Do they can spend the time on Tony Curtis and his unbelievable love story, or should they focus more on Taras Bulba himself, who, you know, the movie is named after.  They chose Curtis, cutting many of Yul Brynner's scenes, infuriating the actor.  

Look, I don't want to lay the whole blame at Tony's Curtis' feet.  That's not fair.  And the bad decisions in this film were not his.  I put a lot of the blame on J. Lee Thompson, as well.  He was the captain of this ship and some of that oversight is just a mess.  He tried some editorial tricks to "modernize" the film, such as blurring out the sides of the frame whenever they do a closeup of Natalia, in a goofy way of representing Andrei's love for her, or the whiplash editing at a Cossack party that is more appropriate in a 1960s French sex farce.  That's not to mention the laughable special effects - some ridiculous rear projection that puts Curtis and Brynner in the center of the battles, or - spoiler alert - the rag dolls dressed as Polish soldiers that are thrown off "a cliff" at the film's climax.  You're telling me that with a budget this big, they couldn't afford more realistic looking rag dolls or an actual real cliff?

But most of all, the movie is a disappointment because this could have been something really cool.  The movie's setting is different and intriguing, Yul Brynner is amazing, and there are some moments in the movie that really are terrific - yes, even some including Tony Curtis (I really like the extended and genuinely tense sequence where he tries to infiltrate the Polish fortress).  And I have to give a special mention to the film's most famous scene - where the Cossacks are gathering their forces for battle.  Yul Brynner's Cossack band is riding in the steppes to glorious music by Franz Waxman, and at a certain point they see more Cossack horsemen in the distance; everyone yells a cheery hello and the bands join up and keep charging ahead as the music kicks it up another notch.  And then they run into another group, yell hello, join forces and the music kicks up yet another notch.  This keeps happening until thousands of horsemen are galloping through the plains to Waxman's blistering music, blinding columns of dust trailing behind them.  It. Is. So. Cool.  And gives a taste of what this movie could have and should have been.  

So is the movie really that bad?  No, to be fair, it's not.  It's a handsomely made picture and there is some good stuff in there.  This is not The Tartars.  But in some ways, it feels worse.  This is just a huge missed opportunity and a waste of a lot of talent.  Disappointment really is the best word for it.  

MVP:

The MVP for Taras Bulba is an easy choice.  I do want to give an honorable mention to Franz Waxman for the score.  Bernard Hermann, who composed Citizen Kane and Psycho said that Taras Bulba was the finest movie score ever written.  I would never say that, but that "Ride of the Cossacks" cue is easily one of the best cues ever composed.  It is just an immense and masterful piece of movie music magic.  That is not enough to put him in serious contention for MVP, but it's worth a mention. 

No, the MVP is easily Yul Brynner.  He connected deeply to the role and sank himself into it.  He loved this character and he embodies him to the point that you cannot imagine anyone else possibly playing the part.  When Brynner is on-screen, he utterly dominates the picture and everyone else pales in comparison to his forceful and at times emotional performance - which is what you want in your Taras Bulba.  This character should be a force of nature, and I still remain utterly baffled that the filmmakers muffled their greatest asset for huge portions of the movie's runtime, preferring to focus on Tony Curtis instead.  Oh, I'm sure the studio thought Tony Curtis would bring in a bigger box office.  I get it.  But they were wrong.  This should have been Yul Brynner's movie.  But even muzzled, he is still the MVP.

BEST LINE:

Taras Bulba: From the day I plunged you in the river to give you life, I loved you as I loved the Steppes.  You were my pride!  I gave you life.  It is on me to take it away from you.

TRIVIA:

Yul Brynner really did poured his heart into this character and this film.  And he was so disappointed by the result, that according to his son, Rock, he never again put himself into his film performances.  He would care about his craft on the stage, but movies were now just for the paycheck.  And you can see that in his filmography.  Before Taras Bulba, you have Ten Commandments, Anastasia, Magnificent Seven, The Brothers Karamasov, The Sound and the Fury, and his Oscar-winning performance in the King & I.   Not all of them were good, but they were all classy productions.  After Taras Bulba, it doesn't take long before he falls into material like Morituri, Invitation to a Gunfighter and Flight from Ashiya.  Sure, we have the iconic Westworld coming up in the 1973, but that was a blip on the radar that was followed by movies like The Ultimate Warrior and Death Rage.  Damn it, Taras Bulba, your greatest crime is that you broke Yul Brynner.  How many amazing performances in great movies did you cost us!?

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!