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!?

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments

What is the first movie you remember? For my generation, it was probably something like Star Wars, Willy Wonka, or one of the Disney cartoons. Is it weird that the first movie I remember is Ten Commandments? This probably explains my love of epics from a very early age, and also my tendency to be, err, over-dramatic from time to time. But seriously, my earliest cinematic memories are of this film and its epic grandeur. But I had not seen the film in at least 15 years, so when the Blu Ray arrived, I was a bit worried. Even in my memory, I could look back and see how cheesy the movie was in some places, how ridiculous, and over-the-top. I was a bit worried about confirming all that when I re-watched the movie, and potentially ruining a childhood memory.

Having now watched it again, I can confirm that The Ten Commandments is indeed cheesy, ridiculous, and over-the-top. And yet, in spite of that - or maybe because of it - The Ten Commandments works. It is actually deserving of both its reputations, as one of cinema's greatest epics, and also has one of the greatest cheesy films ever. It is rare that the film succeeds at both so brilliantly.

For those who don't know the story: In Ancient Egypt, omens alert the priests that a prophet is coming who would someday free the Hebrew slaves of Goshen. Taking no chances, Pharoah orders all the Jewish newborns killed. One mother rescues her own son by setting him in a basket on the Nile, hoping he will float to safety. Fate brings his basket to the palace, where he is picked up by Pharoah's daughter (Nina Foch, Spartacus), who is conveniently infertile and decides to raise the baby as her own, naming him Moses. Moses (played as an adult by Charlton Heston from Ben Hur) is brought up as an Egyptian prince and even becomes a rival to Pharoah's son, Rameses (Yul Brynner, The King and I). He is certainly favored by the current Pharoah (Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Suspicion) and his ward Nefertiri (Anne Baxter, All About Eve), who likes to over-dramatically swoon whenever Moses' name is mentioned.

Of course, Moses discovers his true heritage and this leads him on his path to becoming the spokesman of God, leading him to confront the Egyptians for his people's freedom and acting as the conduit for all sorts of miracles, including the awe-inspiring parting of the Red Sea.

Named as one of AFI's Top Ten Epics, The Ten Commandments certainly lives up to the word. Everything about this movie is Big, with a capital B. The sets are expansive, the costumes glorious, the music score by Elmer Bernstein is massive, and there are over 10,000 extras in the film. Yeah, you read that right. 10,000! Like all epics, the running time is a bit on the long side, as well, but I think it is a testament to DeMille's direction that the film never really feels slow. He keeps things moving at a lively pace, especially in the first half.

When talking about what makes The Ten Commandments entertaining, you also can't underestimate the cheese factor. The cheese is just as epic as the rest of the movie. The most hilarious example for me is in the physical acting. DeMille instructed his actors to not act naturally, but to be very theatrical. And I am assuming he ordered them all to pose constantly. It is incredible to watch almost every line reading in the film accompanied by arms being crossed, an arching of the back, or a foot dramatically lifting onto a step. This would make a wonderful drinking game!

Even the piety is The Ten Commandments is cheesy. Most religious epics bog down when religion enters the picture - those scenes always become overly talky and deadly serious - perhaps because filmmakers were worried about upsetting parents. A good example of this is The Robe, which moves along at a good pace until Richard Burton sneaks into the woods and watches a church gathering that seems to go for seventeen hours. Then St. Peter joins the group and proceeds to give a speech that I think is about as long as the Bible itself. In contrast, the piety of The Ten Commandments is more of the over-the-top variety - when Moses parts the Red Sea, an old man yells, "God opens the sea with a blast of his nostrils!"

In fairness, not all the religious stuff is silly. Some of it is indeed serious, but DeMille keeps these moments focused, character-driven, and not overly preachy - which I think is a big reason why The Ten Commandments is still watched by everyone, while films like The Robe and Quo Vadis are only seen by fans of the genre. There is also a more subtle religious thread in the film - I got the impression that both Moses and Rameses are atheists in the beginning. There seems to be a bit of cynicism when faith is mentioned and a lot of lines include something like, "if there is a God." Most intriguing and ironic to me is that later in the film, it is the strength of Moses' newfound faith that eventually pushes Rameses to start believing in his own gods. That's interesting material, and deeper than I would have expected.

Not to say The Ten Commandments doesn't have its problems. Despite the fact that all the memorable scenes are in the second half of the film, I feel this is when the movie begins to break down, narratively. The first half is terrific, focusing on Moses' years as an Egyptian prince. As I mentioned before, the pace is smooth and moves along briskly, leading all the way to when Moses finds the Burning Bush. 

Then we have intermission. And then I'm not sure what happens. I think DeMille loses interest in showing a story. Instead, he fills in narrative gaps with badly written narration, that he delivers himself in flowery and over-the-top language. DeMille may be a fine director, but he should not be narrating. The bouncing around certainly hurts the all important confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh - Brynner and Heston exchange their lines with powerful gusto, but the plot at this point leaves me with so many questions that I am distracted from their awesome fury. There are some basic common sense questions: Why do the Egyptians keep letting this guy just waltz into the palace? Aren't there guards? After continuously embarrassing Pharaoh in front of his court and his son, don't you think they would stop letting him in? The most egregious example of this is when Pharaoh enters part of his palace to perform a religious rite and Moses is already in there, waiting for him, posing melodramatically. How the heck did he get there?!

The problem is there is no narrative flow. We just bounce from iconic moment to iconic moment to iconic moment. While these scenes in of themselves work really well, it kills the storyline. And having DeMille bridging the gap by saying, "and then Moses went up the mountain and the people freaked out and decided to build a golden calf" doesn't work. That's not drama. That's a Sunday School lecture.

What salvages the second half is the Epicness. The costumes, the cast of thousands, and especially the committed performances by a great cast all see us through the spotty storytelling and carry us triumphantly to the end.

All in all, The Ten Commandments may not be perfect, but my childhood memories are not damaged in the least. I now notice all the flaws in the film, but I also recognize what makes it great. I would recommend you revisit it. You will laugh because of the cheese, but you'll also be impressed by the sheer Epicness of it all. It is definitely one of the classics.

BEST LINE:

At some point, said by almost everyone in the film: "So let it be written. So let it be done."

MVP:

I know it should be DeMille or Heston, but I can't help it - Yul Brynner is my MVP. Even as a kid, I was amazed by the performance. He is a superb villain - cocky, powerful, devious. Most importantly, he never gets blown off the screen by Heston's righteous fury, which can be overwhelming. Rameses vs. Moses needs to be a confrontation of titans, two stubborn and powerful men who will not yield. That is where the drama comes from, and if Rameses had been any weaker, the film would not have worked.

There are also other reasons why Brynner gets the win. He does the best job of handling the hammy lines, for one thing. Every actor has at least one line that they can't save despite their best efforts (the best example being Baxter's "Moses, Moses, you stubborn, splendid, adorable fool!"). Since he needs to be petty and conniving, Brynner is saddled with a dozen of these lines and each one comes out believable and awesome. It's only later that you notice that, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right!" Combine that with the fact that Brynner also gets many of the movie's best lines, plus an excellent character arc that Brynner nails, and some of the movie's best costumes, and you have a clear MVP.

I know everyone points to The King and I or The Magnificent Seven as Brynner's best work, but they should revisit his role here - he really is one of epic cinema's awesome bad guys.

OSCARS: Best Special Effects

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Sound Recording.

TRIVIA:

Oh, where to begin? This movie is full of interesting trivia. I think a cool one might be that Audrey Hepburn almost played Nefertiri, but some studio exec thought she was too skinny for the part. I think this actually worked out for the best. I love Hepburn, but I think she probably would have played the role straight and Nefertiri needs to have a little crazy hamminess to her - something Baxter had a lot of fun with. I suppose the other problem would be that if Moses had rejected a Nefertiri played by the luminous Hepburn, the audience would have never forgiven him - making Moses the bad guy in his own movie!!! That's my two cents...