Drama
Budget: $47,000,000
The central historical message of this film was the Hollywood depiction of Columbus and his search for the new world. Released in 1992, the film was created to celebrate to 500th anniversary of the great discover that was made. It overall shows the struggle of the new world and the effect that the Europeans had on the original inhabitants. The film weakly attempts achieving any sort of historical accuracy. The main cast of the movie is Gerard Depardieu, Armand Assante and Sigourney Weaver.
The film was directed by Ridley Scott and written by Rose Bosch. The film had an extremely large budget however only brought back in around $7 million. It was produced by Gaumont, Legende Films and France 3 Cinema.
The main points very closely followed the actual story of Columbus, however when it came to the actual details and historical accuracy, it was lacking. The film starts out with Columbus wanting to explore into Asia however he did not have a boat or a crew. Eventually, as history tells us, he is able to explore, gets lost and then finds his way into the new world.
The film was created in 1992 and it clearly shows that many people have a false idea of what actually happened in the discovery. Based on actual information from the diaries of Columbus, people have a general understanding of the history. However, even though the creators of the movie had access to these journals, some things still were not correct. The look of the film as well as the editing was actually something that was very positive in this film. However, when it comes down to establishing if a historical movie is "good" or not, historical accuracy must prevail. Another thing that really made this film something that was rather unenjoyable was the casting and the character story line. Even though the film was very long, there was no actual character development created.
Now, let's discuss the juicy part that everyone really cares about; was Columbus actually shown as a man that ruins the lives of the original inhabitants or was it a white washed version of history. To be frank, the movie very seldom followed the actual details of what happened. First, looking at the boats and how Columbus sailed to the new world. The entire film Columbus had three ships. Which was actually not the case according to Columbus' journals. There were actually 2 ships on the majority of the voyage because the Santa Maria sunk near Christmas time in 1492. However, the movie does not mention that at all. Next, let's discuss the other main thing that I noticed; the arrival of Columbus. In the film, Columbus is going through the land and then eventually is approached by natives that have all kinds of weapons. He then tells the natives that they come in peace. This is not only false in terms of them coming in peace, but also, that never happened. In the journals Columbus clearly states that he had to show the natives weapons and teach them about what weapons were.
Therefore, with all of these things considered, I would have to rate this movie fairly low. Overall, it did not really have any depth to it that was true. This is something important for a historical film. If I had to rate it out of 10, I would give it a 3... maybe.
1. Paramount Pictures ; directed by Ridley Scott. 1492 : Conquest Of Paradise. Hollywood, CA :Paramount Pictures, 1993. Print.
2. Columbus, Christopher. The Journal of Christopher Columbus. London :Blond, 1968. Print.
3. John McKay, Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, et al. A History of Western Society, Vol. 2: Concise Version, 12th edition (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016)
It's sad to see how much money went into making such a crappy movie, and how little revenue the movie brought back in. The worst part is that usually if a movie doesn't follow history directly it at least is a good movie to watch, this one failed on both accounts.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Emma on the fact that this movie had such a large budget, to only make back such a small portion. You'd think with spending so much money on a movie that it would be pretty high quality work, but I guess that isn't the case here! Also, it's frustrating that a movie that is supposed to be about history fails to follow the timeline exactly, which you would think would be the first priority in making a movie. That's disappointing that the movie was so poor, maybe they'll make another movie to celebrate the anniversary another 500 years from when this movie was made, on the 1000th anniversary. Our future great-great(and a few more great) grand children are depending on this one.
ReplyDeleteI have actually seen this movie before...well, part of it, as I fell asleep halfway through. I absolutely agree that the characters were never well developed. We got a baseline of who they were, but never a true backstory. It goes to say something about historical movies though. As most never truly follow the correct story. We are forced to sit and watch Hollywood's interpretation of it, thinking that if they make it more dramatic, they will gain more money. Which clearly, this film indicates that, that is not always the case. It relates over to movies involving slavery. While movies claim to follow the story behind a slave's journey, 9 out of 10 times, that isn't the case. Instead, we get to see snippets of their lives, while the movie focuses on white people, more heavily. Such as the movie "Django Unchained". We're SUPPOSED to see the story of Django becoming freed and making his way back to his wife. In all reality we are hit with the story of a European buying Django's freedom, but still considering and using him as a slave to help find people that he is after. I personally think that Hollywood, even in today's movies, needs to take a step back and realize they are putting false stories out, instead of the correct, historical depiction of them.
ReplyDeleteI am all for the correct interpretations; it's a hard struggle between history and popular entertainment. Seeing the way in which history and popular entertainment is different is so important!
ReplyDeleteFunny story: I didn't learn that the Santa Maria had sunk until I read your review, and I'm a history major. Also, so sad to see Ridley Scott's career slowly going down. I'm a huge fan of Alien and Aliens. But I have to wonder if any big studio would ever be willing to produce a big budget, accurate telling of the journey of Columbus. I feel like the controversy it would inevitably spark, as well as the tagline of "The story... how it ACTUALLY happened!" would both outweigh any risks in terms of marketing it might involve by producing such an "against the grain" movie.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how when I was in elementary school they taught about Columbus as if he was some kind of hero. They never mentioned what actually happened. When I learned the truth about the voyage, not only was I shocked that I was basically outright lied to, but that I even believed the other story in the first place. History has shown the same kind of story happening time and time again, which is definitely not what this movie showed and what was taught in primary year schooling.
ReplyDelete