Not Quite a Review of Alatriste
Sep. 24th, 2006 05:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
history_gurlWell, it's been just over a week since I saw Alatriste. I figured I might jot down some of my reactions and thoughts.
WARNING: This is spoilery. Although I'll try to keep it general, it will give away some of the plot points of the movie. Really though, you should see it anyway. Yes, I mean all of you. Because I said so!
First, the story, or what I like to think of as the overallness of the movie. It covers a long period of time, as the film condenses approximately four of Perez Reverte's novels. Thankfully, they give you a timeline. You know, "10 years later, Madrid" kinda thing. While I don't often like that type of direction, it works for this film to keep things in context. It also makes it easier to realize that there are time gaps even when not noted.
So, it covers a lot of ground, temporally and spatially, taking you from Flanders, to Madrid, to France, and points in between. And it covers a lot of emotional ground, from victory, to defeat, to cynicism, to heartbreak. And it takes about two and a half hours to do so. But it is worth it. And while I know this wasn't in anyway a helpful synopsis, I'm trying to stay general here, people. So, on to the details … sorta.
The Look: From what I understand, the director, Augustin Diaz Yanes, was an art history prof for years before getting into film making. It shows. The whole film looks like a Velazquez painting. The colours are lush, yet subdued. The palette is mostly in the earth tones, with those lovely terra cotta and almost sepia tones that most of us associate with Spain. Yet, the battle scenes are drawn in starker, grimmer detail, with lots of blacks and greys. Overall, it seems authentic and still beautiful.
The History: Speaking as an historian/history buff/student of history/whatever the hell I am, this is an area where movies often let me down. This one didn't. There is an attention to detail that makes a world of difference. Little things, like having the men work to keep their wicks lit so they can fire their guns. Or ensuring that the fighting style, with saber and main gauche, is authentic. Or the use of a fighting square, with pikes, against cavalry. Or … well, you get the picture. But the big things are important too, and you get that with this movie. The sense of the strict caste system in place in Spain at that time. The sense of politics on the grand stage that haunts the lives of regular people. So, yeah, it hit my history kinks hard.
The Characters: Each of the main characters is sharply drawn and well developed, and even the minor characters don't degrade into caricatures. At the core of all the characters is a fundamental pragmatism that reflects the reality in which they lived. Alatriste is a soldier, a strong man who is faithful and loyal to his friends, and those who employ him, while being capable of less than moral acts to either fulfill his duty, or take of his family. The grandees of Spain, including the King, are self-absorbed but devoted to their Empire. Alatriste's lover is married to a constable because she knows that she could not be a single woman on the stage, while her husband knows she takes lovers. They remain together not out of love, but because it is practical.
That Pragmatism: This is the underlying joy of the film for me. They all make choices because they need to. Set during the Inquisition, the Church is shown as neither all powerful, nor as a subject of derision. Rather, most characters profess faith to protect themselves, but have their true belief rooted in the people they know they can trust, like other soldiers. These people know their place, they know who they are, and they do what they must to survive, and that thrills me more than a perfect hero saving the day on a white charger.
Okay, so, that was much longer than I thought it would be. In fact, I could likely make three or four more posts and still not say everything. But I'll save you all from that and stop now.
WARNING: This is spoilery. Although I'll try to keep it general, it will give away some of the plot points of the movie. Really though, you should see it anyway. Yes, I mean all of you. Because I said so!
First, the story, or what I like to think of as the overallness of the movie. It covers a long period of time, as the film condenses approximately four of Perez Reverte's novels. Thankfully, they give you a timeline. You know, "10 years later, Madrid" kinda thing. While I don't often like that type of direction, it works for this film to keep things in context. It also makes it easier to realize that there are time gaps even when not noted.
So, it covers a lot of ground, temporally and spatially, taking you from Flanders, to Madrid, to France, and points in between. And it covers a lot of emotional ground, from victory, to defeat, to cynicism, to heartbreak. And it takes about two and a half hours to do so. But it is worth it. And while I know this wasn't in anyway a helpful synopsis, I'm trying to stay general here, people. So, on to the details … sorta.
The Look: From what I understand, the director, Augustin Diaz Yanes, was an art history prof for years before getting into film making. It shows. The whole film looks like a Velazquez painting. The colours are lush, yet subdued. The palette is mostly in the earth tones, with those lovely terra cotta and almost sepia tones that most of us associate with Spain. Yet, the battle scenes are drawn in starker, grimmer detail, with lots of blacks and greys. Overall, it seems authentic and still beautiful.
The History: Speaking as an historian/history buff/student of history/whatever the hell I am, this is an area where movies often let me down. This one didn't. There is an attention to detail that makes a world of difference. Little things, like having the men work to keep their wicks lit so they can fire their guns. Or ensuring that the fighting style, with saber and main gauche, is authentic. Or the use of a fighting square, with pikes, against cavalry. Or … well, you get the picture. But the big things are important too, and you get that with this movie. The sense of the strict caste system in place in Spain at that time. The sense of politics on the grand stage that haunts the lives of regular people. So, yeah, it hit my history kinks hard.
The Characters: Each of the main characters is sharply drawn and well developed, and even the minor characters don't degrade into caricatures. At the core of all the characters is a fundamental pragmatism that reflects the reality in which they lived. Alatriste is a soldier, a strong man who is faithful and loyal to his friends, and those who employ him, while being capable of less than moral acts to either fulfill his duty, or take of his family. The grandees of Spain, including the King, are self-absorbed but devoted to their Empire. Alatriste's lover is married to a constable because she knows that she could not be a single woman on the stage, while her husband knows she takes lovers. They remain together not out of love, but because it is practical.
That Pragmatism: This is the underlying joy of the film for me. They all make choices because they need to. Set during the Inquisition, the Church is shown as neither all powerful, nor as a subject of derision. Rather, most characters profess faith to protect themselves, but have their true belief rooted in the people they know they can trust, like other soldiers. These people know their place, they know who they are, and they do what they must to survive, and that thrills me more than a perfect hero saving the day on a white charger.
Okay, so, that was much longer than I thought it would be. In fact, I could likely make three or four more posts and still not say everything. But I'll save you all from that and stop now.
