Post by drystyx on Nov 1, 2017 17:18:06 GMT
When I think of this film, "awesome" is the word that comes to mind. There is just too much going for it to say in less than a thousand words.
But in a nutshell, this midieval (try spelling that in a way that spell check won't act like a punk), this midieval action thriller is based more on "characters" than anything else. There are a lot of great films from the Dark Ages: THE NAME OF THE ROSE, THE RECKONING, PRINCE OF FOXES, to name a few, but almost none explore so many characters in depth as much as this film. And as the modern day de Mille, Verhoeven takes his place as one of the ten superior directors of all time (I may some day tell who the other eight are, but they aren't the ones heralded by the monkeys of Imdb.
When one speaks of "hero" and "villain", one usually gets some semblance of that, but here there is none. In fact, the one usually regarded as the villain (Rutger as Martin) is much more the hero until the finale when he tries to kill a woman.
The real heroes of this piece, on both sides, are actually more minor characters. Four of them, in fact. One on the side of the aristocracy, called Hawkwood, who is an actual person, is the one most will follow along with on that side. On Martin's side, there is a veteran soldier willing to marry a woman Martin got pregnant, who is a bit of a hero sort, but the two that most people, even we who are total heterosexuals, will empathize with the most, are the two homosexual soldiers who show the most sanity and team spirit, in the entire film.
The difference between blue blooded survival and survival among the peasantry, is shown in great detail. The low life ones survive with extra strength, agility, beauty, animal superiority, while the aristocrats simply are given their dues. Note that the heroine, a blue blood, and her maid, who live in the upper class world, are the two homeliest women in the entire film, yet Martin wants her over the more beautiful women in his entourage, because she is a blue blood, something that is "socially acceptable". This is intentional on the part of Verhoeven, of course. And he demonstrates it well, yet most people still don't get it.
One more bit that is usually missed, the cardinal. In the dark ages, cardinals were not what they are today. They were war lords as much as anything. They were a true "estate", the church. It wasn't anything to do with Jesus, except in using a name as an excuse, a blind excuse. Martin and the other soldiers, as mercenaries, were actually part of the cardinal's private army, or "body guards" as one might say today. The cardinal could come upon any manor, and his brutes could force peasants to give them whatever the "church" wanted, provided it wasn't first taken by the knights. They were pretty even with knights on the pecking order, however.
The cardinal provides a look at the way the church had nothing to do with Christianity or even the New Testament, which is a good reason why the papacy refused to let the common people read the Bible. The Bible was quite literally "sabotaged" as was Christianity. The cardinal of the film is apparently on the verge of losing some status, and he manufactures reasons to keep his status. Remember, the cardinals at this time were not Christians by any definition. They were mercantile warlords on a par with the knights.
Indeed, I could go on for pages on what this film gives us. Enough to say it is a 10/10 master piece, which is saying a whole lot when one speaks of Verhoeven. The funny man would buy this film for two dollars.
But in a nutshell, this midieval (try spelling that in a way that spell check won't act like a punk), this midieval action thriller is based more on "characters" than anything else. There are a lot of great films from the Dark Ages: THE NAME OF THE ROSE, THE RECKONING, PRINCE OF FOXES, to name a few, but almost none explore so many characters in depth as much as this film. And as the modern day de Mille, Verhoeven takes his place as one of the ten superior directors of all time (I may some day tell who the other eight are, but they aren't the ones heralded by the monkeys of Imdb.
When one speaks of "hero" and "villain", one usually gets some semblance of that, but here there is none. In fact, the one usually regarded as the villain (Rutger as Martin) is much more the hero until the finale when he tries to kill a woman.
The real heroes of this piece, on both sides, are actually more minor characters. Four of them, in fact. One on the side of the aristocracy, called Hawkwood, who is an actual person, is the one most will follow along with on that side. On Martin's side, there is a veteran soldier willing to marry a woman Martin got pregnant, who is a bit of a hero sort, but the two that most people, even we who are total heterosexuals, will empathize with the most, are the two homosexual soldiers who show the most sanity and team spirit, in the entire film.
The difference between blue blooded survival and survival among the peasantry, is shown in great detail. The low life ones survive with extra strength, agility, beauty, animal superiority, while the aristocrats simply are given their dues. Note that the heroine, a blue blood, and her maid, who live in the upper class world, are the two homeliest women in the entire film, yet Martin wants her over the more beautiful women in his entourage, because she is a blue blood, something that is "socially acceptable". This is intentional on the part of Verhoeven, of course. And he demonstrates it well, yet most people still don't get it.
One more bit that is usually missed, the cardinal. In the dark ages, cardinals were not what they are today. They were war lords as much as anything. They were a true "estate", the church. It wasn't anything to do with Jesus, except in using a name as an excuse, a blind excuse. Martin and the other soldiers, as mercenaries, were actually part of the cardinal's private army, or "body guards" as one might say today. The cardinal could come upon any manor, and his brutes could force peasants to give them whatever the "church" wanted, provided it wasn't first taken by the knights. They were pretty even with knights on the pecking order, however.
The cardinal provides a look at the way the church had nothing to do with Christianity or even the New Testament, which is a good reason why the papacy refused to let the common people read the Bible. The Bible was quite literally "sabotaged" as was Christianity. The cardinal of the film is apparently on the verge of losing some status, and he manufactures reasons to keep his status. Remember, the cardinals at this time were not Christians by any definition. They were mercantile warlords on a par with the knights.
Indeed, I could go on for pages on what this film gives us. Enough to say it is a 10/10 master piece, which is saying a whole lot when one speaks of Verhoeven. The funny man would buy this film for two dollars.
heterosexual fool feel comfortable in society. That said, yes, Flesh & Blood is a keeper and the lines get blurred in many aspects regarding the characters motivations and they are what drive this gory, bloody, dirty, sleazy, morally ambivalent, yet ultimately glorious medieval epic to it's violent conclusion.