You think upon what is to come, and imagine fearsome things that would stop the blood of any man. Do not think ahead, and be cheerful by knowing that no man lives forever.
--Eaters of the Dead, Michael Crichton
I have to say I'm not a huge fan of the film. It has its rousing moments, awesome pre-battle speeches, and a couple epic scenes, but drags in other places. It has a bit of a "talky" introduction, too much telling and not enough showing, though this works better in the 1976 novel on which its based, Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead. The filming was beset with difficulties; Crichton came on for a script rewrite and took over as director, firing John McTiernan—but reportedly was happy with the end result. McTiernan disputes much of this.
The film was a financial flop but has earned a bit of cult status, especially among fans of sword-and-sorcery.
I liked the film well enough upon rewatch but remain a bigger fan of the book, which IMO does a better job addressing the theme of the past as a different place.
We have too schools of thought: One is that people are people, and only the times and technology and education, etc. are different. And I do think there is such a thing as a fundamental human nature—that we are social, that we are fundamentally good, curious, etc.
But a second school says that the past (especially the deep past) was a different country.
As I state at one point in the podcast I think some modern S&S and other writers get this aspect wrong, with characters behaving like a 21st century man or woman would in certain circumstances. And I get it; these are fantasies, so historical verisimilitude is not necessarily the main objective. But if for example you believe that fate is inexorable, that there is a Valhalla awaiting the brave you will behave much differently than Joe Schmoe walking down Broadway in 2024. Death in the Viking Age was not nearly as traumatizing and all-encompassing as it is today. Death in combat was a celebration; young women willingly submitted to ritual execution by an “Angel of Death” to accompany a fallen chieftain on the other side.
Their general acceptance of death so fully and without remorse, and disdain of fear, explains why the Northmen could go a-Viking, and kill and pillage and take slaves and hold their own lives lightly.
Today we recoil from such behavior but it makes for truly fantastic writing (i.e., displacement from the real).
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the episode.
4 comments:
Haven't seen the 13th Warrior.
There is definitely a baseline human nature (though I don't think people are fundamentally good is part of that. There's too much atrocity in human history.) The thing is that there is much variation in outlook through out history. The Vikings held their lives cheaply. So did the Samurai. There may even be a kind of virtue in that in so far as it can give courage in dangerous situations, though both Viking and Samurai were very bloody handed.
I think people particularly today are bad at confronting the latter fact.
For decades, PLANET OF THE APES was my all-time favorite movie.
Over the past decade, THE 13TH WARRIOR has risen to the top.
I want THE ADVENTURES OF HERGER THE JOYOUS!
Matthew: I think its worth watching, there's enough good bits in it and atmosphere to override the weaknesses.
I do agree that humans are flawed and many/most are capable of terrible violence, I just think there is enough evidence around me to suggest our baseline is good. Don't disagree that atrocity is ongoing (Ukraine v. Russia). To paraphrase a wise man (JRRT), evil is never defeated, it just assumes new forms.
Paul: Wow, your favorite? I hope we did it justice on the podcast. Agreed we do need a dedicated Herger flick. He really was (aside from Ibn Fadlan) the best character among the 13.
I hope we did it justice on the podcast.
Oh, it's not like I hold it sacred or anything. I just hits my personal vibe. Anyone's else mileage can--and probably does--vary.
Post a Comment