Tirante el Blanco

Magnificent costumes, dramatic locations, stirring music and elaborate sets for a tale of bravery and treachery, sex romps and romance among the lost splendours of Byzantium, under attack from the Turks in the 1400s.

The handsome and gallant knight Tirant (Casper Zafer), placed in charge of the armies of the Emperor (Giancarlo Giannini), hopes also to win his lovely daughter Carmesina (Esther Nubiola), who is willing in theory but hesitant in practice. The ladies of the court are full of wiles, both political and sexual, and a faction want to give her to the Turkish sultan (Rafael Amargo).

So the scene is set for battles under arms, battles of plot and counter-plot and many amorous battles around and in beds, involving lots of nudity and lively sex. Even the sardonic Empress (Jane Asher, who must have been pushing pension age but still looks lovely) strips off and seduces a handsome young squire (Sid Mitchell), muttering to her mirror that he could be her grandson.

Why isn't everybody entranced by the lush spectacle and adventurous story? I think the main reason is that to the ears of English speakers both the actual dialogue and the delivery of the dubbed speech often does not convince. Sometimes it is mock-medieval, which is very dangerous to write unless one's touch is perfect, and sometimes just uninspired. Ironically, it might work better in Spanish with subtitles.

Tirant lo Blanc is a brilliant satire on the conceits of European knighthood, as well as the absurdities of the Byzantine empire which were responsible for its paralysis and downfall. Many who have seen the film seem to have missed this point, probably due to the fact that the satire is entirely solemn and straight-faced, as it should be. The knights and the Byzantine court nobles do take themselves very seriously, but the audience gets to see them for what they are (just as readers of the book do.) It's a lush and lavish film full of surprises;Tirant's absurd courtly love for the shallow, vain Princess Camesina, the doddering old Emperor reduced to entrusting the defense of his country to a foreigner, the lusty cougar Empress who can't wait to bargain away her daughter, even to the infidel Turk, and the lover who is young enough to be her grandson!-these are some of the characters you'll meet. The ladies of the court are very active schemers and plotters in the course of events, culminating in the incredible sight of Tirant forced to lead his knights into battle when he has two broken legs suffered from a fall incurred while attempting to breach the princess' bedchamber.

Of course it's not the book, but what screen adaptation ever is? There's no way a work of over 800 pages and full of digressions can be adequately condensed into a two-hour film. As some people have said in the Message Boards section, we should be grateful that the film will make this neglected masterpiece known to a wider audience.

So Aranda does what so many other screenwriters have done in the circumstances: chooses one incident or aspect out of a multitude, elaborates on that and tries to remain faithful to the spirit of the book. But does he remain faithful? That's the trouble. Certainly there's a love story with sensuality in the Tirant and not the platonic stuff of other mediaeval romances, but Aranda piles on the sex until it becomes a bawdy romp. It's a pity that people will get the impression the whole book is like that.

That said, the acting is good, the hero is handsome, the heroine is delicious dressed and undressed, Yvonne Blake's costume designs are truly gorgeous, and the film has humour - in fact it could be classed as a romantic comedy. I especially liked the ending, but no spoilers! You can also learn a bit of romanticised history about the Turks and the end of the Byzantine Empire. (Tirant goes to Constantinople to defend it, but truth is that Constantinople had already fallen before the book was written.)

A special tribute to the dubbers is in order. I saw the version in Valencian, and the dubbing was so perfect that it could well have been the original.

This film is unwatchable. I tried twice. I love stories like this, so was willing to give it a look. The costumes are spectacular. The acting is truly horrible across the board. It begins with the hero we see, who when he finally speaks has the squeaky high pitched voice of an obnoxious child. This is followed by a meeting with the king, and he is dressed to the nines. Immaculate and awesome king clothes. The actor stuffed inside of them must have been a relative of the director or an investor. His acting is that of one who has no idea, no idea at all. Given the spectacular sets and costumes, somebody had some money. Sometimes a film is just to bad to coherently review. The work that went into the sets and costumes makes the poor direction and acting confusing. You keep wanting to give it a chance because it looks delicious. I couldn't.

War between Constantinopolis and the Turks; a good looking Christian warrior and lustful damsels; and castle intrigues. Good elements for an adventure and love story. Package this with a rich production, luscious imagery, elaborate carnivalesque costumes, and famous actors. Sounds good? Alas, this titanic effort meets its iceberg in the form of dumb and Disneyesque bombastic dialog. The intellectual level is that of children, though young teens may find pleasure in the action. I could tolerate such dumbing down for just an hour. A wasted evening.

I felt sad for Giancarlo Gianini, an actor for which I have great admiration. To see him in such a wreck! I guess the pay must have been good. He redeemed himself when, after one bit of shaggy-dog dialog, he looks askance at the perpetrator of the utterance with a disgust filled sneer. Yes, Giancarlo, that the way I felt throughout the time I endured this albatross.