1492 - La conquista del paradiso

Director Ridley Scott and writer Roselyne Bosch play fast and loose with historical accuracy in this white-washed telling of Christopher Columbus' adventures.

Rather than seeing the Columbus of history plundering other lands in search of gold while brutally enslaving and mass murdering the natives, we are presented with a kind, gentle, benign Columbus (portrayed by the surrealistically cast Gérard Depardieu) who's surrounded by unscrupulous characters. Scott's Columbus is an idealistic visionary who only wants "a new world," yet is a pawn caught between bad people doing bad things. Poor Columbus ... all he wants to do is explore.

Of course, this calls for *a lot* of historical revisionism for the screenplay, which re-arranges events and the instigators of them (atrocities are shifted to the work of others rather than Columbus, and for different reasons; otherwise, it's omitted from the story).

But why fictionalize history (reality is always more interesting) with this pabulum, and then pass it off as "history"? Either no research was done, or they intentionally fabricated the story; there is no other option.

"Life has more imagination than we carry in our dreams," we are told just before the closing credits. Indeed. Too bad the writer didn't follow this advice. The truth would have made far better drama.

I'll never forget reading about the making of 1492: Conquest of Paradise in my beloved biography Depardieu. Gérard, set to play Christopher Columbus in Ridley Scott's epic, studied English with a private tutor for months before filming, to try and wean him away from his famous accent. Then, during the scene when he learns of his voyage's destination, he storms through the room and declares, "My God! We leave in two weeks!" When you watch that scene, you'll find it hard to believe he worked so hard to take away his accent, since he sounds exactly like he always does. But, since I love him, I don't really care. To any critics, I offer the challenge to them to try and become fluent in a foreign language without any trace of an American accent, all in front of a movie camera.

At the end of the day, 1492 wasn't a success at the box office, but it's a very tricky subject to get right. Are you going to paint Columbus in a positive light? Are you going to focus on the voyage, the backstory, or his life in the New World? Is it going to be fictionalized, painfully truthful, or somewhere in between? If the latter, you can guarantee critics will rake your movie across the coals for being realistic in parts and glossing fiction over other parts. So, when you rent this movie, be open-minded. The movie won't please everyone, but even the most thorough history classes won't please everyone.

What you will get in 1492 is a very lush, beautifully filmed epic. The sets and interior design are very pretty and realistic, complete with natural-looking lighting. The outdoor environment, filmed on many different islands, looks as untouched by civilization as possible, and many scenes are quite interesting to see Columbus's adjustments to his surroundings. You'll also get to see France's most popular, talented actor in another larger-than-life role. Granted, he doesn't sound Italian, but many Americans don't care about specific accents; as long as he has one, they think he sounds foreign enough. Sigourney Weaver dons some beautiful gowns as Queen Isabel, and you'll also see Armand Assante, Fernando Rey, Tchéky Karyo, and Frank Langella in the supporting cast.

This film is not completely historically accurate, although it is fairly true to events. Some omissions are Columbus' mistress by which he had a second son, which is not even mentioned in the film, which tends to paint Columbus almost as a saintly figure. He was far from that. In addition to his infidelity, he was an advocate of Indian slavery, which is not mentioned in the film as well. Those miscues aside, the film is gorgeously shot, well-directed and acted, and the sense of the realities of the royal court appear to be fairly accurate. The film also fails to mention that Columbus took Indian prisoners away from their homes back to Spain against their will. The film is quite engaging, otherwise.

1492 was not an exciting movie, at times, even, it was boring. Not the usual Ridley Scott stuff. But it's all made up for by Vangelis' score. The main theme is a recognizable piece of music, so beautiful; and the rest of the score is enchanting. To tell the truth I wouldn't have liked this film so much, if it weren't for the music!

1492: Conquest of Paradise is directed by Ridley Scott and written by Roselyne Bosch. It stars Gerard Depardieu, Armand Assante, Fernando Rey, Sigourney Weaver, Michael Wincott and Tcheky Karyo. Music is scored by Vangelis and cinematography by Adrian Biddle.

"500 years ago, Spain was a nation gripped by fear and superstition, ruled by the crown and a ruthless inquisition that persecuted men for daring to dream. One man challenged this power. Driven by his sense of destiny he crossed the sea of darkness in search of honour, gold and the greater glory of God."

It barely made a dent at the box office, but neither did the other big Columbus release in 1992, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery. Meaning what? Both films are bad? Or that many went to see one that was bad and thought better than going to sit through another Columbus epic? Or maybe the topic, the anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World, just hadn't got the appeal that studios hoped for? All possible, but in the case of Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise, the lukewarm response is probably born out of it being a different kind of movie than that which was expected.

This is no rousing epic that's full of derring do and swagger, it's over talky for the non historical movie loving crowd, and crucially it goes against the grain of what Columbus, we are now led to believe, was like. It seems that Scott and Bosch were more happy to paint the famed explorer as a noble man of the people, a man of science, keeping his motives vague and his actions as dignified. With hindsight, it surely would have been more interesting to have had a Columbus picture portraying him as the self driven bastard he's been accused of being! I wonder how many more people would have paid to see that?

Film is not helped by Depardieu's performance as Columbus. Acting on direction of course, the restrained portrayal leaves the film without an heroic, passion fuelled edge, something that is badly needed in a film about such a momentous historical occasion. His fluctuating accent is also a nuisance. There's no doubting the professional performance the Frenchman gives, it's just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other cast members jostle for screen time with mixed results, but Assante, Karyo and Wincott are good value for money. But they, like Depardieu, pale in the shadow of Scott's aesthetics.

This is where the film is a real winner. From the medieval make over for a moody Spain; to the capturing of ships setting sail from Port of Palos under an orange sky; to the wide angled shooting of Costa Rica, Scott and Biddle delight the eyes. When Bosch's screenplay allows, Scott is able to construct some truly indelible sequences, with garrotings, flaming pyres and a village assault serving notice that all is not lost here. But these, along with an extended sequence of men in unison trying to erect a giant bell, only make us notice just how much of a wasted opportunity this was. While Vangelis' stirring score also has one hankering after a narrative with more momentum.

Big flaws and frustrating, but not a complete disaster for those armed with the knowledge that this is no rousing and devilish experience. 6/10