1492: A Conquista do Paraíso

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

Yes, too long, too boring, too much license on the culture, and the characters aren't very believable. Also very surprising how it can be so outrageously kind to Columbus since this film was produced at a time when politically correct forces were raking the guy into infamy. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the music was beautiful. Maybe too much so. A inconspicuously second-rate score might have been more appropriate.

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!

1992 marked the 500th anniversary of the 'discovery' of the Americas.

It meant there were a plethora of documentaries and articles on Columbus. Some were critical that he discovered a continent that already had 1 million people living there.

Others suggested that the Americas might had been discovered by others before. Also Columbus found the wrong place as he thought it was India.

Ultimately many of the original inhabitants of the continent suffered from his discovery.

1492 from Ridley Scott tries to makes sense of these contradictions. It is a gloriously flawed film that has great art direction, production and music.

A multinational cast with Depardieu speaking his lines with a heavy French accent but bringing presence. Scott scored with his supporting cast of villains, all of them hiss-able as vipers on the head of Medusa. You know early on things are going to turn ugly for the native in the new world.

Scott likes his history, he admires Islamic history and you see it early on when it comes to the Reconquista. When Moorish structures are destroyed and lost forever, it shows that the Spanish aristocrats were not appreciative of the arts and noble causes.

They only care about the monarchy, church and gold.

Columbus is painted as a romantic adventurer, misguided even naive.

Depardieu cannot quiet hold the film together, frankly his English is not good enough. It is still a bold attempt at filmmaking but we lack the real, more complex and a more greedy Columbus.

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.