Tirante el Blanco

I have looked for a long time for this movie. But a great disappointment. Story has nothing with historical facts. Acting is terrible. During war scenes it is not possible to understand what is happening. Beauty of Esther Nubiola doesn't help to much. OK, costumes are very nice but not according to the tradition of that time.This movie can be much shorter then 122 minutes. I accept that a movie is not a history book, facts can be changed according to the point of the director but there should be a respect to the history. Or at the beginning it should be clearly indicated that the facts have nothing to do with the history. Movie is based on a story of 15th century but it is shot in 21th century. The director has forgotten this .

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.

Well, the story is based on the book "Tirant lo Blanc", written by Joanot Martorell in XIV century. Tirant is the best knight of Aragon Kingdom and must go to Constantinople to help the Emperor to fight against the Turkeys. There, he will fall in love with little princess Carmesina and will fight in the war. Unfortunately, things will not happen as our lovers like, as politics are between them. The movie is well done, the task of clothes and photography is very good, as the choice of actors and their acting. Unfortunately, as the movie focuses only in the bed aspects of court's live, the vision of the story is very partial (the story is not bad, but I think the director could have taken more profit of it), and, in addition, the war scenes are horrible. This is possibly due to lack of money, but, used to see Hollywood wars, the effect is terrible and disgusting. The material (the main book) is good, as the director, but the result could have been much better. I expected more of the director Vicente Aranda.

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.