claudelalande

This movie is both educational and well done. It made me look into the real story that inspired Melville's Moby Dick. It has good production value and tells a compelling story that keeps you watching. It may take some liberties with the historical facts, but is for the most part true to what is known of the real story. The characters are not shallow, but live through plausible emotions. Ron Howard directs his actors, and the whole production with his usual highly competent skills; he may not be a genius of the 7th art, but he will be remembered as an important director of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Overall, I am glad to have seen it and followed up on reading about the historical accounts behind the movie. I was very pleasantly surprised.

The first time I saw the movie, after a brilliant opening, I felt somewhat disappointed to see that it was a play within a movie. The more I saw it, however, the more I appreciated the original treatment of this biography. It is, first and foremost, a beautiful movie, both for its photography, historical recreation and the great music. The contrast between the modern and historical periods made possible by the "play within a movie" treatment is actually very interesting. The character played by Simon Callow performs research on the life and times of Purcell, while commenting on our own times. John Elliot Gardiner conducts the baroque orchestra and singers with energy, and the result is first class. I saw and recorded this movie on videotape in the 1990's, and the tape is wearing thin. I am delighted this jewel has finally been released on DVD in 2007.

The acting is awful, especially Brad Pitt who just postures around. The special effects do not save this movie. The worst insult, though, in this day and age, the beginning of the 21st century, is the perversion of facts through sheer homophobia. Achilles is drawn back into fighting because Hector killed Patroclus. Patroclus was his lover, not his "cousin", as it is repeated every time the character is mentioned. I could understand that a 1950's epic would somewhat obscure the fact that Achilles was gay or bisexual. Nowadays, it is unacceptable. It is not glossed over, but the lie is reinforced at every opportunity, which makes me believe it is not puritanism, but open homophobia. There are other historical inaccuracies, as in many movies, introduced for dramatic purposes. This doesn't hold water here: wouldn't it be more dramatic if Achilles returned to fighting to avenge his lover, not his "cousin"?