Ivanhoe

I first came in contact with Sir Walter Scott's famed romance, Ivanhoe, through an animated version shown around the holidays. I fell in love with the story (mostly due to the inclusion of Robin Hood) and leapt at the chance to view any version of it, as well as read the original novel. The 1952 version was interesting, but not very faithful. The 1982 version was closer, but Anthony Andrews was a bit wooden and his feathered hair was out of place. This 1997 mini-series finally got it right, with both a faithful adaptation of the story and fine performances.

All the characters are portrayed well and are given greater depth than in the past. Gilbert is not just an evil schemer, he is a man torn by love and hatred. Ivanhoe is torn between two women and despised by his father. Gurd and Wamba are given greater roles and speak for the underclass. Prince John is the true schemer, longing for the kingdom he has watched over while his brother was off playing the soldier. Richard finally gets some of the criticism he deserves for abandoning his subjects for treasure hunts, disguised as "holy wars". Rebecca is wise beyond her years, but torn between a forbidden love of Ivanhoe and the affections of the tormented Gilbert.

This production captures Scott in all his romantic glory, and makes a great attempt at historical accuracy, with the inherent problem that the division of Norman and Saxon was mostly gone by this point in history. Still, we see that medieval life was cheap and conditions less than sanitary, though thankfully not to the point of a Terry Gilliam production. This is well worth viewing.

I have watched the 1997 television production of "Ivanhoe" dozens of times, and I have taught the Sir Walter Scott novel on which it is based to university graduate-literature classes. The novel is good; the film is superb; Deborah Cook should be highly commended for her adaptation of Scott's complicated narrative, whose color and vigor make it a natural subject for a film. The book has many narrative strands; the film is better able to portray the shifts among them than was Scott, despite his extraordinary gifts as a writer. In the film, smooth editing was perhaps deliberately avoided in order to make plain the shift from one narrative line to another.

Readers and reviewers often complain that Ivanhoe and Rowena are less interesting than are other of Scott's figures. I will simply remark that Scott knew they were less interesting than were his other characters and that he perhaps deliberately made them so. In both the book and the film, they carry heavy symbolic burdens. Ivanhoe is a Normanized Saxon who is loyal both to his Norman king, Richard the Lion-Hearted, and his Saxon father, Cedric: He represents the future of England, in which, as Scott says, the Normans and the Saxons eventually came together. Rowena, for her part, represents the natural hopes of Cedric and others for the restoration of the Saxons to the throne of England, while in the film her spirited denunciation of Cedric, who is her guardian, and of the Templar Knight Bois-Guilbert makes her lively nature clear. Scott while writing the book was aware that that readers might find Rowena less than fascinating, so he took pains to state that despite her blonde hair she escapes the dullness that sometimes afflicts fair-haired heroines because of her regal bearing and her proud lineage (in the book it is she, not Athelstane, who is descended from Alfred the Great).

The film stays remarkably close to the book, for the most part. Its departures from the book are necessary and praiseworthy. The portrayal of the Jewish characters in particular is outstanding. Isaac in the book is elderly and timid; in the film he is middle-aged and heroic. Rebecca in the book is not so prominent as she is in the film, and she is attracted to Ivanhoe, whereas he is not particularly attracted to her. By making Rebecca the central figure in the film and by having her fall in love with Ivanhoe and he with her, the makers of the film adapted Scott's narrative brilliantly.

In both the book and the film, Rebecca's courage when she is told she will burn at the stake is breathtaking. It is natural to wish--as dozens if not hundreds or thousands of readers and viewers have wished--that Rebecca had married Bois-Guilbert, or, alternatively, Ivanhoe. But in the twelfth century it would have been virtually impossible for a Christian and a Jew to marry. The fact makes the conclusion of the film especially poignant--particularly when Rebecca visits Rowena to assure her, "I never loved your husband, nor he me," when in fact she and Ivanhoe have fallen deeply in love.

The film is deliberately realistic, and sensibly so for an unromantic age. The tournament, for example, takes place in the woods, as tournaments probably did in the medieval era. Moreover, Scott himself disliked the romanticism associated with chivalry. In the book, Rebecca repeatedly denounces the institution to Ivanhoe, and Scott himself remarks that in King Richard "the brilliant, but useless, character of a knight of romance was in a great measure realised and revived." Scott's sentiments are echoed in Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine's reproach to Richard near the end of the film. She says she has no patience with weak, vainglorious men, no matter how much they clothe themselves in boyish charm. She also stresses the fact that Richard's brother Prince John, although he is a "miserable little runt," has saved the kingdom from bankruptcy. And she sensibly reproaches Richard for spending so little time in England--"Three months?" "Four?"--once he had assumed the throne.

Historical fiction and the films that are based on it pose particular problems, which have not escaped the notice of readers or reviewers. During Scott's lifetime, readers objected that his introduction of Robin Hood into the narrative was anachronistic. A recent reviewer of the film objects to the Scandinavian deities such as Zernebock that are mentioned in the book. Long before the reviewer, Scott's 1970s biographer Edgar Johnson acknowledged that Zernebock "was not even a Scandinavian god but a Slavonic idol" (Johnson, Volume I, p. 745).

Writers of fiction, finally, are at liberty to invent as they please. The constraints of fiction that employs history leave it more vulnerable to criticism than are works that are assumed to be entirely imaginary. But in this general connection, I will observe that historians such as Hayden White observed decades ago that written history itself involves repeated acts of imagination.--By the way, in both the book and the film, the given name of Beaumanoir, the Grand Master of the Templar Knights, is "Lucas," not "Lucard."

I will close with a cautionary observation. The splendid pageantry of both film and book obscures the fact that each tells a grim story that includes treachery and murder. The film is extremely violent. Violence in film affects the viewer directly. In print it is somewhat less direct. But the book is, finally, more violent, and far darker, than the film.

Back to the top Home | Search | Now Playing | News | My Movies | Games | Boards | Help | US Movie Showtimes | Top 250 | Register | Recommendations | Box Office | Index | Trailers | IMDbPro.com - Free Trial | IMDb Publicity Photos

Copyright © 1990-2005 Internet Movie Database Inc. Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you. An company. Advertise on IMDb. License our content.

I first saw the story of Ivanhoe in the 1982-film version which I saw again and again (and again...).

When I was about 12-13 years old I read the novel - and loved it.

Now I've seen this BBC-series. At first I was a little skeptic - could it be as good as the one from 1982. And yes it could - and better.

First of all we really get to know the characters, and prince John is not portrayed as all evil, which I like, as it gives him more substance.

Also the things that takes place does not happen because people are evil, but because they interact with each other - sometimes with misunderstandings as the result.

I rate the series 9 out of 10 - the mistakes in the continuity makes it lose the last point.

/Louise, Denmark

Nobody does it better than the BBC for producing the best in television based on literary classic, and we must thank A&E for bringing them over here. Everyone in this production is good, particularly Ciaran Hinds as Bois-Guilbert. The bigger stars, though, of this beautiful production are the photography and the script which allows for a very realistic portrait of life in Medieval times. This mini is a must see.

There really isn't a great deal more to add to this that hasn't been mentioned in previous reviews.The cast is first rate;the script is quite good,AND extremely faithful to the original text,and all of the production values show professionalism of the highest levels.While the sets,props, and costumes lack the glamour and romantic aspects of the 1952 and 1981 productions,they demonstrate a gritty realism that shows a vivid historical verisimilitude.This was the way the Middle Ages really looked.

I was pleased to see that this adaptation included the character of Urfried/Ulrica,the Saxon noblewoman whose enforced collaboration and concubinage to the Norman brutes who massacred her family,husband,and daughter leads to psychosis and a horrifying revenge.Not a nice character,but a dramatically satisfying resolution.

HISTORICAL NOTE:The whole business of the enduring conflicts between the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons,125 years after the Conquest,was a total fabrication of Scott's.At the time when the novel was written,there was a movement in Scotland to attempt to keep Gaelic as an official language,used in legal and governmental capacities,on an equal basis with English.So the REAL conflict isn't between Normans and Saxons,but rather between English and Scots.And yet,there IS a pervasive belief that the Normans and Saxons were bitterly antagonistic.Such was Scott's influence.