11 settembre 1683

The title of the film, THE BATTLE OF VIENNA, rightly leads viewers to an assumption that they are going to see an epic production dealing with an important moment in the European history - the 1680s and the siege of Vienna. Undeniably, 1683 saw the turning point for the western world and its identity. Deserveably, the tribute in the form of the newest motion picture depicting this historic battle is a desirable achievement. For years, many history film buffs looked forward to its screen adaptation. Although there have been certain plans, they somehow did not materialize for several reasons. And here it is at last, a film directed by Renzo Martinelli starring some great international and Polish cast. With this challenging project, however, they should have kept in mind one thing: as our experience with the genre gets richer, our expectations naturally grow higher. What expectations?

Some await a spectacle, some look forward to historical accuracy, some preferably cherish the fictitious plots and characters creatively inserted into the historic moments. Unfortunately, Martinelli's movie does not meet any of these expectations and, sadly, disappoints a variety of viewers at multiple levels.

Amidst the storm of criticism among movie scholars, viewers can do their best to put up with innumerable flaws and try to find some positive aspects about a production. Nevertheless, it appears almost impossible in this case. If there is something positive or at least occurs to be promising, sooner or later, there turns up something that almost disqualifies the movie's producers, director and crew. The theme is serious but the backbone is a pure soap opera, cheap entertainment that leaves even a contemporary movie buff disappointed - not to mention learned historians. Let me consider some aspects more briefly.

JAN SOBIESKI and MARCO D'AVIANO: The two iconic figures of the historical moment, the religious and the military leader, are unforgivably diminished/distorted under Martinelli's direction. While Sobieski (Jerzy Skolimowski) is an almost background character diminished to some two or three scenes (no viewer, particularly the one who is not very acknowledged of history, can ever see the Polish king as the crucial victor of the battle), Marco d'Aviano is an almost fairy tale-like miracle worker.

SOBIESKI: Where is his charisma? Where is his military genius? Where is his detailed written correspondence with Pope Innocent XI? Where are his historic words he wrote to the pope after the battle paraphrasing Julius Caesar "Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" What do we get of Skolimowski's portrayal of the king? Just an episodic, supporting monarch...

MARCO D'AVIANO seems to be the protagonist of the film. He indeed has far more time on the screen. Played by wonderful F Murray Abraham, we have a clearer picture of the character. But the problem is what this picture has to do with the historical Marco d'Aviano or Carlo Dominico Cristofori... The terribly flawed and ridiculous (at moments) script did not allow even such a good actor as Murray Abraham to deliver something really powerful. The flashback to the youth itself with the alleged meeting with Kara Mustafa (when both were boys) is something that has no logical bases. It seems there is much of a miraculous or rather magical existence in his life. However, the director, for a number of reasons some intentional and some coincidental, ignored the jeopardy of a serious border that exists within depiction of the supernatural: border between a mystique experience and a mere laughable product of fantasy. Just to mention the sequence with the wolf (the priest's ancestor). What purpose does it serve?

OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES: It would be unjust to start with yet another European. The winners take it all, true, and it has been so throughout centuries but let me highlight Kara Mustafa here played by just adequate Enrico LoVerso. As a matter of fact, there is nothing extraordinary about the portrayal of this key character so eager to spread the Ottoman Empire westwards. At the beginning, through some cheap computerized effects, we may get an idea of what he is like, the general impression might be quite impressive but in the second half of the movie, the character goes totally pale. The person who deserves credit is Piotr Adamczyk as Leopold I, the emperor of Austria. His performance, at least, leaves a certain idea of a ruler quite incapable of gathering the army but proud enough to refuse asking for help. Historically, this portrayal takes innumerable liberties again but at least, it is Adamczyk's interesting performance that viewers may enjoy (from the artistic point of view, I mean). The rest of the performances are worth soap opera. Sorry to say that but I think that I am not the only viewer who has that impression.

And the BATTLE itself? That would be the major point of criticism. It is diminished, belittled and cannot captivate a viewer whatsoever. This point, of course, refers to modern cinematic possibilities which allow for something truly spectacular. The reconstruction of the Vienna of the time (referred to as "Golden Apple" and the second, after Rome, greatest city of the continental Europe of the time) at the siege resorts merely to computerized packed images of some church towers (the ones of Minoritenkirche, Michaelerkirche and the copula of Karlskirche) and some almost laughable images of buildings. And what does the priest Marco D'Aviano do whilst the battle? He stands on a hill, shouts at the enemy in a Moses-like position and carries...something that thoroughly disqualifies even the soap epic...a bent, post-modern cross designed by Lello Scorzelli (so called 'Scorzelli staff) and carried by some recent popes, particularly John Paul II. Yes, Marco d'Aviano is supposed to be John Paul II for a moment... Great idea, isn't it?

A few years will pass and no one will be able to rescue such movies from oblivion...there is a danger that history and epic genre will also be belittled through such crap productions. A remake highly recommended.

Well, I see that posters either loved this film, or hated it.

It is more than obvious that those who hated it did so for political reasons. Pick any reason. The uniforms are not accurate. The history is all wrong (yeah, everybody is a history professor). It's racist (but you expected that would pop up, didn't you). It's only for Catholics (well, finally something for Catholics). The acting is bad (I've seen worse).

Someone complained that F. Murray Abraham spends the whole film screaming. Er, no. Only in two scenes. In one he was addressing an entire army. And in another he was trying to make himself heard over the thunder of battle. May I politely remind our distinguished critic that there were no microphones in those days?

It also looks like that the mention of the date of the event - Sept 11 - went down some tender throats like battery acid. Yeah, those historical coincidences are a (bleep). Haters of this film also wasted no time pointing out that critics panned the film (and we know that critics are infallible). Well, consider it from their perspective. These exalted critics must have remembered what happens when a certain religion is mentioned in an unfavorable light (Charlie Hebdo, anyone?). So maybe the critics panned the film more out of prudence than displeasure.

Is the film perfect? No. Is is 100% accurate? I NEVER saw a 'historical' film that got the historical facts 100% right. And I've been around a good bit. But I enjoyed Day of the Siege.

IAC, watch the film and make your own decision. A quaint concept, I know. But some of us still believe stick to it.

F. Murray Abraham does a great job portraying Marco D'Aviano. His first speech in the movie is magnificent. But also does a great job throughout the movie depicting the faith of a priest in world changing times. Although a Catholic priest, the faith presented is quite ecumenical. This is less an historical drama and more of a reflection on the impact of one man's faith on an event of major impact in history. The only weakness of the film is the low budget CG during the battle scenes, which probably could have been reduced anyway, for the strength of the movie lies in the dialogue and quality acting. Although I am not an historian, I think the ideological representations are quite accurate as well as the challenges and conflicts the leaders faced making decisions to deal with the impending threats of invasion. Truly worth the time to watch and quite memorable.

Not a complete review, although I think the film was modestly entertaining, it's hard to do a sweeping epic style film on a very modest budget of only $12 MM.

So, my offering is a bit of trivia, an "oops" in the film. About 2/3 through or thereabouts, we see F. Murray Abraham carrying/holding a papal-like silver staff. It has a slightly down-turned cross, with a crucifix of a very thin and stretched out Jesus attached.

The problem, although a beautiful and imaginative design, is that that particular staff was designed by Lello Scorzelli, from Naples Italy, in 1965—just about 300 years later than the time of the historical period!

The Scorzelli Staff has been carried by the last 3 Popes, among other ferula, not counting the other staffs. I just think they chose it for the beauty, but I recognized it immediately, did any of you?

not about politic or military victory but about force of faith. not about Vienna but about the Church. a film like a honest confession. not great, not impressive, not original. only a story about few people, a danger and the only solution for resist against it. result - not a bad movie but a different one. and it could be a surprise because not the low budget is its sin. the real cause - the chosen public. it is not a documentary and far to have the purpose to become a blockbuster. only to present a fruit of deep faith. that is all. so, it is not right to criticize it in serious manner. only see it without the ordinaries expectations for a historical film. and, maybe, it could represent an useful image about a fundamental episode from Europe past .