1066: The Battle of Middle Earth - 2009

This British television series tells one of the forgotten stories of the year 1066. We usually associate this important date in England’s history with the Battle of Hastings and the Norman invasion. However, "the darkest year of all Englishmen" was also the setting of an event that hit the peaceful shores of the English shires, and exposed its untrained, yet brave farmers in the south. That event was The Viking Invasion.

During the 1000s, England was THE prize catch for European powers. Not only was it remote and able to fend off conquests thanks to its geographic location alone, but it also boasted acres upon acres of farmland and a perfect climate. The notable powers which were ready to pounce on the merest of opportunities were the ruthless Danes (Vikingr), the greedy Normans, and the powerful County of Flanders.

At the time, the ruling king, Harold Godwinson, was from the House of Wessex. Because of the tumult that would hit the Isles, he would ironically be the last proclaimed Anglo-Saxon king of England, opening the floodgates to a number of French (Norman) and German (House of Hanover/ Saxe Coburg & Gotha) monarchs who would later run England, Britain, and the British Empire. As the first of only three kings of England who died on a battlefield, along with Richard the Lionheart and Richard III, King Harold was known for his courage in warfare, having previously defeated the brave Welsh. King Harold had no royal ancestry. He ended up King of England simply because he refused to acquiesce to the demands of foreign powers, who had struck an agreement with his predecessor, Edward the Confessor. King Edward had promised England to many of his cousins across the North Sea in return for a peaceful death.

But 1066 was not the first time the Vikingr had posed an imminent threat to England’s stability. The Danes, through the House of Denmark, were intermittently kings of England, as rule seesawed between them and the Anglo-Saxons. Many of their conquests of the land had not bode well thanks to remoteness and Saxon defenses. However, the Men of the Fjords would not be deterred. These sea-warriors were the most-feared peoples of Middle Earth (or Land Between Heaven and Hell).

England-bound, the Vikingr would set sail. Focused on their mission, they would overlook an unstable Scotland – fresh from the regicide of King Macbeth (the very one from Shakespeare’s play) at the hands of King Malcolm III - which would not prove as sating as the fertile soil and fair air of England.

The English were “ready” for an attack, with their farmers courageously bearing their pitchforks and axes. However, directing their basic weapons France-wards, they found out, rather late, that they had lined up for the wrong battle. At the peak of harvest-time, the Normans did not dare approach the English coasts. The Vikingr, on the other hand, were the best at their trade, and under the leadership of King Harald Hardrada, were eternal warriors, who knew only one season - that of fighting season. Norse accounts reveal that the Vikings were merciless berserkers – or madly fierce warriors; hence, the term "berserk".

Relishing the opportunity, the Vikingr ravaged the unguarded North, sailing inwards and easily fighting off soldiers and farmers of Earls in ditch warfare. During this time, King Harold would end up making the move that would shape up the year 1066 as we know it. He would sacrifice the southern shores and mobilize his forces to the North to combat the Vikings. Unfortunately, the King’s first major challenge would come around with farmers from Crowhurst in his ranks.

The locals fought bravely in what is historically known as The Battle of Stamford Bridge, near York. In part II of the series, the Battle seals the opposing fates of both kings. The English benefit from a stroke of luck. As the Vikingr go about looting towns on the 25 September 1066, the English are quick to besiege the under-manned viking forces at the Bridge up North. King Harold would try to reach a settlement, even if it meant splitting the country. He wished to do so in the face of the Viking war-machine because the English needed every one of their men to counter the Normans in the southern front. But, the settlement never took place.

The same Norse accounts speak of a giant Viking who one-handedly stood on the Bridge and slayed 40 or so Saxons, preventing them from crossing the narrow bridge. In the process, he was also buying the vikingr time for the return of their fellow warriors. The Saxons opted for a cunning tactic, positioning a farmer under the bridge and spearing the fierce Viking to death from underneath. This opens the path for the English to corner the Vikings on the other side of the river. It also paved the way for a historic English victory over the invincible Vikings, who even after the death of King Hardrada, opted to fight over surrender. Many historians have dubbed the horrific Battle of Stamford Bridge as the beginning of the decline of the Viking age.

Shortly-lived, the English victory would amount to very little. A second predator would already be on the southern shores ready to conquer the unprotected shires of the south. There, brave King Harold would find his doom in the Battle of Hastings. In our heads and history books, this is the account we all recount. Well, this interesting documentary/series reminds us that 1066 was not only the year William of Normandy found his way to England, it was also the year brave English farmers challenged the odds and repelled the almighty men of the Fjords.

The Three Musketeers - 1973

So, I decided to put my faith in Alexandre Dumas Père's The Three Musketeers for some historical insight into one of the lesser-famed eras of the Bourbon Dynasty. As you may be aware of, the reign of the petulant Louis XIII was rendered significant by the ever-present Cardinal Richelieu. In fact, the latter was one of the main reasons why I went for the movie. As an International Studies and Diplomacy Student, I have "grown tired" of the burdening literature, as well as the praise attached to this powerful statesman of the clergy. In short, the Cardinal benefited from the young age of Henry IV's issue, who inherited a powerful state at the tender age of 8. Richelieu was appointed his Chief Minister to help him pave his way into king-hood - a position he kept until his death. Pulling the strings at all times, he is accredited with blueprinting the current diplomatic system of nation-states that succeeded in creating a balance on the continent. Years before the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, he based the system on négociation continuelle by establishing the first foreign ministry, and dispatching emissaries or ambassadors throughout Europe.

With more than a dozen film adaptations and a number of animated ones about the Three Musketeers, I found myself in a bit of a pickle. Right when I was scrolling down the long list, my eyes came across one starring Charlton Heston. I'd only watched the guy before by accident , but my father never stopped saying how he considered him one of the greatest actors of all time. I put my father's taste to the test and opted for Richard Lester's 1973 version.

The movie did not disappoint with it's formal language and comical take of Dumas' masterpiece. It also shed light on the bravado of the age with D'Artagnan being urged by his father to make it into the King's Guard, and to literally "fight, fight, fight" to get there. The fiery D'Artagnan makes his father proud by scheduling three duels, which end up being with none other than Athos, Portos and Aramis. The fights never take place, of course, as the group focuses its efforts on combating the Cardinal's Guards, prompting the much-awaited cry of: "one for all, and all for one". As I am not interested much in the plot, I'll keep it there and move on to some of the things that caught my eye.

First of all, to both my "liking" and surprise, Cardinal Richelieu was depicted as a cruel, a plotting and an abusive man. It was striking to see even King Louis XIII revere him and fear the arousal of his ire. The fact that my motivation to watch the movie stemmed from my interest in Cardinal Richelieu and Charlton Heston was made even better when it turned out that the actor played that very character. Unfortunately though, Heston did not get as much screen time as I would have liked!

The second thing I was intrigued by is how Louis XIII, historically dubbed the Just King, is depicted as a fun-loving and idiotic monarch. Caught up in his various amusements, he also shows signs of petulance, not putting too much thought in his decisions, and not hesitating to arrest at will. In the comforts of a barren Court where his amusement is paramount, he enjoys playing chess with sign-bearing-dogs as chess pieces. His rumoured homosexuality was never touched upon; however, jealousy of his own wife, Queen Anne of Austria, was alluded to. Queen Anne further brings disgrace to Louis XIII's reign through her open relationship with the Duke of Buckingham, which only the king is unaware of.

A die-hard tennis aficionado, I was delighted to see the game played in the movie. I was never aware that the sport existed back then. In all fairness to Nadal and company, the game was played in the most unorthodox of ways. That is, I am not sure they would have made a name for themselves playing the sport in those days. So, prompted to research the history of the sport, I interestingly found out that the game was named after the word "tenez" - French for receive - in the 16th century. Glimpses of the British aristocracy in the movie also revealed that billiards was quite common back in the day, although the table seemed to have no holes, and the balls were proportionately huge.

Like contemporary times, back in the day, you couldn't spell sports without gambling. During various instances in the movie, peasants and laymen go gambling-galore, spilling out the beans. Sometimes, the games people were gambling on made those of the Roman Empire quite classy and noble. Add excessive drinking to the equilibrium and you are sure that Bet365.com would have made a fortune back then.

The last thing I would like to talk about is historical accuracy in this movie. Château Versailles is shown at the very end, specifically during the ceremony where D'Artagnan becomes a Musketeer, earning that ever-so-precious personal musket. To the furthest of my knowledge, Château Versailles was not the principal residence of Louis XIII. Although the latter purchased it, it was his son, The Great Louis XIV, who made Versailles the well-known edifice of today and the main residence of the French monarchs that followed. For such a formal appointment, I would have assumed that the King would have carried it out at Fontainebleau.

If you watch this movie, remember that it was made 39 years ago. If you're accustomed to IMAX filming quality, this adaptation will surely come across as blurry. There's a 2011 version that might be more appealing. I, myself, am a fan of more recent movies, but I personally found this one captivating. Through it's historical context, it was also thought-provoking, reminding me of the various be-headings of French Monarchs. It was also a reminder of King Juan Carlos I's ancestry. For after Louis XVI lost his head, the Bourbons dispersed with some landing in Spain, reigning until as recently as 1931 through Alfonso XIII. Franco made sure to remedy that when upon his death, he appointed Juan Carlos as a royal successor, once again associating the Bourbons with monarchy.

Well, I'll keep it at that and I hope you enjoy the movie if you decide to go for it!

King George & Queen Mary: The Royals who Rescued the Monarchy - 2012

What I found most interesting in this BBC documentary is how the British Monarchy was whiskers away from perishing. In comparison to the copious documentation of the glorious periods of Queens Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and the like, historians tend to overlook George V and his equally important legacy. At a tense and dangerous time when leaders' heads fell like flies in Europe, George V was shrewdly able to save the Saxe Coburg & Gotha Dynasty, and the British Monarchy in the process.

Like his father Edward VII, George was an unlikely heir to the throne, second in line to his older brother Albert. Mired in numerous scandalous accusations, including homosexuality, insanity and gambling, Albert's life ends prematurely due to illness, thrusting the reluctant George into the limelight. Hardly trained for the task, George is not ideally educated, having had his lion's share of training in the Royal Navy. While intensively prepping him for royalty, his "domineering" grandmother, Queen Victoria, pressures him to marry the Protestant German Princess of Teck, May (later Mary), initially intended for his late brother.

During his reign from 1910 to 1936, the King encounters numerous challenges, the most important of which is the First World War. Ironically, the War was against a cousin: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Another important reminder in the documentary is the kinship relationship that bound European leaders as recently as a little less than a century ago. At the time, George V - a descendant of the House of Hanover - was rumored to have been lacking in the patriotism department due to 200 years of German ancestry. Bearing inconclusive truth, the rumors were legitimate, as the royal family not only had German identity, but also spoke German and, until the war, also felt German.

Furious at the accusations, George V pulls out an ingenious coup de grace that saves his dynasty and possibly his scalp. He boldly changes the name of his dynasty from Saxe Coburg & Gotha to Windsor, after one of the oldest British/English castles - ironically built by the French Normans. The nominally updated version of the Monarchy is so significant in our present-day history that the imprints are still borne out in the current Windsor Queen Elizabeth II.

Bearing no resemblance to his vice-laden father, King Edward VII, and his late brother, Albert, George V did not only change the ruling family's name, he was also the personification of the medievalesque notion of a king and his people on one side battling the domination and monopoly of the bourgeoisie and aristocracy on the other. This was further paved by the Marconi radio system that brought the monarchy straight into the living rooms of all laymen. Fuelling his popularity was the fact that anyone could obtain the highest Order of the British Empire (OBE) during his reign. Unlike his predecessors, the only requisite was the merit and effort committed to the service of the Empire. His name was also chanted during football games in such a precarious time for monarchs.

King George V had 50 first cousins all over Europe, 27 of which were deposed post-WWI. Of these, the one that stands out most was the last Romanov Tsar Nikolai II, who bore a carbon copy resemblance to the British Monarch. In fact, the decision to refuse his close cousin asylum in Britain during the Bolshevik communist overthrow of 1917 was literally fatal, as Nikolai II would be swiftly & “unprofessionally” tried, and sentenced to a gruesome death/assassination along with his other family members. Despite the sort, George V displayed a great deal of patriotism, avoiding to let emotional ties jeopardize his claim over the Empire.

BBC documentaries have built a sound reputation for their accuracy. A number of high-profile historians offer their enlightening insight into the life of the punctilious and said-to-be pedantic monarch. This makes watching the movie a delight. Queen Mary's role is focused on in the second part of the documentary (which I am yet to see) where she plays another essential role, pressuring George's oldest son, King Andrew VIII, to abdicate due to his relationship to Wallis Simpson, the twice-divorced American whose brash threatens to sink all of what George V had salvaged.

Both King George V and Queen Mary's efforts are rendered very influential in light of the relative internal stability - barring altercations with the IRA - the UK has known. Their efforts have saved a monarchy which is on the verge of celebrating a Diamond Jubilee next February. Of the people Queen Elizabeth may wish to thank for the privilege, I am sure George V and Mary rank high on her short list!

Here's the link for part I of the documentary: http://www.putlocker.com/file/B464DF98D054DB4A# . If you like this genre, you won't regret giving it a watch!

Hors La Loi (Out Of The Law) - 2010

The first time I came across this movie was during the 2011 Oscars when it was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. As a follower of the various Independence Movements that changed the world in the post-WWII era, I put the movie on my long list of movies-to-watch-before-I-Die. Well, my chance to watch it finally came about today. Here's a short synopsis, so I don't spoil it all for you, as well as some criticism I hope you can respond to :)

Spanning from 1925 to 1962, the movie tells the story of an Algerian family who have been forced off their land in rural Algeria, and end up residing in Setif in the center of the country. As a result of the horrendous 1945 Setif Massacre, the family dissolves with the shooting of the father and his two daughters by French forces, the forced enlisting of Messaoud, who is shipped off to Indochina a few years later, and the imprisonment of Abdelkader in France. The nucleus of the family remains with the mother and the youngest child Said. The latter avenges the ill-fate of the family by murdering the Qaid, who initially forced them off their land, and fleeing with his reluctant mother to Nanterre, a suburb of Paris.

There, Said refuses to work at the Renault auto-mobile manufacturing company and opts to work on Paris streets as a pimp. Aware of this shame, his mother refuses to take any dirty money from him. The remnants of the family finally re-unite when Abdelkader, after receiving liberation movement training in prison, and Messaoud, who was captured and imprisoned by the Vietnamese in Indo-Chiina, find their way to the Nanterre ghetto. The re-union pumps more blood into the movie, as we follow the three brothers, each one intent on pursuing the resistance their own way, to the tragic ending you would expect from a movie belonging to this genre.

Now first things first, I have to take my hat off to the Director Rachid Bouchareb, whom you may have already heard of for his 2006 movie Indigènes, known in English as Days of Glory. Technically and aesthetically, the movie deserves the praise it has garnered worldwide. The special effects, detailed depictions, and the MAIN historical accuracies should all be praised. The fact that the three protagonists worked with Bouchareb in his earlier production will have no doubt played a part in the apparent homogeneity of the characters and the smoothness of the storyline.

I also thought the incidents interwoven into the plot sparked a few forgotten events in French-Algerian history. The Setif massacre is one of those that fell in that category. What made it more so relevant was France's recent decision to punish anyone who denied the presumably Turkish-led Armenian genocide after WWI. I do not wish to go into the accuracies of that conflict, but I thought this last stance by France was quite bold after I saw and researched some of the atrocities conducted in Setif and other cities.

Other forgotten events were the bickering of the FLN and the MNA for Algerian Liberation bragging rights. I was surprised by the degree of animosity between these two resistance entities. You would usually assume that a degree of "competitive" unity might exist within any country during independence struggles against a colonial power, but not to the extent of the hostile exchanges depicted in the movie.

Bouchareb's artistic touch and enticing heroic plot will have surely got movie-goers to hit cinemas; however, I thought the movie heavily focused on the heroism of the three characters. The underground endeavour to recruit people for the FLN and the seriousness with which Abdelkader goes about with his responsibilities seemed to be a bit too much for me to stomach. I understand the heroism may have served to emotionally involve the viewer in a catharsis-like manner during the tragic ending. If that is the case, I must say the movie may succeed in causing a tear to flow down a cheek or two. Yet, I believe the exaggerated degree of that same heroism gave way to a Godfather and Once Upon a Time in America-like setting, especially when the violence and shooting heavily kicked in. At certain points, it seemed like it revolved around a Manhattan/Algerian mob murdering and gunning down people at will for neighbourhood supremacy.

Additionally, I felt there were a few shortcomings/gaps in the movie that I would not wish to dwell on much so I don't give a negative impression of a film I thoroughly enjoyed. Of these, I may mention that I felt the movie hit a slow gear towards the middle, especially that the beginning and end were event-packed and faster. I also thought it would have been harder to smuggle trucks of arms and ammo from Germany through Belgium to end up at Valenciennes, even in those days. Finally, I think I would have liked Bouchareb to show us the mother and Messaoud's wife in the end. I believe that would have been the knock-out blow to a mighty fine and tragic adaptation of a fictional family's troubles abroad during that courageous Algerian Independence period!

I hear Bouchareb is working on a sequel that would complete the trilogy. I think it's for 2014. In the meantime, I say two thumbs up for Bouchareb, Zem, Bouajila, and Debbouze and urge you to watch the movie!!!