Medieval Rambler

Dante’s Inferno not Quite the Divine Comedy

2010-07-18T17:37:00.001-07:00

So I got round to playing and then completing Dante’s Inferno on the Xbox 360. I enjoyed it, that is to say that the hack and slash puzzle solving descent into hell whiled away a good few hours every evening for about 2 weeks until I arrived before Lucifer at the end. It’s by no means an excellent piece of game-craft, the game play is mediocre at best, and there are certainly better games out there. It’s not God of War but it will most definitely do. Yet this is not a games review blog, but rather one concerning it with historical matters and what I shall discuss is my reception to this game and its historical aspects.

The Divine Comedy, of which the Inferno is the first 1/3, was written by Dante Aligheri after his expulsion from Florence in 1301, and completed in stages before his death in 1321. It remains one of the greatest pieces of poetry to have been produced in the medieval period and is a landmark of European literature. It is to be fair, a classic, and certainly something that should be on everybody’s reading list. The game diverges on a tangent from this masterpiece like an arrow being shot from a bow. Yes, you play Dante Alighieri, yes you descend into Hell and are guided along the way by the ghost of Virgil, the Roman Poet, and encounter a cast of famous people from the historical past. That is where the similarities end. What then occurs has very little in common with the actual work produced by Dante in the early 14th Century.

As enjoyable as this infernal hack and slash was (and it was) it does no justice to the work that remains Dante’s greatest achievement. Anybody who had read the book would be at a loss to understand, what exactly was going on here, what is Dante up to? Beatrice, who in reality was Dante’s idealised love and personal Muse, to whom he dedicated his poetical work the Vita Nuova, something he would be remembered for even if he had never written the Divine Comedy, has been murdered and her soul has gone to the depths of Hell, taken by none other than Lucifer for his nefarious and evil schemes. But of course, that’s just how it was in the Inferno………..oh……….no wait it wasn’t, she died young in 1290. Well fortunately Dante has managed to defeat Death and still the skeletal gentleman’s scythe just like in the…………no wait that not right either. Well he picked up the Scythe in Acre during the Third Crusade which Dante took part……..hold on wasn’t that 100 years before? You see where this goes. Dante is apparently not the citizen soldier poet of the late 13th Century, but rather a crusader of the late 12th who did some rather unpleasant things in Acre under the command of Richard Coeur de Lion. That this was a century before Dante was writing is of course irrelevant. If the man has to go into hell, he has to be able to kick butt doesn’t he and he mustn’t he also be suitabley hell worthy? What better way than making him a crusader, they like killing people because of their religious fantacism, all crusaders dress like Templars too, that is a well known fact, it shows you in the game. Its not as though the travelling through Hell and then onto Purgatory and Heaven is in anyway an epic of self discovery and enlightenment. Its not as though the three books are teeming with political references and messages defining Dante‘s socio-political concepts now is it?.........................oh…………….wait yes it is. If the Inferno is subtle about Dante’s political views then the Paradiso is screaming them at the top of its lungs. Not that this would become apparent from the events of the game, in fact these things are just cut out. If the game years is supposed to be 1191 (or just after) then a goodly number of the individuals you meet along the way, either haven’t been born yet, let alone died to go to one of the many circles of Hell, but haven’t done the crimes for which Dante later condemns them. The Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) being a rather good example. This just serves to create confusion amongst the more historically minded.

Though I shall give it some credit though, the art designers really did pay attention to the Inferno and Dante’s description there of. The art work and level design is breath taking, no less inspiring. Hats off to game designers who managed to conjure up so well an image of Hell. From the Suicide Woods, to the City of Dis, the circle of the Lustful and Greedy, all were truly as inspiring as the words penned by that Florentine, centuries ago. The ending of the game indicates a sequel, Mount Purgatory awaits and Lucifer is not so easily beaten. I have no doubt that that game will be as equally entertaining as the former.

However if they maintain the sort of tangential storytelling of that game as they did for the former instalment, then it to will be riddled with much of the same problems. The games cash in on one of the finest pieces of world literature, but at no stage really does it do any justice to the work from which they have taken their inspirations, and that is very disappointing. Yes, I am well aware that playing a game whose intent is to make the Inferno into a game, a point and click adventure of Dante’s descent would probably not get the market or ratings desired by the company, even if it was truer to form. But a lot of what makes the Divine Comedy truly great is in the detail cut by the game producers. The game bears only minimal relation to Dante’s work. There was more the creators could have done, to help give the player a better understanding and real historical feel to the Inferno. The simplistic historical notes attached to the game that you can peruse upon completion are paltry at best and for the most part will probably be ignored by many gamers. Better that the information contained therein could have been placed within the actual game play of the game itself. What’s more I fear is that then any who go from the game with an interest to discover more about the book, will be sorely disappointed as it bears so minimal a relation to the game. It hasn’t been sexed and gored up for entertainment and enjoyment value. Truly that would be a sin worthy of hell, I wonder what circle though?

No Room in the Kingdom of Heaven for God.

2010-05-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

So since I’m on my Ridley Scott bashing box I might as well get on with having a pop at Kingdom of Heaven. Ridley Scott’s previous historical action extravaganza, it was entertaining, I even went out and bought the 4 disc extended edition, which if nothing else is a better movie, much improved in its explanation of characters and events, not to mention actually more historically accurate. Baldwin V makes no appearance in the cut version but has a fair few lines and quite an important role to play in the full version. So what’s up with this one then? Well once again quite a fair bit, the actual historical details of individuals and events aside, the crux of the argument is over the nature of medieval religion and religious feeling and the way it is shamefully portrayed in the feature.

This movie is about the Crusades and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, religion as one might expect takes an important part. Set in the years prior to the battle of Hattin in 1187 and the ensuing siege of Jerusalem by Saladin. The drama that plays out in the movie is therefore backed with undertones and indeed periodic overtones of religious fanaticism and a clash of cultures. The problem that we encounter here is once again modern notions of religion, warfare in its name, and depictions of it all are distinctly un-medieval. Audiences of the film are faced by massive anachronisms, well at least those who know what that word means anyway. Characters that speak out about religion and profess their devotion publicly are by and large condemned as insane, or failing that clearly made into the villains. The preacher at Messina crying that “it is not a sin to kill a Muslim” is inferred by music and his portrayal as to be something of a mad man. Guy de Lusignan (who apparently has the time to be a Templar) and Reynald de Chatillion (also a Templar) along with the prelates of the Church in Jerusalem are again all depicted as blood thirsty fanatics out to stamp their own brand of Christianity on the region. How better to do this than killing all those who disagree. The Templars themselves are shown to be the bad guys, supporting as they do Guy and Reynald in their murderous activities, ignoring the laws of the land and being all to eager to do in any poor Muslim who happens across their path. Makes a change to the usual cat worshiping homosexual sorcery I suppose. The Patriarch of Jerusalem utters the immortal lines “convert now…repent later” when faced by defeat at Saladin’s hands. So it would seem that religion is a rather bad thing, being religious seems that you must be a fanatic of some order. Just look at the Muslim Camp where similar notions are expressed in regards to the Christians, until the kindly Dr Bashir from Star Trek DS9 wags his finger at you. Once again we find that the reasonable characters, the cool restrained and collected individuals are the most likeable ones, the ones the audience is clearly meant to identify with and recognise as being the ‘good guys.’ Baldwin IV, superbly played by Edward Norton, Tiberias (Count Raymond of Tripoli but having a character called Raymond and Reynald would be too confusing after all) played by Jeremy Irons, Balian of Ibelin played by Orlando Bloom and a Hospitaller Knight played by David Thewlis are by the films standards the heroes. They also happen to be humanists of the secular variety. Who would have though that so many existed in 12th Century Jerusalem of all places? People with religion are bad, but people being moralistic and ethical without much in the way of religion are good. This is essentially what’s wrong; this very modern notion has been slapped straight into a movie regardless of the historical context of that film.

For a film that is going to have such prominent themes as religion you would have expected them to have tried to incorporate something akin to actual medieval religious though or practice. Heaven knows there’s enough late 12th Century and 13th Century material out there discussing the matter, especially in relation to the Crusades. Instead of trying to help the audience understand or attempting to explain the differences between modern day and medieval mentalities that permitted such acts as the Crusades to take place, the film simply tars everybody with the same brush. Religion is ultimately a bad thing because it makes you do foolish things. As a medievalist it is a very difficult matter trying to explain to non historians the differences in thought that exist between out present lives in a very secularised Western European country and those of the Middle Ages when religion permeated the very essence of the land. Such a media form of the cinema would have been an excellent place to help show and highlight this difference, and Kingdom of Heaven could have taken the time to do this and do it well. It failed to do this though. It was easier to depict religion and its followers as fanatics, a danger to all those around them, rather than attempt to explore what was a very different world to our own. David Thewlis’s Hospitaller gives us a speech on the matter to such an effect, denouncing the evils that men will do in the name of their God. Yet it is done in such a crude way that is just so very historically wrong is a crime. No wonder the historical adviser packed up and left. Too tired of arguing with the director and writers over the nature of medieval religion and how they are stabbing it in the back with atheistic daggers, I shouldn’t wonder. The simple fact is that the movie passes judgement on Crusading and medieval Christianity and it doesn’t approve of them, doesn’t approve of religion at all it seems. That it attempted to do so in the first place is a waste of time.

Why bother to make a film on such an interesting subject, one where there were so many opportunities placed before it, to actually help contribute something to the popular historical imagination, only to throw it all away and merely condemn the Middle Ages and medieval man once more into a negative stereotype of brutality and mysticism. Shame on you Kingdom of Heaven all you have done is reaffirmed incorrect notions of the Middle Ages for the popular imagination. How long will it be until a producer has the gall to direct something with medieval religiosity in it and not put their own secular spin on it though, quite a while I fear.

Robin Hood is apparently John Locke?

2010-05-27T17:02:00.000-07:00

So I went and saw the film Robin Hood directed by Ridley Scott and featuring Russell Crow, Cate Blanchett and William Hurt. Always a dangerous proposal for a Medievalist to go out to the cinema to see a popular piece of entertainment and then actually expect them to enjoy it, rather than squirming in their seat and getting angry at the vast anachronisms and inaccuracies. I enjoyed it though, it served its purpose well and I was suitably entertained for the evening. On that matter I can not fault it and I’m sure I will probably get hold of it sooner or later when it gets round to DVD. So what exactly is my beef with this latest medieval blockbuster? The medieval Higgins boats and the incorrect date in the opening shots aside my gripe is something a bit bigger than that. To be perfectly honest it’s the anachronistic mentalities and sentiments that pervade the entire movie so as to make it acceptable to modern audiences.

I sat and watched the movie and what became apparent as Robin Longstride’s back-story and then apparently his motivation from that point on, was that he was espousing Lockian ideals. Since this is apparently 1199 and a good way off from the birth of John Locke himself, I can only therefore assume that Robin Hood is in fact John Locke infamous Time Travelling Englishman. Robin tells us that what men, should be able to have what they make with their own hands and enjoy the fruits of their own labours. Nottingham honey on Nottingham bread for example or that the gifts of the wood are for all men before they belong to the king or some lord. That nature will provide all that is needed so long as men strive for it. I quite like John Locke so I’m hardly going to fault him on his choice of political thought. Yet is this appropriate to the film? Well no, not really. Locke and the time in which he lived provided the context in which he produced his Two Treatise, and that time is a good few centuries away, casting it back 400 years is not exactly kosher. Though John’s rule is challenged in the film it’s not exactly the same as Charles I and the Civil War which ultimately gave rise to Locke’s writings. Could not something a bit more Medieval have been chosen, surely some Lollards or Waldensian ideology could have been incorporated to provide something a bit closer to home and a bit more realistic for the setting. John of Salisbury and Policraticus would have sufficed, perhaps even taking something from the Ancient World, like Cicero would have made a bit more sense. That’s probably asking too much though.

On top of this it is clearly shown that kings, particularly John are tyrants. Richard I locks men up awaiting a severe punishment when he hears things he doesn’t like and is far too interested in looting France because he needs money rather than doing anything particularly useful back in his realm which is crumbling in his absence. Phillip II of France is melodramatically evil and French and as one would expect gives up military activity at the first set back. John, is something of a decadent fop who renegs on his promises and is entirely self serving, unwilling to compromise on his power. Indeed the only likeable characters in the movie who occupy the upper echelons of society are Eleanor of Aquitaine and William Marshall (who rocks by the way). John is unwilling to listen to the sagely advice of these two and places his own cronies in a position of power which is ultimately his undoing. Once the dust clouds of battle have settled he immediately goes back on his word and declares himself divinely appointed by God, a most distinctly later medieval trope, merely affirming why a connection between church and state is a bad thing for the audience. Apparently nobody bothered to read anything on John, lets just fall back on the Bad King John theory of History, thank you E.H Carr. Johns abilities as an administrator apparently all gone to waste. Apparently nobody seems to have read much if anything on the Angevins, France and England it seems have always been as they are now, how convenient. This depiction of John as a weak willed dandyish tyrant is just a massive gloss over the actual historical figure and the Plantagenet-Capetian context into which he fits. Monarchy and the rule by an unelected individual must be bad; we can’t have good kings after all, just look at the three here. Then there’s the Church. Friar Tuck (a Friar in 1199?) replaces the previously rather callous and avaricious priest who despite knowing people will starve wont dish out any of the tithe grain because it’s marked for the Archbishop in York. Tuck wont stand for this, being as he admits a rather non religious priest (the number of secular humanists in the Middle Ages always astounds) and so throws his lot in with Robin Hood to do the right thing. Not that anybody is trying to highlight the pettiness and greediness of the Medieval Church though. Organised religion is obviously very bad as we all well know.

Yet what does this all mean? The eponymous Robin Hood himself is of course a character of legend. Thus one can hardly argue for any accuracy regarding the feats and adventures of this particular individual. Yet the context in to which he is set can be critiqued. Robin has often been seen, especially by Marxist historians as a liberator and fighter for the lower classes against the oppressive ruling elite. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, clearly a ‘dirty red.’ Could we have expected this movie to have done so well in some countries, and I’m particularly thinking the US here, if Robin had espoused such left wing ideas. Heaven forbid. By placing Robin in the context of a corrupt and villainous legal and political system, (which of course all medieval monarchies were) and as personified by John and his cronies, he is clearly the hero fighting against tyranny. By throwing out his Lockian ideas to the assembled masses, John Locke notably having heavily influenced later writers such as Thomas Jefferson, he thus strikes a chord with the common people. His credentials as a hero are therefore impeccable. Is this right? Well no not really. All it has done is to reaffirm a negative stereotype of the Middle Ages..........again………to make the message of the movie much more palatable to audiences. We can’t have Robin being at all associated with the political Left so we have to fabricate some evil context to make him the clear hero. Is John really just George III, they both do love their taxes from the poor masses who have no political representation after all. There was a most enjoyable tax collecting montage in the film I might add. Is it the Barnsdale Massacre instead of Boston, is Nottingham really just Lexington? Have I just watched a movie where the American War of Independence was just played out in the microcosm? John is a tyrant rejecting the laws of the common man and resisting any basic form of ‘justice’ for the common man, ruling in his own interests and not those he rules. Before one knows it we aren’t really dealing with anything medieval anymore. These ideas and notions are alien and do not belong in the setting, yet permeate the movie.

I for one would have found the movie better if they had merely stuck to something a bit more contemporary for the late 12th and early 13th Centuries. Depict them for what they were, not for what you wanted them to be. Though that might have made the niche audience of historians rather happy; it really wouldn’t have done for the companies that produced the feature and of course money is where it’s at. The purpose of movies is of course to entertain and Robin Hood achieved that quite well. Yet the movie also carried with it some unnecessary baggage, and that’s what’s essentially wrong. So looks like the Middle Ages are just going to continue being a canvas for anybody who wishes to put a political point across, irrespective of if it is an anachronism or not. History suffers once more it seems.