Alright Party People?
As threatened in my preview post from a couple of weeks ago, I’ve watched Ironclad, a British Historical Action film- with the emphasis firmly placed upon the action. Sorry this entry comes late, I’ve had a lot going on. I actually didn’t think this film was too bad! Not exactly weighty filmmaking, and not competent across the board, but it does what it does well well enough to be enjoyable! (Say that three times as fast!)
To set the scene, let’s discuss the plot. The film is set in 1215, the year after the signing of the Magna Carta. King John, unhappy signee of the charter is attempting to nullify the changes the charter brought about by bullying his way across England and taking ownership of Castles along the way. Standing against him is the protagonist Thomas Marshall (Simon Purefoy), a member of the Knights Templar, Baron William d’Aubigny and the Baron’s band of mercenaries and former soldiers. Oh, and a random criminal they meet. The group take up the defence of Rochester Castle, a sight of strategic importance and King John’s next target. From there, King John lays siege to the Castle, with the help of a Danish Army (not Vikings, as the ‘Viking Age’ ended in the 11th Century, but Viking-like) and the group of motley fighters fend them off desperately, in the hope of the arrival of the French Army, who are coming at the behest of the groups’ ally the Archbishop of Canterbury (Charles Dance).
Let’s start with the good. Ironclad features a lot of action. A lot of fighting, a lot of sieging and a lot of gory warmaking. This is where the film excels. The sword-(and axe)-fighting is visceral, fast paced and nicely choreographed. The group of protagonists fight off the King’s villainous hordes both stylishly and satisfyingly crunchily, giving the characters a heroic bent as they fight off seemingly impossible odds again and again. The quite intense and bloody nature of the action won’t be for everyone, but one suspects that it is exactly what Ironclad’s target audience is looking for. The firing of the Siege Weapons, the explosion and the somewhat improbable pig-splosion (which I will explain later) are all fun to look at, but the close, hand-to-hand combat is the real selling point. The film has a couple of obvious influences in this regard. My copy of the Ironclad DVD proudly proclaims: ‘From the Producers of 300‘, and this is the most obvious influence. The historical setting, the bloody violence, the story of a few fierce warriors fighting at an overwhelming numerical disadvantage. Secondly, I would point to Martial Arts films. Early on in the film, the Templars are referred to as ‘Warrior Monks’, a phrase that brings to mind shaolin monks more than it does English Knights. What’s more, the artistic nature of the combat, and touches like Marshall wielding his longsword almost like a whirling staff at points make it look almost like a Kung Fu film. I’m not qualified to measure the authenticity of the swordplay, but I think to do so would be somewhat missing the point- no-one is mistaking this for a documentary. Regardless, I must confess to enjoying it action sequences; enjoying them enough, in fact, that I by and large enjoyed the whole film, despite it’s pretty glaring flaws.
And it is to those flaws that we now turn! This is a film, essentially, of two distinct types of scene: the fighting bits, and the other bits. Where the fighting bits stand up well, everything else falls flat. The film would have been better off going full genre and ignoring any romantic or emotional subplots. I was going to suggest they feel tacked-on, but that’s not quite true. It feels more like the film HAD complete emotional arcs and scenes to flesh out characters properly until someone in the editing room got a little too excited with the scissors. Flashes of characterisation appear, and lines of dialogue which feel like they COULD have felt profound with a little more context abound. But because we don’t know enough about, and therefore, care enough about, the motivations or inner lives of the characters, they fall flat. A couple of primer examples: reference is made numerous times to Marshall carrying a burden of regret, a weight of sin about his past life as a Templar. It’s intimated he feels bad about having killed so many. But we never get a flashback, never get any specifics about what he regrets- and then he spends the rest of the film killing countless men anyway with no apparent remorse. Then there’s the case of Gil Beckett (whose first name I only know thanks to IMDB), played by Jason Flemyng. Beckett’s character can be summarised in a single word: horny. He is introduced to the story whilst sleeping next to a prostitute, and spends any time he is not fighting having sex with someone. And yet, later on, he comes out with ‘I’ve been angry so long, I don’t even remember (why).’ He doesn’t seem that angry in any other scene! Rude, horned-up and unkind, yes, but he’s no angrier than anyone else!It just feels like they’re throwing characterisation spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, in the hope that they can distract us with another fight scene asap.
Another, lesser problem is with a couple of moments of CGI. Though broadly the film looks good (if mostly brown and grey), there are a couple of moments in the fight scenes that don’t look terribly convincing. One moment where a man is cut in half vertically looks like it was pulled straight out of Mortal Kombat, and the projectiles from the siege weapons don’t always convince. This is a fairly minor point, however, and forgivable of a movie without a Hollywood budget.
Finally, I want to talk about the historical setting. This isn’t necessarily a pro or con of the movie, and I’ll explain why I feel that way, but it’s worth noting that every single review of Ironclad contains a sentence along the lines of: ‘Excusing the historical inaccuracies…’ or ‘Playing fast and loose with history…’ This is not a film that strives to tell an accurate retelling of the (real) Siege of Rochester Castle. Interestingly, it does take some real things for inspiration. Baron William d’Aubigny was real and Pigs really were used in the Siege (I’ll explain soon, I promise). But for every semi-accuracy, there are two things which directly contradict historical truth. The Templars supported King John, for one thing, and the King WON the Siege of Rochester which (spoilers) he does not here. We see (literally) more of Marshall’s love interest, Lady Isabel (Kate Mara), than she would have shown at the time, and the Baron did not die at the Siege, as he does here. How you feel about this all depends on you. Some people find historical inaccuracies infuriating. Some don’t care! For whatever its worth, I think that history in cinema has a worthwhile place, and that the actual accuracy of a piece only really matters if it’s trying to be educational or ‘important’. If this film had presented itself as slavishly factual or as a worthy lesson from history or something, it would matter. But as this is a throwaway blockbuster with blood and a little sex, it hardly seems important. Hell the film might actually have been BETTER if a dragon showed up or something.
Two minor points remain, which I wish to talk about. The first is Paul Giamatti, who is very good at intense and villainous but not very good at shouting with a convincing English accent. Second is the pigs. In the real Siege of Rochester, King John slaughtered fatty pigs and used their lard in the construction of a tactical mineshaft. In this movie, they blow the pigs up in the mine shaft by burning them alive? So… yeah.
3 stars!: ***
Best Performance: Exploding Pigs
Worst Offence: Exploding Pigs
Elevator Pitch: 300 but with Exploding Pigs.
-Tom
PS!!!: Dear Reader, I must tell you something! I’m getting good news in my life at the moment, been very busy as I intimated at the start of this post. Job interviews are beginning to come in and its looking like I’ll be back at work soon. This is wonderful. Unfortunately, it means I’m going to stop blogging, at least for a while! But don’t worry, the blog has come back once already; I see it as a kind of irregular, reappearing blog, coming back when the time is right. I may never post again, it’s a possibility! But more likely, I think, I’ll be back when the star align. Until then fair reader, thanks for joining me. Think of me when you next watch a film and think:
‘This is a bit crap.’
Pound Shop Flix 