Oftentimes critics use words as shorthand to convey one
thing when they really mean another. The term epic, as example, is
often used to describe films that are merely long. This is an incorrect
usage, for epic also implies bigness in other areas- the film may be on
a grand subject- a war, the conquest of space, the life of a very
important and influential leader in human affairs, etc. But, merely
long films, like Bela Tarr’s Satantango, do not qualify. On another
level, terms like epic are also wielded to imply not only hugeness of
theme, but also to imply that the film or art or thing is also good, in
terms of its quality. After all, why use a superlative on something
that is not superlative in all senses? This, too, is not so. And a good
example of a film that can be called an epic, rightfully, in many
cinematic aspects, yet also be panned as, at best, a mediocre film, is
the 2007 film from Russian filmmaker Sergei Bodrov, Mongol: The Rise Of
Genghis Khan. In short, no one will be comparing this film to any of
the films Andrei Tarkovsky wrought. It has far less in common with a
real cinematic artist like Tarkovsky, and far more in common with the
dreck Hollywood produces, from men like Ridley Scott (his recent films)
or Michael Bay.
The 125 minute long film starts fairly well: its first half hour or so
features the future Genghis Khan (Temujin), as a child (Odnyam Odsuren)
whose father, Esugai (Ba Sen), the khan of his tribe, is poisoned to
death by a rival tribe, then treated to cruelty and slavery by rivals
within the tribe. This, like much of the film, is based in historical
fact, however melodramatized. The early scenes of the film, shot in a
2.35:1 aspect ratio, makes excellent use of the raw beauty of the
central Asian steppes of Russia, Kazakhstan, China, and Mongolia. But,
then the screenplay, penned by Bodrov and Arif Aliyev, simply tanks.
After initial scenes of youth, meant to set the stage, quickly, for
Temujin’s life, we then fast forward to him as a young man, out to
avenge his father’s death, claim his childhood bride, Borte, and set
about unifying the varied Mongol tribes into a nation, then an empire.
The problem is that all of this occurs with the rapidity and
believability of a professional wrestling match, and with actors,
outside of Tadanobu Asano, who plays the Adult Temujin, who simply are
not professional enough to be believable. Honglei Sun, who plays
Jamukha- Temujin’s childhood blood-brother and rival for Great Khan, is
a one note, whose acting range has all the depth of his punk style
haircut. Khulan Chuluun, who plays Temujin’s wife, Borte, is even
worse. Yes, she’s nice to look at, but has no emotional range. She is
chosen , as a child, by Temujin, to be his bride, and this somehow
bonds her to him for life. This aspect of the film- the Hollywood style
love story, is also a weak point. Yes, the real Borte was Khan’s wife,
but Khan was a noted womanizer, with hundreds of wives and concubines,
and hundreds more children. The idea that theirs was some modern sort
of Western love story is simply untenable and ahistorical, as is the
passage of the film where Temjin is imprisoned as a slave in Tangut,
only to have Borte sell her body to a local caravan merchant, then,
years later, when getting to her destination (although the film implies
it is merely months), sans the merchant (whom she likely killed), she
easily dispatches the Tangut guards, rescues Tyemujin, and, within
minutes we cut to the former slave suddenly heading a rival army into
battle with Jamukha’s forces, mere minutes after having been defeated
by them, he was sold into slavery to start the filmic passage. Add to
this the rather hit and miss CGI effects, and one is left with a very
Lord Of The Rings version of Asian history, poorly acted, and even more
poorly wrought. To end things on a down note, the film ends with a hard
rock score. I’m not saying that historical and musical fidelity need
always be followed, but given the MTV-like film that preceded it, the
ending seemed a bit like an admission that all seen before was bullshit.
Next year the second part of a planned trilogy, called The Great Khan,
is slated to be released, but I do not hold out high hopes for it. This
film is told in flashback for its first 60%, with the film opening on
Temujin in a Tangut jail, as a slave prisoner held up for ridicule, as
if he were a zoo animal. On the positive side, although the CGI
produces poor blood effects, the way that the blood squirts from the
body when slashed, is quite realistic, and most of the battle scenes
are quite exciting, even if they mix slow motion realism with obviously
second rate effects. The film also demures biography for hagiography,
making Temujin out to be an all wise and all knowing and benevolent
figure. This is simply not so. Yes, as a long time student of the
Mongol Empire, I think it was the first truly global civilization on
the planet, and had many good qualities that sprung from its genocidal
foundation. But, while Genghis Khan, himself, had many good qualities,
the film presents a de facto saint, rather than a man as capable of
savage butchery as he is of honoring his word.
This film was somehow nominated for Best Foreign Film at the 2007
Academy Awards, and one has to believe it’s only because of its subject
matter and the fact of its provenance, because its artistic quality is
simply not high. In many ways, it’s a B film masquerading as an A film,
and one need merely to compare it to earlier epics like Ben-Hur,
Spartacus, and El Cid, to see where this film went wrong, in terms of
acting, writing, and the eschewing of realism for video game level
special effects (the final battle scene between Jamukha’s and Temjin’s
forces, replete with darkening skies, is especially silly.
The DVD, put out by New Line Cinema, is utterly bare bones. Yet, this
is the sort of DVD that screams for needing a commentary and/or a
making of featurette, and a documentary on the historical Genghis Khan.
Not that such could have justified the film’s failings, but they could
have at least shed light onto why certain things in the film were
portrayed a certain way. While a film historian’s commentary would be
nice, even more elucidating would have been a scholar of the Mongol
Empire and/or the Ancient Orient to discuss the schism between the
film’s reality and that history bears. As it is, Mongol: The Rise Of
Genghis Khan, is a mess of a film- intriguing enough in its pros and
historical import, to get a mild recommendation for viewing, but too
Hollywood in its screenplay deficiencies and logic to recommend with
much fervor. Yes, it is a true epic, in all the ways one might compare
it to those of David Lean, save for one: quality. And it is in that
lack that this essay’s opening posit bears fruit. You decide if it is
of a poisoned tree or not.