RSS

Yearly Archives: 2010

Literature Commentary: Don Quixote

I refuse to be defeated by any book. Unless I have some serious moral problem with a given work, I will almost never return a book to the library just because I got “bored” of it. There’s just something in my psyche that rebels against throwing in the towel…and Miguel de Cervantes’ classic novel “Don Quixote” has long been a burr under my saddle. I started the abridged version many years ago – and didn’t finish it. About six months ago, I tried the unabridged version – and it went back to the library unfinished.

That situation has now been remedied. And I finally feel a sense of completion.

“Don Quixote” is a bit of a paradox. On one hand, it’s a thought-provoking meditation on the nature of chivalry and the impact one man can have on the lives of others…but it’s also a long, tedious slog through page after page of inane dialogue and occasionally bawdy humor. Is it worth your time?

The book is best known for its memorable depiction of Don Quixote jousting with windmills he believes to be giants. The overarching story, however, is a bit more complex than that. Don Quixote is a Spanish nobleman with an affinity for “books of chivalry” (semi-historical adventure stories, vaguely reminiscent of something a 16th-century Clive Cussler might have written). These stories so inspire Don Quixote that he decides to become a knight-errant – a warrior riding from place to place righting injustices and saving damsels in distress.

Of course, any good knight-errant needs a lady to inspire him. So Don Quixote settles on the semi-attractive Aldonza Lorenza, a peasant girl from a nearby village. The fact that he has never actually seen her is irrelevant – he promptly decides to call her Dulcinea del Toboso and resolves to perform great deeds in her honor. Along with his faithful squire, the slightly slow-witted Sancho Panza, Don Quixote sets out to win fame and renown in the name of Dulcinea. But such seeming “madness” doesn’t go unnoticed by his neighbors – particularly the village curate and barber. The two men take it upon themselves to “cure” Don Quixote, following him and his squire around the Spanish countryside in the hopes of restoring his senses. Thus begins the adventure of Don Quixote – a long, meandering epic that takes him hither and yon in search of everlasting glory.

At first I hated this book. The first five or six hundred pages are full of digressions and seemingly meaningless episodes that didn’t appear to add anything. Things do pick up in the latter half of of the novel, however…and it becomes clear that Cervantes had a purpose beyond mere entertainment.

It would’ve been easy to write off Don Quixote as simply a comic novel – if not for the complex attitude toward honor and chivalry that the book espouses. (Note that in order to fully explore the depth of this novel, the following discussion contains spoilers.)

At first glance, the story appears to satirize the fantastical adventures of bold knights, cunning enchanters, and beautiful princesses. And as previously mentioned, most people’s image of Don Quixote is of a ramshackle knight trying vainly to knock down windmills. When given only a cursory look, it seems as if “Don Quixote” was written to poke fun at the idealized notions of chivalry and honor popular at the time.

However, such a view misses the true point of the novel.

It took me almost one thousand pages of reading to realize the significance of all the apparently useless adventures early on in the book. Although Don Quixote’s behavior appears to be totally irrational (and his conversation is punctuated with nonsense references to enchantments and wizards), he is actually successful in performing deeds of honor.

The primary conflict in the first half of the book revolves around a love square (something like “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”). Through Don Quixote’s intervention, the fullest happiness is in fact attained for all the individuals involved. His commitment to living chivalrously forbids him to allow wrongs to go uncorrected.

Later on in the book, Don Quixote and Sancho fall in with a duke and duchess who decide to play along with Don Quixote’s madness. They make sport of him by inventing outlandish situations that appear to be pulled straight from the pages of one of his “books of chivalry.” Don Quixote escapes, but is confronted by a mysterious “Knight of the White Moon” who defeats him in single combat and makes him promise not to leave his village for the space of one year. (In reality, the “Knight of the White Moon” is a fellow villager that the curate and barber have employed to stop Don Quixote.)

The curate and the barber take Don Quixote home in the hopes of curing him. Don Quixote, however, soon becomes fatally ill. On his deathbed, he “regains his sanity” and renounces the absurdly chivalric lifestyle he has previously led. However, in a surprising twist, his fellow villagers (who had previously ridiculed him) recognize the impact he has had on others. They tell Don Quixote that he is mistaken: that he is the Knight of La Mancha and must continue to be so. Despite all the mocking jests they have hurled at him over the years, they cannot escape the truth that he has given them a new way of looking at the world.

And that is the true beauty of “Don Quixote.” It is not a mockery of chivalry so much as it is a celebration of it. Don Quixote’s ironclad commitment to courtesy, honor, and justice does not go unnoticed by those around him – even the ones who formerly sneered at his behavior.

Worldview elements are somewhat synthesized with the previously discussed message of the story. As a whole, the novel affirms traditional moral values (although certain “humorous” scenes are of somewhat poor taste). Although there are a few jokes at the expense of the Catholic Church and the priesthood, Christianity as a whole is treated with great respect. (Readers may wish to be aware that the same respect is not necessarily accorded to Islam – an attitude that is not laudable, but is undeniably consistent with the sentiments of the time.)

So should you read it?

I hate to ever encourage someone to read an abridged version. Having read the full, unabridged version, I honestly question whether an abridged edition would be able to accurately convey the overarching message of the novel (and not just devolve into a string of semi-comic episodes). But since I haven’t read an abridged version, I can’t say anything for sure.

The full version of “Don Quixote” is truly a massive tome. With an unabridged edition that tops out at roughly 1200 pages, it’s almost as long as “War and Peace.” And it’s exceedingly dull in portions (especially those that seem to have no relation to the rest of the story). However, it is also a thought-provoking look at the nature of true chivalry – and that in itself makes the book a worthy read. It doesn’t really kick into high gear until the last two hundred pages or so…but the ending is an emotional touchstone that justifies spending hours wading through the slower segments.

If you’re a fan of classic literature, the uncut “Don Quixote” is probably a must-read. If you prefer more casual entertainment, an abridged version might be more enjoyable. It’s not for everyone…but there’s a reason it’s on all those lists of “great books.”

VERDICT: 7/10
A long parable of chivalry and adventure that is redeemed by its finale.

Addendum: Coldplay fans will appreciate this (I just found this today, and it’s surprisingly relevant!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3K4TrKus60

 
6 Comments

Posted by on June 1, 2010 in Classic

 

Movie Review: “Robin Hood”

Back when I was about seven or eight, one of our family’s favorite movies was the classic 1938 action movie “The Adventures of Robin Hood” starring Errol Flynn. For me, Robin Hood has always been a dashing, charming rogue with a penchant for winning archery contests and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham.

But 2010’s Robin Hood, in Ridley Scott’s film of the same name, does nothing of the sort. Instead, this Robin Hood is perfectly at home wielding a sword or a war-hammer as he thunderously proclaims the importance of individual liberties and the failures of government. It’s perhaps the darkest, most “epic” adaptation of the classic story ever produced.

The film follows Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard’s army. Disillusioned after the brutality of the Crusades, Robin and his friends (who will later become the first of his “merry men”) return to England after King Richard perishes during a battle in France. But it soon becomes clear that a traitor is lurking among the English…a traitor who would love nothing more than to see England submit to French rule.

Unfortunately, the English people are now forced to bow before Richard’s younger brother – the bratty, womanizing King John. Heedless of his people’s plight, John sends soldiers to collect years of “back taxes” from the poverty-stricken northern barons – and raze their homes and lands if they cannot pay. As expected, Robin won’t stand for it.

Thus begins the most recent incarnation of the classic legend.

I’ll start with the positives: “Robin Hood” is a massive, sweeping epic with gorgeous scenery and set pieces. The beautiful English countryside is vibrantly displayed throughout, providing a sense of both historical realism and ethereal fantasy. And, as expected, the battle scenes are stupendous. The epic fights in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy didn’t feel entirely realistic – after all, they involved hundreds of thousands of computer-generated combatants. In contrast, the fights in “Robin Hood” rarely involve more than two or three hundred warriors, which makes combat a much more personal, visceral experience. (And if there were computer effects employed, I didn’t notice them.) This makes the movie seem far more realistic and intense.

The acting is also strong. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett (as Robin Hood and Lady Marion, respectively) are effective in their parts – although there seems to be rather a lack of chemistry between them. Mark Strong is appropriately villainous as the evil traitor Godfrey, and newcomer Oscar Isaac perfectly portrays the grotesquely immature Prince/King John.

But perhaps most surprising about this new version of “Robin Hood” is its political philosophy. Robin Hood has always been a traditional liberal poster boy, with his mindset of “robbing from the rich, to give to the poor.” This Robin Hood, on the other hand, is a libertarian conservative committed to small government and individual rights. When King John scornfully asks Robin if he wants to give “every man a castle”, Robin boldly replies, “A man’s home is his castle!”

Robin’s ultimate goal is to make King John sign a statement guaranteeing the liberties of the individual (read: the Magna Carta). He rejects the oppressive taxation policies of “big government” and believes that the regional barons should be empowered to help their people. Overall, it feels like a modern Tea Party parable – during one of Robin’s particularly dramatic speeches, I found myself noting just how many Republican ideas he was proclaiming. It’s quite a refreshing change from the typical “politically correct” storytelling that usually comes out of Hollywood.

Sounds great, right? Well…not exactly.

The most fundamental problem with “Robin Hood” is that the filmmakers obviously tried to cater to to too many audiences. By reuniting Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe in a swords-and-horses war movie, they aimed at fans of “Gladiator.” By aiming for a PG-13 rating and toning down the bloodshed, they tried to appeal to families and younger viewers. By introducing historical context such as the Crusades and the Magna Carta, they targeted medieval history buffs. The result is a movie that feels strained – like it couldn’t decide what sort of film it wanted to be.

In my opinion, Robin Hood should be a charming young outlaw who spends his time stealing the Sheriff’s gold, exploring Sherwood Forest, and trying to win Maid Marion’s heart. Russell Crowe, although he’s an excellent actor, is (at 46) far too old for that sort of role. Someone like David Wenham, Nathan Fillion, or even Orlando Bloom would be better cast as Robin Hood.

Perhaps a superhero movie analogy is in order. Both “Spider-Man” and “The Dark Knight” were critical and box-office successes – yet they are fundamentally different films. “Spider-Man” was about fast comic-book action and witty dialogue, whereas “The Dark Knight” was a gritty psychological thriller exploring much “heavier” topics. Robin Hood should swing towards the “Spider-Man” end of that spectrum – not embracing the modern “darker” trend, but standing in contrast to it. This film is a great medieval war movie – but it isn’t Robin Hood.

Worldview elements are mostly muted, although there are a few points of note. At the beginning of the movie, Robin says that after the Crusades, he and his companions have become “godless” and that they have compromised their faith through their murderous deeds. However, he obviously retains some personal convictions, as evidenced by his prayer for the soul of a departed soldier. For the most part, the Church is portrayed as an organization of greedy thieves in league with King John – one element, at least, that’s consistent with the original Robin Hood stories. Overall, the movie takes a fairly ambiguous stance towards religion.

So is it worth seeing?

From a content-advisory standpoint, there are a couple of considerations. The violence is about on the level of “Lord of the Rings” – it’s not bloody or overly graphic, but scores of people end up getting stabbed, sliced, burned, and shot with arrows. (It doesn’t come close to the amount of violence present in “Gladiator.”) There is also one scene of sexual content involving Prince John and his French mistress – it’s fairly brief, but viewers may want to be aware that it’s present.

My biggest issue with “Robin Hood” is its title. If this movie had been called “An Archer’s Tale” or something like that, without the Robin Hood connection, it would rank among my favorite historical movies. But by linking this story to the Robin Hood legend, director Ridley Scott is asking filmgoers to completely reevaluate one of their most beloved characters. That’s a risky proposition…and it doesn’t work here.

It’s still worth seeing. But I’d recommend waiting for the DVD on this one.

VERDICT: 6.5/10
A good historical epic. A weak Robin Hood retelling.

Normalized Score: 2.4

 
4 Comments

Posted by on May 15, 2010 in Historical