Tristan and Isolde, Movie Blog

We often see film adaptations of certain classic tales spurring uproar and anger in the audience. A fixed pair of lens seems to be plastered on our eyes when we have read a story prior to seeing the movie version. I pried mine off for this film, although I still held a bit of bias. We have to remember that, like Chrétien with the Arthurian canon, these films use these stories as canvases almost, to paint their image of the adventure and the heroes. The writers and directors do so perhaps to make the content more appeasing to audiences or even just to make the adaptation their own, to imprint their mark.

Personally, without my fixed glasses I enjoyed the movie. Perhaps the film didn’t hold the same air of eloquence as the works of Chrétien, for we can clearly see cinematography bears different images at times than the flamboyant adjective. For example many people did not like the macabre attitude held by Tristan throughout the movie. I, on the other hand, found this seemingly shallow film character quite interesting. The look of disdain as he crept through the bazaar, stalking his beloved who clasps gently to only his uncles old hand; I found Tristan to be much more damaged by the love in the movie. He seems much more perplexed by the way this love stains his honor; he seems more knightly almost but at the same time weaker when he gives in to the deceit. Which can be attributed to the lack of magic, more specifically the love potion. I find myself at a crossroad on whether or not I like the story without the love potion. The book’s concoction delivers the love into a more complex light with side effects; while the film’s love, although evidently more simple, is far more elemental and pure.

Despite my interest in the characterization of Tristan, I find my sympathies lay with King Mark’s film portrayal. Throughout the story, he expresses the most noble and deepest love for his family, in which he includes Tristan. He depicts a king far more mature than the baffling idiot seen portrayed in the story. His rule and overall demeanor seems void of wickedness, as seen when he simply sets Tristan and Isolde free after they betray him. His conduct seems far more appropriate of a king than the easily tricked Mark of Chrétien. Yet at the same time, we see these two same characters in different situations. The Mark of the film needs to be more stable and virtuosity to lead such a shattered nation; he needs to set his priorities on the good of his people. Mark of Chrétien lives in a more lavish lifestyle with less urgency and more time to allow malicious whispers to curse his ears.

I enjoyed the film because it was represented in a more realistic light. The characters seemed much more affected by their situations, they seemed to have real desires rather than empty plot driving intentions and these desires hold much deeper implications on the situation. The general theme of turmoil between Britain and Ireland seems to create a place for these authentic intentions and depth. The world is less lavish, the stars less bright; this film’s world is scarred deeper and hardened while the book represents a place much more lavish yet duller and even at times comedic.

How we judge these films is personal, almost as if the manifestation the writer took was meant to insult us or please us. I took the film for what it was, an adaptation. I permitted myself to enjoy it, although it may have been unpleasant to someone who took the very same approach. Upon my first and most elemental and paramount emotions, I can simply say…I was entertained; for what else are these tales recounted.