Comparing Films About The Christopher Columbus - Movie Review Example

Film Comparison – Christopher Columbus The modern world has become one that depends to a great extent upon the moving pictures of the television and movie screen for much of its education regarding both the present and the past. In an attempt to reach younger generations with historical knowledge, several media companies have long been producing informative programming with a specific aim toward instruction. However, many of these types of programs remained very dry and factual, based exclusively upon the limited information available and resisting urges to fill gaps with fiction. This restraint is not felt by those individuals seeking new stories or new ways of telling old stories through the bright lights of Hollywood as a means of gaining consumer dollars. Approaches to historical subjects vary widely depending upon the motivations of the film makers in the creation of their film. This can be seen most clearly when comparing those films, typically classified as documentaries, that aim to educate rather than entertain and those films, appropriately labeled entertainment, whose primary function is to entertain an audience and bring box office dollars into the producer’s pockets. While each may contain significant similarities as the entertainment film is based upon fact or the documentary strives to keep its audience’s attention, there remain significant differences between the two types of film. Comparing A&E’s biography of Christopher Columbus with the 1992 Hollywood production entitled “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery”, significant differences can be found in style, reporting of sources, adherence to and limitation by verifiable facts, overall presentation and inclusion of created elements. Because of their different target audience, each type of film approaches their subject in its own unique style. The documentary presents its facts as snippets of individual interviews held with a panel of ‘experts’, presenting both the information and the credentials at one and the same time. The storyline is based upon a step by step relation of facts regarding Christopher Columbus’ life supported by a similarly open and straightforward style. Lighting is kept bright, allowing little or nothing to hide in the shadows. Tricks of the camera are kept to a minimum as well, typically focused from a stationary spot within the expert’s office or panning slowly across a picture or sketch. The interviews are heard occasionally with the head and torso of the expert viewable on screen and occasionally with the images of still photographs, sketches, drawings, paintings and other representational images scrolling across the screen as deemed necessary to help illustrate a point being made. When these aren’t available, or when it is necessary to switch voices, the screen flashes back to a shot of the individual speaking as a means of lending additional credence to the statements being made. Music is allowed to fill in any blank spaces left open to give the audience time to think about the information that has been presented or to allow a specific point to sink in, but this is kept to an extreme minimum and is so low key as to nearly escape notice altogether. This presentational style, keeping music and other details to a minimum and lighting bright and open, is presumably intended to reassure the viewer that the facts being presented are true and correct, well-researched, largely agreed upon among experts and have left little or nothing unanswered or hidden. By contrast, the style used in the entertainment film could be distinguished as dramatic. Like the documentary, it avoids placing the characters in unnecessary darkness whenever possible, eliminating the possibility of intrigue or deceit in the events taking place, but allows darkness where appropriate, letting the corners of a cabin sink into the background darkness, for example, while leaving the faces of the actors in plain sight. Music is used extensively throughout the film as a means of heightening mood, for example in the arrest scene when Columbus is taken from the home of his lover’s family to be questioned by the chief inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. The action is presented as a continuous life-story, following the actions and the words of the man in the title and those individuals around him more than a simple retelling of facts. The plot focuses almost completely upon the voyage of discovery and the events leading to it, which also distinguish the Hollywood film from the documentary, which has a focus upon the life and times of Columbus rather than a single trip. Scenic design, therefore, is purposely made to be as close to realistic as possible, with some film shot on the open ocean in specially built replicas of the three ships Columbus took with him to the new world and a reconstructed port town of Palos. In addition, portions of the movie were shot on location in Spain and in a castle in which Queen Isabella actually lived. Whereas the documentary focused upon a straightforward interview with experts who were pretending to be nothing more than the experts they were presented to be, the actors in the Hollywood movie strove to elicit a sympathetic response from the viewers, attempting to convey an understanding of the man as well as a grasp of his obsessive quest and cruel nature. In terms of revealing the sources used for the production of each film, the documentary is much more revealing than the Hollywood version. For each expert interviewed, the screen displays a name and the reason they are considered an expert. For example, one individual is identified as having written a book covering the life of Christopher Columbus, another is identified as a professor of history in a university while a third is shown to be an expert on the lifestyles and knowledge base of people in the mid- to late-1400s. However, the film only uses these three experts upon whom they base their entire presentation with little to no further background information on them regarding their true expertise in this field. While one is an author, it is not mentioned what type of research she conducted in the creation of her book. While another is a professor of history at a university, it is not mentioned the level of courses he instructs nor whether he has any special knowledge within this sphere. The third expert, however, is brought into serious question when he mentions that on that first voyage, the Spaniards brought with them horses that served to shock and awe the natives. This statement is immediately called into question when one sees the images of the ships in which they sailed and knows that there is no room available upon these ships to house a horse, much less the amount of feed it would have been necessary to carry. A final source of information frequently cited throughout the film are voice-over excerpts from Columbus’ ship log in which he makes observations regarding his own despair at ever finding the land he knows is out there and his amazement at what he finds. In addition to the experts, much of the images shown throughout the production appear to be of historic value, consisting of paintings and portraits of Columbus as he grew older, sketches and drawings presumed created during this time period and illustrations of the types of dangers the general populace feared in the open ocean. However, the source of these images was not given a similar identification to that of the experts and therefore can be called into question regarding their veracity. By contrast, the Hollywood version provides no information regarding the source of its information, despite the fact that it claims on its dustjacket to be “meticulously researched.” By comparing the information presented in the documentary with information presented in the film, it can be seen that a great deal of Columbus’ history has been condensed into the single voyage when some events actually occurred on subsequent voyages. In addition, the level of cruelty inherent in the man himself is called into question as the documentary reports that he was already thinking of the native as slaves the instant he saw them while the entertainment film depicts him as a man of fairness and respect for this other race of people, sorely misunderstood and unfairly judged by the disastrous actions of the men he left behind. Another significant difference in factual information presented by the two movies can be found in reporting on the size of the ships. While the documentary indicates both that the ships were large enough to carry horses and that they were too small to allow all 40 crewmembers to sleep at one time, the entertainment film indicates they were too small for horses but large enough to give everyone a place to sleep with some additional areas left vacant in which mischief can occur. Information regarding Columbus’ personal life and his arrest in Spain by the Inquisition forces are left unsourced and undocumented by the film while his explorations into the interior of the new world upon his arrival during his first voyage and his earlier sailing experiences that left him able to carry on his future role are glossed over at best and misrepresented at worst. Information gaps occur in both films, but for quite different reasons. The documentary contains gaps of information regarding Columbus’ personal life with his sons and his lover, whom it is mentioned he never married. Information is provided, however, regarding his first wife, who brought him more prestigious titles and the maps and charts that initiated his ideas regarding wind patterns and ocean currents which would play a large role in his successfully navigating the open sea. Other than indicating that the first wife died leaving him a son, the film does not indicate what ever happened to these other individuals as a result of Columbus’ actions and their association with him. Another gap left unanswered is whether he ever truly struggled with the church to gain permission for his adventure although this does seem plausible given the strict nature of the church at this time period. Given the strength of the experts called to testify for the film, this last gap in the presentation has no plausible explanation other than a possible lack of written fact. Because the documentary strongly relies upon the verifiable information available regarding the adventures of Columbus, any gaps in the record are left to remain standing unless they can be filled through more generalized knowledge, such as common practice, reported knowledge for the time period or logical reconstruction. However, these last means of filling gaps in the record could be said to have gone outside the realm of simple fact reporting and therefore have an element of the created about them. The Hollywood film also contains several gaps in the information presented. While it depicts a loving relationship between Columbus and his lover, the fact that he never married her is left unmentioned and unaccounted for. A slight reference to this is made early in the film, when he tells her that although he may never marry her, she will always be by his side, but the issue is never taken up throughout the rest of the movie. The most prominent gaps in the film occur during large blocks of time that pass undedicated to the voyage itself. For example, Columbus spent approximately six years in Spain awaiting funding from the crown to undertake his voyage. Spain was, at the time, embroiled in a war with the Moors, which was not only sapping away any ability to fund expensive voyages that may or may not return any profit, but also blocking the overland passage to the east, which was what spurred Columbus to seek another route. The film informs the viewer that Columbus lived mostly upon an allowance granted him by Queen Isabella as an incentive to stay close in Spain until she could afford to fund the trip. It also indicates that he spent his time during this period working as a mapmaker in the village. However, the way in which this is accomplished provides very little indication that a great deal of time has passed since he received the promise of the queen and the blessing of the crown to start his trip. Similar confusing jumps in time occur throughout the film, making it sometimes difficult for the viewer to follow the story or to understand the length of time that has elapsed since the men had put to sea and making their complaints and fears seem unreasonable and significantly less courageous. In addition, since the film only concerns itself with the time period in which Columbus took his first voyage, it is interesting to note the details of his life that occurred later that are nevertheless included in this film, such as the necessity for the queen to grant pardons to murderers as incentive to fill Columbus’ ship on his third voyage to the new world. Each film undoubtedly has some created elements, although these are much more evident in the Hollywood film than in the documentary. Although the documentary presents itself as being straightforward and completely factual, some question is raised regarding the images used throughout the presentation. Little to no documentation is given regarding the source of these images and, while they look plausibly old enough, there can be no true discernment between an image created hundreds of years ago reproduced on the television screen and one digitally mastered a few weeks ago to be reproduced in the same manner. Fortunately, though, little to none of the information provided depends upon the illustrations used as they are merely used to back up the statements being made by the experts. Images of Christopher Columbus are presumed real as they depict him in portrait form at various stages of his life. Images depicting him in active stances, arguing with magistrates or other official looking persons, may be less real, but are reminiscent of early sketch work nevertheless. Although it is made to look as if the three experts had been interviewed within their respective offices, a comparison of the background area visible indicates they might have been sitting in different portions of the same room having a discussion. Again, though, this difference from the typical documentary has little to no bearing on the veracity of the facts presented or the presumption of the audience that this is intended to be an educational rather than entertaining presentation. In considering the created elements produced for the film, the Hollywood film again far surpasses that of the documentary. The ships that are used were full scale replicas of the ships that Columbus actually sailed, created to commemorate the 500 year anniversary of the voyage as well as to use within the film itself. The port city in which Columbus was shown to have lived and worked while awaiting his funding was also a complete fabrication on the part of the movie-makers. However, real elements were included as well. Real sharks were filmed in the water to give the story depth and heighten the apparent reality of the sailors’ fears regarding sea monsters, the ships were actually sailed in the open ocean for a real-time effect of wave swells, space and distance and the castle Queen Isabella made her home was used in the court scenes in which Columbus presented his case and his findings to the royals. Effects were heightened more through the use of sound, music building to a crescendo or the absence of all sound save the creak of the ropes or the billowing of the sails, rather than through digitally altered special effects. The overall presentation of each film, then, was unique unto itself while still presenting a great deal of information about its primary character, that of Christopher Columbus himself. While the Hollywood film was more engrossing, it contained many confusing elements, factual errors or misrepresentations and provided no information regarding where this information had been found. Rather than being taken as a serious biography of the man, the film presents itself as a family adventure film with a slight warning regarding the dangerous nature of greed and obsession. Although the audience may not be completely aware that the information presented within the film are not necessary facts regarding the true figure, enough is presented to give an accurate depiction of the man that was Columbus and some of the difficulties he struggled with during his lifetime, whether they are in the proper order or not. The entertaining nature of the film takes over any concept of this as a historical film and the way in which it quickly captures the imagination and engages the sympathy of the audience dispels any residual hopes that this film might present a true representation of Columbus’ life. By contrast, the documentary presents itself as nothing more than the factual representation of Columbus’ life based on the written records still available. Far from going out of its way to try to entertain, captivate or engage the imaginations of its audience, the documentary strives to present, in as concise a form as possible, the highlights and major issues faced by Columbus as he grew up, formulated his ideas, struggled for recognition and backing and then made four separate voyages to the new world. While the information is presented with great detail regarding Columbus’ involvement in these events, it is kept to a general level, not allowing the viewer to gain access much beyond the surface facts of the man’s life. It is mentioned he was obsessed with the concept of finding an overseas passage to China as well as how he formulated these ideas, but it is not mentioned how this obsession affected other aspects of his life. While his ability to correctly navigate his way across the ocean and his knowledge of the winds is acknowledged to have been far superior to most other sailors, his explorations in the new world are simply glossed over, with quick mentions made of the various islands and continental areas he visited and little to no information given as to what he discovered there. Although these two films carry nearly identical titles and present themselves as conveying well-researched information regarding Christopher Columbus and his voyage across the dark sea, a comparison of these two films demonstrates they are completely different from each other. The discrepancies in the information provided are only the start of where these films diverge. Style, setting, special effects, storyline, focus and overall presentation distinguish each of these films as being merely entertainment or merely informative. At the same time, neither film fully delivers on its promise. While the documentary does an admirable job of supporting its text, the veracity of the experts is called into question by the misstatements of one and the lack of referencing associated with other supportive materials. Entertainment aspects of the film are minor and serve only to support the statement of the experts without adding any real value of their own. While the Hollywood film does an admirable job of entertaining, it fails to provide the viewer with any supporting information regarding where the information used was discovered or the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, such as through a website discussion. The absence of obvious special effects helps to increase the perception that this is a fact-based film, but too many facts are combined for this claim to be taken seriously. At the same time, the entertainment value is reduced by confusing jumps through time and omitted facts that reduce understanding of Columbus’ history and character development. Finally, none of these discrepancies, for either film, become immediately apparent until it is compared with the other, making it necessary for entertainment film producers to ensure audiences realize the film is intended for entertainment purposes only or to provide access to a discussion of fact versus fiction found within the story presented. Works Cited Christopher Columbus: The Discovery. Dir. Alexander Salkind. Perf. Marlon Brando, Tom Selleck, George Corraface, Rachel Ward. Warner Bros., 1992. Christopher Columbus: Explorer of the New World. Dir. Craig Haffner. A&E Biography, 1995. Read More