Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you all. I found another “objective review” from college, and I thought I should put it into the mix. Like any of these older reviews I put up, I have done some editing but the content is intact. Enjoy!
The Brotherhood of the Wolf is unlike anything else I have ever seen. It’s an intense blending of genres that follows 18th century Renaissance man, Sir Gregoire de Fronsac and his Native American companion, Mani, on a quest to capture and study a beast ravaging the French countryside.
I have more contrasting and peculiar views on this film then perhaps on any other motion picture in my collection. I must love it, for I was willing to shell out 30-some dollars for a Special Canadian Import of it. The movie is, well, an entity unto itself, demanding analysis that I am completely unequipped to provide it. Why? Well, frankly, it’s a French film, and I don’t understand French cinema. I mean, c’mon, I barely have a working knowledge of American cinema. That being said, my review is going to be less full and, in my opinion, less valid than reviews of many of my other films.
Like all good adventure films, Brotherhood blends a variety of dramatic devices and genres to become an engaging and dynamic motion picture, which I believe will last for many years to come (at least in France, if no where else). I am going to begin this review with criticisms of the film, move into its narrative strengths, and end with a few extra comments on other aspects of the film on which one may want to focus specific attention.
One complaint that one might have is that the story includes too many characters. With this criticism, I wholeheartedly empathize but do not wholly agree. Yes, I feel the film overwhelms itself with entirely too many characters, six of which are considered primary. While I do believe this will confuse and frustrate a viewer upon a first viewing of the picture, I also find the scope of characters fascinating and rich. I have seen the film in its entirety four times now, so I am familiar with all the characters, and I could probably name off a dozen or so without pausing—but that came from 3 viewings of the original theatrical cut, 1 viewing of the director’s cut, hours of investment in film reviews and the discs special features. So, if the amount of characters frustrates you, have no fear; I identify, and in part, agree with you.
This film is terribly flawed, however, in one major area. French or not, the nudity in this piece is so gratuitous its shameful. When it comes to American History X or even Roadhouse, I won’t apologize for the filmmakers use of nudity or sex; but here I AM DRAWING MY LINE. This is not because I feel nudity in film is inherently wrong; it’s because the nudity in THIS film is wrong, all wrong, for one simple reason.
First and foremost, it’s unnecessary. We have no need to see uncovered chests in the brothel; we know the score; we know how that goes; we get the picture. In these scenes, the random displays of extras’ chests are so distracting and pointless that the shots seem twice as long as they should. “BUT CJ”, some may say “YOU GET TO SEE MONICA BELLUCCI. DOES THAT NOT APPEASE YOU?” To you dirts, I have one reply.
Absolutely not. Granted, had she been the only one we see nude, I would be singing a much different tune, not because of HER but because the nudity and disclosure would have set her apart from the other women in the brothel, who we would have only get to see covered. THAT artistic choice I would have tolerated, even defended with a blood-stained sword. BUT, no, showing me her skin just to satisfy carnality means nothing…except more criticism.
The nature of Bellucci’s character, SYLVIA, should have demanded a better treatment of her sexuality. SYLVIA is a mysterious and fascinating character in the film; but we see her and other women in the basic same way, as whores. SYLVIA’s character is much more important to the story than that, and her character should have been treated with more respect than elaborate costumes, a cool weapon, and some mysterious dialogue. Bellucci’s sole nudity would have set her apart from the other whores in the movie, in that we get to “know” more of her than any of the others. This is not an excuse to see her naked; this is a logical argument that her nudity could have been more meaningful and beautiful had the filmmakers thought with the mind in the upper half of their body.
My one exception to this sweeping criticism of the films treatment of nudity is the transition involving Ms. Bellucci’s body and snowy mountain tops. I am well aware of the analogy of a woman’s breasts being like mountains, and the transition it inspires midway through the film is worth some thought. I do not believe that the transition is lustful; rather, I feel it expresses a sense of awe in the female body, not Ms. Bellucci’s in particular, but the shape of the female form itself. The transition, at least to me, suggests, that a woman’s shape is as grand, breathtaking, and captivating as any serine hillside or majesty in nature. Though I think this shot is unearned given the film’s previous failures with the fragile subject of nudity, I have to admit that the transition is beautiful and communicates to me a genuine respect for the female body on behalf of the filmmakers. It’s disappointing that this reverence is not also manifested elsewhere in the motion picture.
Let’s move on to the movie’s strengths as an adventure film.
First, this movie satisfies the criteria of good horror. Time-and-time again, the movie creates a sense of fear in its audience. The filmmakers load the tale with plenty of the gory details, chases, and monster-attacks that have given horror films their identity. The movie adheres to the genre’s conventions of letting helpless women fall victim to an attacker who endures substantial abuse by conventional weapons. In some ways, the film makes the aged-old devices fresh, interesting, and terrifying
But Brotherhood’s true strength is that it refuses to be restricted to its horror elements and also becomes a kinetic martial-arts action film. Now, contrary to popular (and I believe, unwarranted) opinion, the action in the movie is not The Matrix in 18th century. This movie utilizes marital arts techniques that have been used for decades. The fight scenes it creates are not “battle-ballets” of wire work and 100s of effortless blocks and kicks per minute. No, the action of Brotherhood is well-choreographed, full-contact, dirty, no-holds-barred brawling. When someone gets hit; they get hurt. People actually get cut with sharp objects (unlike persons in The Matrix Reloaded). Women who fight get hit just like the men. People lose limbs. People bleed from more than the corner of their lip. THIS IS ACTION, fighting with real pain at stake. Furthermore, the fights in this picture, unlike in many martial arts film, are not repetitive. The film utilizes a variety locations, weapons, and methods of mayhem to keep the action fresh and welcome.
At this point the movie still would have been solid, but the writers decided to take the film one step further and make it emotionally engaging through romance, genuine dramatic tension, and moments of levity. This human dimension, I believe, is what truly sets Brotherhood apart from so many other action, horror, and adventure films. The film is steeped in story, in myth. This is not the event-driven “myth” of Robert Rodriguez’s disappointing Once Upon a Time in Mexico, it’s the strong, character-driven myth of the Arthurian legends. The Beast of Gevudaun was a real creature believed to have killed some 130 women and children. Many of the characters in this film were inspired by real persons from recorded documents. The film is not historical; nor does it intend to be. But it is intentionally rooted in the humanity of the story it tells. In this aspect more than any other, Brotherhood of the Wolf extends beyond a horror or action genre piece to become a full and engaging dramatic adventure.
Here are a few more thoughts.
First, I don’t understand the nightmare, if you do, please Comment.
Second, Note the treatment of the Native American. He is treated with a respect I have rarely seen in film. His medical prowess, fighting ability, and skills with nature are all interesting if not admirable. He really makes me regret what the Europeans did to his people and culture.
Third, Watch the small details regarding tools used by characters. Notice Fronsac’s use of iconic Native American weapons during his attack on the witches/gypsies. He is fully taking on the persona of his companion (as a type of vengeful ghost). Then note in the final scene his use of two identical daggers, to symbolize Mani and himself. Also take note of both the bone-sword used by Jean-Francois in the end battle and the firearm he uses earlier. The bone-sword serves as type of replacement for his diseased and crippled arm, and the gun/bullets shows a self-indulgence and arrogance in his character.
Anythang else?
Yes. Plenty…most of which I do not understand, or I do understand and can’t formulate into words. I watched all three-plus hours of special features included on my extended Collector’s edition set, and I missed so much in this movie. I missed so much that my notes from the features are an absolute mess.
The film had a variety of deleted scenes, some of which were included into my DIRECTOR’s CUT and some of which were not. Frankly, all of the deleted scenes I saw should have been included in the final DIRECTOR’s CUT. That is, with the exception of one scene that did not make sense in the final narrative of the film. The first of the deleted scenes is an extended version of the film’s first major fight scene, wherein Mani, the Native American warrior, beats a group of soldiers who are abusing peasants. The extended version is just a joy to watch, and it really conveys the comraderie of Fronsac and his Native American companion. The second deleted scene is the scene that makes no sense given the narrative structure of the film, so I won’t go into it. The third scene is character exploration for the priest Sardis and his relationship to the Marongias family. The fourth scene is a gorgeous, haunting romantic scene between Fronsac and Marianne. The fifth is scene displays Sylvia’s relationship to the rest of the characters in the story and really establishes her power. They are all worth watching, and all but one of them (in my opinion) should have been added to the DIRECTOR’s CUT of the film.
Well, again, I have the 3-disc special edition and with it a variety of features, all of which are insightful. The filmmakers are very vulnerable and honest with the documenters and, in being so, really shed light not only the film but on French cinema as a whole. While I do not recommend that all of you go out and buy this thing up; I definitely recommend grabbing the DVD up from me for a weekend (if possible) and getting the goods on the film itself and the real facts on which the story is based. This movie is captivating; I want it to be longer than it is and explore all that it has. I want to watch it constantly, and I want to show it to friends and talk about it. This is a movie I recommend for a great ride and a rich and fulfilling cinematic experience.
