I didn’t expect much from the film, although there were vague hopes that Conquest would be a little more beautiful and adequate than the average Bollywood classic (despite all my love for it). And it happened.
I, as paying quite a lot of attention to the “picture” (after, of course, the plot) was not pleased only by the relative “pallor” of the costumes, the “woodiness” of computer graphics in some moments, and the extras lazily waving their swords in battle scenes, where the focus was obviously on Hassan or some other “hero”.
And now to the story component. As someone has already written, there is little connection with the real story, but whoever wants to go and read how it was all there. But then the film is historical, as it covers a certain period of time, certain events and certain historical personalities. But I do not remember that somewhere – at the beginning or at the end – it was said “based on real events”. Or something like that. When there is a “story” and a “military action” in the film genre, the latter usually pulls the scales on itself – so it is quite reasonable to consider the film as a military action. After all, no one considers Monty Python and the Holy Grail from the point of view of history – although this picture also covers a certain period of time, certain events, and certain historical personalities.
In short, with regard to the “propaganda of distorting the facts”, I want to say that this is normal practice – most often, any film produced in America that claims to be a genre of “history” from history has only “textbook-familiar names” – and everything else is rather hidden propaganda of American values – whether it is “300” (although it is not worth stuttering about at all, since the basis was still a comic book, and already the basis for a comic – history), whether it is Pompeii, or Braveheart. The task of the director for any artistic picture is to hook on the emotional and spiritual level (art after all), and the reliability of facts can be trampled on. Anyone who needs authenticity should look for it in libraries and documentary films.
And within the framework of the "military action" the film quite took place.
As for “Muslim propaganda,” well, that’s ridiculous. I decided to watch this movie precisely because it was interesting “the view from the other side” – because it is obvious that in most Western films will be shown what “correct and good” Christianity (except, perhaps, the two-part “Labyrinth” and a couple of dozen films where Christianity is shown not so “soul” by the natives of the Christian world). I mean, what did you want? Of course, a movie made by a Muslim country about a Muslim conqueror will contain a certain amount of Islam. And again, why is it possible for Christianity to do this, and for Islam to suddenly not do it?
The music is quite ordinary and simple - in the spirit of a typical "epic cinema", but everywhere is quite appropriate.
It looked quite easy, despite the fact that on average everything that lasts more than two hours obviously reduces my jaw – and even to the end broke into a tear. Although the “sultan”, gracious with the Orthodox baby seemed something too far-fetched (but here, it seems, again, “Muslim propaganda” – technically, Islam is quite tolerant towards other religions). Horror, one propaganda!
Ah, the pope and his entourage were amused with quite “typical” Turkish faces in roles. Milota.
In general, you can watch (and maybe even need to), but having previously relaxed or even put to sleep your connoisseur of history, and with him the stereotypical thinker, who, hearing “Allah is great!”, demands to run and hide in a bunker from “Chorta terrorists.”
Good movie, everyone.
There's only one truth. All its "versions" are untrue (c) Cloud atlas
You had strong arms that conquered cities and forced entire armies to submit, but they never embraced me. You had sharp eyes that could see the future of the state, but they never looked at me with love.
Just two simple words: “historical film,” and how much is hidden behind them! This can be a dry documentary, a one-sided interpretation of controversial events, scrupulous restoration of facts, burping leaven patriotism, fantasy blockbuster and God knows what else. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 is a landmark event for the world, reflected in many chronicles, but behind it are unspoken preparations, corrected versions of some events, and, of course, the grandiose figure of Mehmed II (Mehmed el-Fatih or Mohammed the Conqueror). To restore the latter with the maximum degree of historical authenticity is not an easy task. It is much easier to portray an intelligent, energetic and kind sultan with a difficult childhood and confused youth, focusing on the contouring of the main historical milestones and the entertainment of the film. It is difficult to blame Faruk Aksoy for this, because a rare director who shoots a film in this genre chooses other, more difficult ways.
In principle, a person who is familiar with the history capo, will be satisfied that familiar personalities flash in the picture: Emperor Constantine XI, Pope Nicholas V, Ulubatli Hasan, Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, Zaganos Pasha, Urban with his Basilica and many others. To look for inconsistencies between the real and depicted characters, as well as to dig up factual discrepancies with the chronicles is the lot of the elect. I’m not talking about the fact that 70% of those who watched the “Conquest” assess it in terms of staging battles, using special effects and other tinsel, and the general “interestingness”, which for the mass audience has nothing to do with historicity.
Even putting aside the question of authenticity, the film is nothing supernatural or unique. We have already seen fights in slow-mo in The Matrix, and the siege of the fortress and arrow-strewn man in The Lord of the Rings. Although, considering “1453” as a demonstration of the achievements of cinematography in the application to the film-reconstruction of a historical event, it should be noted that the entertainment, no matter how it may be, takes place. Borrowing the best from the world’s piggy bank is not a terrible crime. What is worse is the constant attempts to give drama to an already tragic story. For example, Turkish ships on wooden rails dragged, according to historians, ordinary bulls, not people with bloodied hands, falling and trampling each other. But bulls aren't drama, are they? However, a low bow to Aksoy for the fact that although he introduced a couple of female characters, but left no more screen time than it deserves, while without Dilek Serbst it would be unfun. For some reason, I do not leave the thought that PJ again pushed PJ to such a balance of the director ... well, come on.
Personally, I am not a supporter of measures to comb history and smooth out sharp corners, but Conquest has at least one plus: an interested person will go and read how it all really was. I have no regrets about watching the movie. On the other hand, the gullible viewer will take everything he saw at face value – how many scandalous stories with pseudo-documentary tapes we have already seen! Neither spectacle nor patriotism are reasons to justify juggling the truth.
Attempts to evaluate the Conquest from an artistic or documentary point of view are doomed to failure, because there is nothing to evaluate. The actors’ play is dull, the plot is torn, and as for the transfer of facts, I will have to refrain from commenting in principle.
So the story here is nothing more than a tool with which the director realizes his idea. This idea is to convey to the viewer the basic ideas on which modern Turkey is (or should be) based in the beautiful form of a historical epic. If the form, as can be seen from the first frames, pumped up (it is not), then the content (modern!) for an attentive viewer this film is not deprived.
1. The very idea of taking Constantinople is presented as the idea of reuniting the European and Asian parts of the Ottoman Empire, which turns us to the current attempts of Turkey to join the European Union and become, ideally, a bridge between West and East.
2. The idea of religious tolerance of the Ottomans who took the city (it was after the capture that there was no tolerance) is also very relevant. At the same time, computer scenes of mass prayers led by the sultan emphasize the importance of Islam for modern Turkey. We respect other religions, but we will follow our own. We get the idea of a modern compromise with Turkish Islamists.
3. Mehmed Fatih’s calculated foreign and domestic policies, shown in the film, become a lesson for modern radical Turkish parties (act while others are busy; study the enemy; use the latest technologies).
4. No less interesting is the image of the Byzantine Empire (what remains of it): depravity, once again depravity, split between supporters of the “West” and identity, meanness, decadent moods. The image of the “West” in the person of Genoa and the Holy See is also traced: prudence, a desire to expand influence. If we consider that the film is a fairly obvious projection of modernity, then it becomes clear the sharp rejection of it in Greece.
The fifth and last is patriotism. The film aims to show modern Turks how difficult it was to achieve the subjugation of Constantinople to the Ottomans and remind them of the importance of these conquests for modern Turkey. This point, as I read in one of the reviews, is for internal use.
In the dry residue we get a set of modern ideas, ideas and realities clothed in a quasi-historical form.
4.5 out of 10
This is the first time I’ve written a review, so I’m sorry for any shortcomings. The film pushed back from the start. I started watching 3 times, I had to overcome my disgust. I'm not a masochist, but a friend of mine assured me that if I watched the film to the end, I would understand. What I should have understood never got to me. I have a very positive attitude towards the Turks, Istanbul is my favorite city and when I go there I feel at home. So don't accuse me of prejudice against the Turkish nation. But I prefer that the work is done professionally, and Mr. Aksoy looked into the history books, apparently, only as a child, but for some reason decided that he was able to make a historical film (and also want to make a series on the film). It would be better if they were limited to the series, there are no such requirements for soap operas.
The film begins, and we are shown the magnificent Constantinople. Empty, though real, he was drowned in greenery. Hagia Sophia, Hippodrome and (wonderfully) an entire imperial palace next to the cathedral, although it is known for certain that from 1081 the emperors lived at the other end of the city in a new palace, in the Vlaherna area. And the old palace, as I read somewhere, was generally used as a latrines.
Keep going. The future Sultan Mehmet is training with Hasan Ulubatli. Yes, Hasan is a historical figure, but I doubt he was friends with Mehmet. And actually, as far as I know, Hassan was a giant, and here-- He's not very tall. Mehmet was 19 years old at the time. He's not 19. And in general, why is he called the Sultan, because he is only a shehzadeh, that is, a prince, even if he was on the throne. And why does the concubine of Sultan Gulbahar show men not only hair, but also face?
Mehmet arrives in Edirne to his deceased father, and at this moment, on his orders, the servants of the new sultan drown in the bath of his infant half-brother Ahmet, who (if Mehmet's father Murat had not died) was to become a sultan (and not the son of a concubine, whom Murat was not particularly interested until the time). No murder scene. Well, Mehmet is a holy man, how can he kill his brother? Although it was a common practice among the sultans, once in power, to kill rivals.
Urban, the master who made the Turkish Tsar Cannon. Constantine invites him to work for him, but Urban refuses (and why would he have a grudge against Constantine?). In reality, Urban offered his services to Constantine, but he could not pay for his work, and then Urban went to those who pay, that is, to Mehmet.
The parents of Era were killed by the Crusaders (and here Byzantium), who sacked Constantinople in 1204. How old is Ere? If in 1204 she was even 9 years old, in 1453 she was 249 years old. Okay, I can't vouch for that fact, maybe I didn't get it, maybe it wasn't the Crusader campaign.
The lap follows the blunder, list for a long time. The women of Byzantium walk with their heads uncovered, feasting in the emperor's palace during the siege, Gennady's speech reminiscent of Schwonder's speech from the Heart of a Dog, and most importantly, Giustiniani's battle with Hassan, which resulted in Giustiniani being killed. Why did Era call Giustiniani by his last name, he had a name, John? Giustiniani died a few days after the fall of Constantinople because of a bullet wound. Well, Hassan was simply hit with a stone, and not pierced with arrows, like Boromir. Mehmet drove into the city on the corpses and in the evening, when the main robbery was completed. By that time, there was no one in the Hagia Sophia Cathedral, everyone who was taken into slavery or killed.
As a result, the film would have gone on a hurrah if before the beginning of the film was written "All the events and characters in the film are fictional, any coincidence is an accident." Although, I do not recommend watching this movie for food, it can really throw up from the abundance of blood.
The Fall of Constantinople in 1453: A View of Modern Turks Some of the facts are brazenly hidden.
Making a historical film with a patriotic spirit is necessary in our time. New generations should know their past, admire it and be equal to the legendary personalities of past centuries. However, in cinema, an objective view of events and not so distant as the Middle Ages and antiquity is almost impossible. Everything is distorted for the sake of modern politics, fashion or simply the sick imagination of writers and directors. I agree that it is not possible to recreate the events of centuries ago, and it is not necessary, but, nevertheless, the general historical truth recorded in many historical sources, and multinational, which excludes forgery, is simply a crime behind the screen of one’s own understanding. But let's start with the movie.
To make a film about the legendary battle, showing its details and not to miss the deep image of specific personalities, their destinies and comprehend their actions is incredibly difficult. After all, screen time is not rubber, and you need to show a lot. So it's worth trying. Very well, in my opinion, Sergey Bondarchuk succeeded in the ego epic film Waterloo. In 1453: Conquest there was an attempt, but it turned out only pathos. Perhaps this film was originally conceived. Sultan Mehmed II is young, energetic, and fanatically devoted to the cause of the Prophet. This was the case at the time of the fall of Constantinople. But in the film, the actor’s play was completely unconvincing, with a strong serial polish. Devrim Evin may not be a bad actor, but the script and the director’s work leave him nothing but primitive pathetic dialogue. The image of Mehmed is too mythical - he sees prophetic dreams and talks with the soothsayer gray-haired (practically "Tell me the magician, favorite, gods that will come true in life with me..."). I think that this plot move was very good fifty years ago, in the era of peplum, but now it is customary to shoot closer to reality. However, this very reality unnecessarily bulges with its improbability in the images of Hassan and Justinian. In the film, these are the kind of superheroes (especially, of course, the Turk Hassan) who can screw a bunch of soldiers without getting a scratch. As befits real superheroes of militants, they are excellent at hand-to-hand combat and despise armor - all screen time, both Genoese and Turks demonstrate their arm muscles when everyone walks around in iron. The music sounds beautiful, but always in the most pathetic places in order to enhance the viewer’s perception of the next important heroic moment of the Turkish storyline. It made me smile. Was it stressful that the Byzantines and Italians were played by the Turks - spared the money of the Europeans to invite? Only in some places in the crowds saw Slavic faces.
The strength of the film is the battle scenes, places level assault of Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Heaven. They are historic and impressive. This is the attack by the firebrands of the Turkish fleet, and the pulling of chains through the Golden Horn, and an unsuccessful dig under the walls and a giant cannon made by the Hungarian Urban, and numerous assaults that the Byzantines repelled. But here, too, everything is one-sided. Only Turkish soldiers die gloriously, heroically and, apparently, a sense of national pride wakes up in the Turkish audience. Stupid and playful looks pierced by arrows, the main Ottoman superfighter, trying, according to the laws of the genre - "as if from the last forces" to put the Turkish banner over the gates of St. Roman. And his lover below fiery looks at him, circular movements on the armored stomach, making it clear to the dying that the family of superfighters will not die out. However, the filmmakers did not forget to include the legendary speech of Emperor Constantine XI to the people, which the historian Gibbon called “the epitaph of the Roman Empire”. And for that, thank you very much. And now I will find fault with some historical moments depicted in the film. Genoese Giustiniani Longo (in the film Justinian) did not die in a swordfist battle with Hassan. He was wounded either by a bullet or a fragment of the core and, suffering from unbearable pain, left the battlefield, with the help of his comrades, was able to get out of the doomed city and died of wounds in the same 1453 on the island of Chios. The death of Emperor Constantine was not shown at all, although, according to the historian Duca’s Byzantine History, he died bravely defending himself against a crowd of Turks. Moreover, the viewer is convinced that the sultan noblely gave the body of the deceased emperor to his subjects for a worthy burial. We are not shown, however, that the body of Constantine XI was first beheaded and his head exposed to the common terror. The Turks also brazenly concealed from the viewer the fact of the unbridled three-day robbery of Constantinople, during which civilians were killed, women were raped, Christian churches were abused, and many artistic values were destroyed. The pogrom of 1453 was comparable to the pogrom of 1204, which was committed by the Crusaders. And when Mehmed II entered the Hagia Sophia, right under the sultan insolent, one of the Janissaries tried to break marble from the wall. Of course they won't show it. After all, the Europeanized Turks, who are so eager to join the European Union, do not want to expose their dark past to the public. Moreover, the sultan enters Hagia Sophia and directly with open arms receives a crowd of women, children and the elderly, takes the girl in his arms and pronounces words about peace and mutual prosperity in a fiery voice. Ugh, gross! A brazen lie! The blasphemy of the millions of Greeks, peoples of the Balkans and Europe who were destroyed, abused, robbed, sold into slavery during the hundreds of years of the Turkish yoke.
The bottom line – before you believe everything that is shown to you from the screen and if you like it, read the relevant literature. In this case – “The Fall of Constantinople in 1453” by Stephen Runcimen, “Byzantine History” by Duc, “The Story of the capture of Constantinople by Mohammed II” by the printing house of V. Kirillov in 1847.
Positive qualities of the film: 1. A long and interesting plot based on the real events of the capture of Constantinople. 2. A lot of truthful historical and quite detailed information (details of the storming of the city, depravity and deceit of the Byzantine court, diplomatic moves of great personalities, etc.) 3. Mass and atmospheric filming of battles in which not only the Greeks and their allies die, but also the Turks. 4. Sometimes very good acting actors, interesting, although a little pretentious scenes. 5. Not a bad piece of music.
The negative qualities of the film: 1. Since the film is Turkish, both hostile armies hear Turkish speech and watch Turkish faces (would invite foreign actors). 2. The Turkish army is shown solely as the glorious host of Allah and the Koran, while their enemies are seen as drunkards, murderers and fanatics. 3. Just a terrible "militant" component when one super-warrior packs enemies in packs, if it was not so and the city would not take) 4. Too fast flashing of special effects, as a result of which you simply do not have time to follow who killed whom and why.
But in general, the film turned out not bad, looks easy, keeps in suspense. Therefore, I give him a positive review and a rating of 6.5 points out of 10 possible.
At the very beginning of the film, we find ourselves in Edirne, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, where after the death of Murad II, the Ottoman throne is occupied by his son Mehmed II Fatih (Conqueror).
He also had a brother, Orhan, who longed for the throne.
When he ascended the throne, the sultan had to deal with internal enemies. And after a while, go to the outside.
In fact, the title of the film speaks for itself. Mehmed will have to capture Constantinople and thereby become the “Conqueror”.
This great battle will ultimately put an end to the Byzantine Empire and the beginning of a new one, the Ottoman Empire.
As for the film as a whole, I really liked it.
Faruk Aksoy has always proved that Turks can make films that are worthy.
The actors didn't fail either. Everything was played at the highest level.
With the release in 2010 of the epic “Free Man” – a film that eventually grossed five million dollars at the Turkish box office (which is a colossal sum for an artistic picture in the genre of drama / biography), the burly fathers of Turkish show business suddenly realized that it was time to stop portraying Muslim believers as “brakes” that prevent strictly secular Turkish society from moving forward, and start making films about the outstanding personalities of the once blossoming Islamic world, on which you can make a lot of money. This is how insatiable Turkish cinema has opened up a new potential market for fastidious religious people who can easily be lured into cinemas by promising them a film about their noble religious figures or their brilliant Muslim conquerors who once contributed to the development and spread of Islamic culture and civilization.
With this approach and logic, the creators of subsequent films did not particularly try to “cook” something literate, beautiful and believable, and the audience continued to run to cinemas like a herd of cloven-hoofed people. But after every long night, the sun shines and the sun rises, so when I heard about the Conquest of 1453, I had the hope of seeing a good film about Muslims, with a quality plot and well-written characters. It turns out that my hopes were not to come true.
"Conquest of 1453" is a standard, monotonous and pathos-pretentious piece of bad-smelling substance. It must be said that the director of this film not only failed to reflect the spirit of the Ottoman Empire, but instead of creating something new, he chose to rely on all cinematic clichés - from Orientalistic ideas about the life of the sultans, to scenes with battles, where techniques from Chinese films of class B and Lord of the Rings are mixed. There is no atmosphere of Islamic culture in the film - all the richness of the Ottoman language is negated, the actors communicate with each other using the most primitive phrases from the Turkish language, with a terrible "serial" accent, Ottoman women either tremble before men or throw languid glances at them, and the streets of Istanbul are filled with merchants shouting brazen Turkish "Yavas be!" and walking maidens who cover their heads as they please, but not in the Islamic style.
The main character - the great Mehmed II, who conquered Istanbul at the age of 21, the writers turned into, sorry for the expression, a rag. Pick up any Turkish macho on the street, and he will cope with this role as well as the main actor – Devrim Evin. All this actor had to do was to portray in places a thinking man, in places a vicious hero of Indian films, who wrinkles his eyebrows before killing fifty people, and in places wave his sword with a wet shirt open on his chest. His protagonists, the most prominent characters in any film, were even worse - an evil consey of supposedly savage and cunning Byzantine emperors, weaving their intrigues in a pool with girls apparently caught in this pool straight from Parisian fashion catwalks. Operator’s work was, as they say, at zero – it feels like an operator, at the command of the director “On the start!” Attention! Marsh leaned down and ran through the battlefield with a camera in his hands, and all the special effects were reduced to the image of “Aya Sophia” without minarets.
But all this would be forgiven if Faruk Aksoy is the author of two infamous "bombs" of Turkish cinema - Recep Ivedik and C?lg?n. Dersane, at least a little interested in the history of Islam and the life of Mehmet II. Any creative endeavor without fervor and enthusiasm is doomed to failure, and The Conquest of 1453 is no exception. When watching the film, you feel its “incompleteness”, and its reason is that the entire cast, from the director to the costume designers, approached the creation of the film with laziness and reluctance, they say, we concoct something on a good topic, and the audience will bite. And the audience took a bite, because the film grossed $ 30 million in his native country. And will peck until he learns to distinguish good, quality stories from bad ones, and does not go to movies just because they depict religious people.
3 out of 10
Well, the Turks have learned to shoot high-quality historical computer blockbusters according to Hollywood patterns, and so diligently that if not for the Turkish speech (I watched the film with subtitles), you could say that the Conquest was shot somewhere on Paramount. The director carefully, almost lovingly copied all the tricks of his overseas (I mean the Atlantic and Indian oceans, not forgetting the New Zealand creator of “The Lord of the Rings” Peter Jackson, whom the Turks also cast off) teachers, starting with computer-staged fighting scenes (and here you can not forget Stone’s “Alexander” and the same “Lord ...”) to the background music (the composer did not have enough talent or budget money on a bright topic), not even talking about the first episode of the same Borlin, but installing everything from the first one of the finale! But his, the author's director Faruk Aksoy - with a gulkin nose, that is, at point-blank range you can not see.
But this is not the main problem of the picture. I read something about her. Turns out, "1453." Conquest is perhaps the most expensive film in the history of Turkish cinema, and the visual return on investment of 17 million piastres, sorry, dollars, far exceeds the similar Hollywood. That's just to make a "born" blockbuster world from the modest remnant of the Ottoman Empire failed. In the U.S., only a few Muslims and ethnic Turks are said to have seen it. It is good, though, because the United States, after September 11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ongoing confrontation with the “stubborn” Islamic world, show on their screens the conquest of lands by Muslims “infidels” under the “terrorist” (according to present times) shouts “Allah is great!” (give actors instead of sabers in the hands of “Kalash” – here you are al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood!) would be unreasonable and ... unsafe. In the rest of the “civilized world”, the picture was perceived warily, if not openly hostile. There have been reports of sharp statements by Christian organizations against the screening of the film (especially in the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, which experienced all the charms of the 400-year-old Ottoman yoke). Still Christians do not protest when the invasion of the Turks on the European continent in the film is shown as an initiative “from above” (the sultan in a dream dream dreamed of God himself, who aimed him at Costantinople; I wonder who dreamed of Napoleon, Hitler and Bush, Jr.?) and the great good for all the peoples there (it looks absolutely blasphemous scene with the arrival of the Sultan-virtuous, graciously allowing people to follow his faith and taking a girl in his arms in a beamine of light, who embraced him like a new Christ?) and the great good for all the people after his departure, though his questions, it looks blasing? But native Turkey in the picture almost went crazy and made her almost the entire “box office”, but with a huge profit. So it turned out to be “for internal use.” Although even at home she got for all sorts of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For example, I found it strange to fencing (at the beginning) a young sultan with sword-weapons, alien to the Muslim world (only the saber!). And what is this fantastic supergun, many times larger than the much later Tsar-gun (which, as you know, never fired, but was only a decorative “wonder of the world”) created by a fugitive Christian (traitor!) with his adopted daughter? Never heard of her. That cannon patriotism? And why did I suddenly want to watch at least “Turkish Gambit”, not to mention “Heroes of Shipki” and “Ships storm the bastions?”
... Cinema, history, politics, politics, and Constantinople is still Turkish Istanbul (it is a pity that at the end of the Russo-Turkish War of the 70s of the 19th century, the then “great powers” did not allow Russian troops to take it, or rather, take it back!), and Turkey is a loyal member of NATO. It seems that someone has already dreamed of a “higher” revelation about Syria.
6 out of 10