Roger L. Simon: Movie Review: Sergei's Mongolian Western

Sergei Bodrov - the Russian director - who has been my friend since we served together on the jury of a film festival in Siberia (see "The Celluloid Archipelago" here) has a movie called "Mongol" nominated for the Best Foreign Language film Oscar this year. This is actually Sergei's second foreign film nomination, a remarkable feat shared only by people with names like Fellini. But if you check his wikipedia entry, you will see this man has also had great tragedy in his life.

I caught "Mongol" - a biopic of Genghis Khan - at a cast and crew screening in Westwood last night. As an Oscar voter, I have been remiss this year in seeing all the necessary movies (PJM keeps me busy), but of those I have seen only two have held my attention as films I might want to see again - Julian Schnabel's "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and "Mongol".

"Mongol" is a Mongolian Western derivative of Ford and Kurosawa with a surprisingly positive vision of Genghis Khan. Not being up on my Central Asian history, I checked the wikipedia entry on Khan after seeing the movie and it seems to adhere to the rough outline of his life, with some possible exaggeration of his romantic relationship with his wife Borte, giving the exotic "Mongol" something of the feeling of a Hollywood film. For this reason I predict that the relatively snobby Academy (especially in the foreign film area) will not give it the Oscar nod. But who knows?

For that same reason, however, of action adventure flare, "Mongol" is getting wide US theatrical distribution in June. Try to catch it. For the fascinating Mongolian faces and folkways (and a haunting ethnic score) alone it is certainly worth your time. But be aware: This is about Genghis Khan and is filled with blood and guts. It is not for the faint hearted. Walking out of the theater, Sheryl and I were transfixed by one thing above all - what soft existences we modern men and women have. What I told Sergei, while shaking his hand in congratulations for a job well done, is that his film has convinced me I have lived a boring life.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I could be persuaded to see this movie if you can get Chelsea to have dinner with me.

One of my favorite novels is the only one written about the Mongols, Until the Sun Falls, considered very accurate. It has many fans like me who have read it numerous times. So if anyone is curious about the Mongols this is a great read. I'll have to see the movie and compare.

After reading UTSF I thought a great alternate universe novel would be if the Mongols did succeed in dominating Europe, what would our world be like now? No Enlightenment, probably.

Also I think the dysfunctional nature of Russian society owes a lot to the Mongol conquest.

Even if it does overdramatize Borte. Genghis Khan went to great lengths to retrieve her from the gang that kidnapped her (and more than likely 'had their way' with her, as Genghis himself did with literally thousands of captured females - his genes are overwhelmingly common throughout eastern Asia).

Though the Mongols are right up there with the Islamists in slaughtering their way through the world to establish control, they too brought much of value to (later generations of) civilization. Their pony express was centuries ahead of anyone else's organization of regular long-range communnications.

apparently, one of the unintended consequences of the Mongol Peace that enveloped Asia post Genghis was... the Black Plague.

Ie, because of the Mongol peace and security in the 1200s, there was an increase in trade between Europe and China (cf Marco Polo), and coming and going across the great Steppes, which... had plenty of plague carrying rodents. The Mongols and their ilk had long known to avoid areas where rodents were sick and dying.. but the caravans would not be so knowledgeable.

Genghis Khan's ideal world was a meadow that would stretch from the Pacific to the Atlantic, empty of all except horses and Mongols. He was quite willing to completely destroy whole cities.. and irrigation systems.. and civilizations, in order to bring about that dream.

I really will see this Mongol movie. It sounds great. And Genghis did honour Borte, and the sons she bore him. Even, I might add, her child that could have been his, or her kidnapper's.

You talked me into it, Roger. "Mongol" is on my list. The blood and guts caveat doesn't faze me; "The Wild Bunch" remains one of my favorite movies. But I suspect this movie will be edged out by the atmospheric and affected artiness of "La Vie En Rose," which at least had the effect of prompting me to listen to Edith Piaf again. She was great.

Best book I ever read on the subject: Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, by Jack Weatherford.

GK was as ruthless as he needed to be to win victory, but did not kill for pleasure (aot others such as Tamerlane, who did). He may well have been a father of the Renaissance, too, not just in the opening of trade routes and the ideas that followed them, but in his beliefs in no state religion, diplomatic immunity, meritocracy and so forth.

His reputation as bloodthirsty stems from both his skill (he did the same thing that his enemies were trying to do, but more successfully), and his willingness to use a bloodthirsty image of himself as successful propaganda to force surrender before battle.

Ray Zacek, "La Vie En Rose"- a tedious film with great music - was not nominated in the Best Foreign Language film category. You may find the nominees here...

Thank you, Roger. My mistake. I had assumed. Frankly I don't even pay that much attention to awards these days, whether they are Academy, Grammy, Golden Globes, Peoples Choice, Pulitzer or Nobel.

I'm still looking for "Sign of the Conqueror" which I think was the title of a John Wayne film with him in the role of Gehngis Khan.

Ghengis Khan was never going to conquer Europe. He and his successors did a good job of destroying the Arab Sultanate -- giving Byzantium a bit of breathing room. And killing the last Abbasid Caliph by Hulagu Khan. Who if not called back to Mongolia for a succession battle might have also conquered Egypt.

But those mobile, marvelous ponies were of no use in Europe, cut by rivers and valleys and mud. Where the only places to put troops through were obvious chokepoints. It also rains a lot in Europe. And compound bows like the Mongols used fall apart in the rain. Not so Longbows.

Every time the Mongols got past Poland into Eastern Germany and hit serious rivers and woods and mud, they got their butts kicked. Mobility meant nothing. Their bows fell apart. Heavy infantry with Pikes speared them like a pincushion.

It's interesting of course to see that really nothing but nomadic people remain of the Mongols. No great cities or much of anything. They built nothing, had no great armies, no great cities, and were gone fairly quickly from the world stage.

One extremely notable and prophetic quote attributed to Ghengis Khan;
"If God was satisfied with the behavior of his people, God would not have allowed Ghengis Khan to be unleashed"

Jim Rockford, thanks for that info re the compound bow falling apart in damp climates.

Alsthough I don't see why exactly the ponies used by Mongols would be at a disadvantage in Europe.

It's true that the Steppe tribes didn't get around to building large cities or complex cosmolitan countries. They were, however, very good at taking over those cities and civilizations, and ruling them. Ie, China, Byzantium. Mohammed was in the this tradition. Such peoples sit at the top of an already built pyramid and suck it dry. Hence, the Ottoman Turks, the Indian Mughals; and in a new and modern way: the Islamists.

The composite bow - so named because it was made of composite materials and which is not the same as the compound bow, itself invented in 1967 - is also a major reason the Khan's mongols never went deeper into India; their bows wouldn't work properly in the heat and humidity. IIRC, they used a lot of animal sinew for its springiness, but that springiness dissipated away from the cold and dry conditions of Mongolia.

The Mongols also used to launch their campaigns at the start of winter because, they claimed, their horses were fat and strong after grazing all summer, but I've always wondered if that was partly a ruse to hide their weakness in a hot summer when their bows wouldn't work as well.

I'm pretty sure as well that the composite bow was used in Europe in the time of the Iliad; the famous "twang" is its signature sound.

But it fell out of use, perhaps because the climate warmed. Some say it was a lack of animals to provide sinew, but I doubt that cuz it has almost twice the range or more of a subsequent Euro bow and I can't see the nobles not providing this advantage to at least their "praetorian guards," so to speak. What warrior would willingly ever switch to a bow that lets your enemy kill you when you can't kill him?

Shooting from horseback requires a short, flexible bow, a 6' self bow isn't going to do the trick; hence the composite bow. BTW, rainy weather could also affect the strings on long bows, I think it was the practice to keep a dry string handy. And the Mongols were not the first horse archers to attack Europe, they were preceded by the Huns.

I haven't seen the movie. But, I beleive that I know Genghis Khan better than many of you who wrote above comments. Si, if you want to know more about Mongols and what they actually accomplished in human history just go to The Realm of The Mongols by Per Inge Oestmoen (http://www.coldsiberia.org). And, I'd like to inform you guys one thing. Western Europe left almost untouched by Mongols just by pure chance and luck.

February 13, 2008: Movie Review: Sergei's Mongolian Western

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post