From: leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: REVIEW: CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY
Reply-To: leeper@mtgzy.att.com
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:26:47 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01513
Keywords: author=Leeper

                    CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY
                      A film review by Mark R. Leeper
		       Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper

          Capsule review:  The Salkinds know exactly how to market
     a turkey film to get what profit they can from it.  What they
     did not seem to know is that their CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE
     DISCOVERY is not a turkey, but a reasonably intelligent and
     enjoyable historical film.  It is not a great film but a
     pleasant surprise.  Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4).

     One never quite knows what to expect from the Salkind brothers.  Early
films one associates with the Salkind name include a ponderous adaptation of
Kakfa's TRIAL and a not very engaging adventure, THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE
WORLD.  The brothers hit pay dirt and made a name for themselves with a
terrific double film adaptation of THE THREE MUSKETEERS.  SUPERMAN was
extremely uneven in style and quality, but it had its moments and was an
audience pleaser.  Its sequels and spin-offs went rapidly downhill and their
image became one of flesh without substance.  Their announcement of a film
about Santa Claus more than enhanced that opinion.  Substance and Santa
Claus just do not go together.  And then they announced CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS
and it sounded only marginally better.  A film about Captain Cook might be
interesting.  the Burton and Speke expedition had real dramatic
possibilities and the film Bob Rafelson made did realize some of them.  But
Columbus seems like an elementary school hero and too corny to make into a
real hero.  This was a film that everybody knew would not be good and then
on top of that there were no screenings for critics.  This is a sure sign
that the Salkinds expected a poor reception from the critics.  They were
wrong.  This is certainly the best film the Salkinds have done since THE
THREE MUSKETEERS and, while flawed, is getting a generally positive critical
reception.

     While the film rarely rises to the point of excitement (odd, because it
is directed by James Bond director John Glen), the film does offer
historical spectacle and some adventure.  In the late 1480's Colon (yes,
they get his name right in the film even if not in the title) is trying to
convince the Portuguese court that the great Ocean Sea can be crossed by a
mariner, particularly one who knows a secret.  The Portuguese have sent
explorers who do not know Colon's "secret" and they returned in failure.
The theme of the secret is very nicely handled, incidentally.  It is a
little hard for the audience to realize for itself what Colon's secret could
be.  When the secret is actually revealed, it turns out to be something
non-obvious, something that perhaps a few mariners of Colon's day might have
known, and something that certainly could have made the difference between
success and failure.  Of course, Colon (played by George Corraface of THE
MAHABARATA) goes to Spain and in spite of his original inclinations asks a
laid-back Ferdinand (played by Tom Selleck in a bizarre piece of casting)
and pretty perky Isabella (played by Rachel Ward), looking a decade or two
under her 41 years.  (Is this really the same woman who refused to change
her petticoat until her husband drove the Moors from Spain?)

     While much of the story is familiar there is a fascination in seeing
Spain in its most momentous--albeit regrettable--year.  There is some
reference made to the expulsion of Jews, including a moving scene of Jews
leaving Spain at the same time Colon is, though there is little reference to
how much of Colon's crew was Jewish or to the belief at the Spanish court
that Colon was himself a Jew.  Colon is called before Torquemada (played by
Marlon Brando in this film) not on a question of his religion, but rather
Colon's contradiction of the teachings of St. Augustine, who said there are
no lands before the great Ocean Sea and for whom a city was named in
Florida.  Colon proves himself to be a man who knows his audience and what
sort  of argument will work.  When he argues his case to the Church he uses
scripture; when arguing to tough businessmen he uses clever analogies and
the visual aid of a watermelon and a sharp blade.

     Eventually Colon does get to sea in what by rights should have been the
most exciting chapter but which is, in fact, the least original segment.
Ships at sea looking for land, having to avoid sabotage, mutiny, trying to
find wind--all are fairly familiar plot elements of sea films.  There is
even a sequence involving a bet that seems very unlikely to have had any
basis in fact.  Eventually landfall is made--I hope this is not a spoiler.
Then comes a most interesting dilemma in filmmaking:  should the film
portray Colon as a hero or be politically correct and make him a tyrant?
The solution is to make Colon a man of his time--a time that called for
gold, glory, gospel, and slaves as the indicators of success.  Colon's
ambitions are those of a man from the 15th instead of the 20th Century.

     This is a film of great earnestness with humor only in its ironies,
including a very interesting comment by Torquemada toward the end of the
film.  It does generate interest in a very daring expedition that most of us
take for granted.  In spite of some distortion of history, it does give the
viewer some unconventional insights into the great historical event.  Not
great but easily a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

					Mark R. Leeper
					att!mtgzy!leeper
					leeper@mtgzy.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews