kallis@pen.DEC (04/18/85)
> LADYHAWKE > A film review by Mark R. Leeper > Based on boxoffice results, I may be one of the very few people in >the world who liked DRAGONSLAYER. I very simply thought that it was the >best historical fantasy film that I had ever seen. Up to that point, I >would have judged films like THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD and JASON AND >THE ARGONAUTS as my favorites. But DRAGONSLAYER for the first time had >a plot that would have made a decent fantasy novel, and that was head >and shoulders above anything similar I'd ever seen on the screen. When >I saw the coming attractions for LADYHAWKE, for the first time I thought >a film was coming out that could be comparable in quality to >DRAGONSLAYER. Well, it didn't replace DRAGONSLAYER as my top historical >fantasy but it easily comes in second. The preview was good, though originally it was >>supposed<< to come out o/a Christmas, so the wait was long. > LADYHAWKE is a beautiful fantasy film set in Medieval France. It >follows the adventures of a likeable young pickpocket played >unexpectedly well by Matthew Broderick. He escapes from the evil >bishop's dungeons and is about to be re-captured when he is saved by the >mysterious stranger Navarre (Rutger Hauer) who travels with a hawk on >his arm. At night man and hawk disappear and are replaced by a >beautiful woman who is often seen in the company of a large and fierce >wolf. The man and woman, it seems, are lovers forever together but >forever apart. A curse by the jealous bishop turns Navarre into a wolf >at night; his lover Isabeau becomes a hawk by day. >The story has a marvelous feel of real legend about it, and a haunting >beauty in the way it has been visualized on the screen. It >ought< to have a " ... feel of a real legend about it ..."; it was adapted from a 13th Century tale, I understand. The cinematography was very good. But the sets were, too. Next time you see it, look at the detail in the roof shingles, etc. More was put into it than need be. > Matthew Broderick's Phillipe is the main character and at the same >time comic relief. Broderick incessantly talks to God like Tevya does >in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, but not always so reverently. He seems much >better in the role than I expected. Rutget Hauer is nearly perfect as >the mysterious Navarre. Navarre mysterious? I'd not say that, for more than the first third of the film. Then tragic (complete with flaw). >And lovely Michelle Pfeiffer of SCARFACE and INTO THE NIGHT is terrible >as Navarre's lover. The problem is that she talks like an American and >wears lipstick and eye-liner. She fits into the Medieval setting only >slightly better than Pacman. Can't agree. Not perfect, but then, nreither is the always-clean- shaven knight. The effect of better than normal beauty is heightened. And don't forget, she metamorphoses .... > And speaking of things out of place, Andrew Powell's rock score is >totally inappropriate. He takes scenes that otherwise have a beautiful >period and wreaks real havoc with the spirit and texture of the film. A >couple more faults, if you please. The camera work is usually very >good, but the use of color filters, particularly for the sky, is >overdone. And speaking of the sky, if you watch the moon and know some >astronomy, you will see something happen that is actually an >impossibility. The script is generally good, but too much of the legend >we are simply told rather than shown. Also note the anachronistic use >of terrycloth. The rock score >>is<< jarring, but not to the exclusion of the enjoyment of the film. At least, it avoided cliches, like _Take Me Out To The Ball Game_ for every baseball picture. Handel's _Water MusiC_ at slow temop might have worked. But note that in _Excalibur_ they used an extremely loud Wagner (from Tristan Und Isult, as I recall) and, of all things, _Carmina Burana_! > Yet with all these faults, and more, this remains one beautiful and >enjoyable fantasy film. The settings, the photography, Hauer's acting, >the idea of the story are all marvelously realized. If this film dies >at the boxoffice the way DRAGONSLAYER did, perhaps modern audiences >don't deserve good fantasy. The public deserves good fantasy, but it has to be promoted, marketed, and distributed properly. _Ladyhawke_ was short-changed in these > Mark R. Leeper Additionally, it's worth pointing out that a bit of the symbolism behind the myth squeezed through -- see any good alchemical text on solar and lunar aspects/influences. Most appropriate for the story. Steve