Killer, GC to co-produce 'Conqueror'
Killer Films has inked a deal with the GC Corp. to co-produce the medieval actioner "William the Conqueror" by scribes Brian Edgar and Derek Wallbank.
Script follows the rise of the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy to the English crown in 1066 following the Battle of Hastings.
The project marks a left turn from Killer's well-known indie projects, which include "Boys Don't Cry," "Far From Heaven" and "Hedwig and the Angry Inch."
Variety, October 27
- - -
The big question, as I see it, is whose side this film will take: the Normans? the Saxons? Or will it by sympathetic to BOTH sides? (It has been interesting to see how other recent films have stood conventional movie wisdom on its head sometimes, e.g. the way Tristan + Isolde portrayed the English as the oppressed subjects of the Irish.)
Full Version: William the Conqueror
Oooh - I've never seen a William the Conqueror film before and now the idea's out there I'm wondering why on earth not! I looove the William tale (at least did as a kid, can't say I've given it much attention as an adult). It was, like, totally my favourite Ladybird history book.
I hope there's a level of sympathy to both Harold and William as my understanding, (based on the aforementioned Ladybird book, verified by Wikipedia) is that Edward the confessor promised the throne to both William and Harold.
But I disagree with you that this is the big question. To my mind, the real big question is whether Harold will be shown dying by the sword or with an arrow in his eye. Either way I hope they don't make too much of it (slow motion, Matrix style slow mos and choir music) as that could quite easily ruin the film.
Most exciting film news I've heard for a while.
Will probably suck.
Matt
I hope there's a level of sympathy to both Harold and William as my understanding, (based on the aforementioned Ladybird book, verified by Wikipedia) is that Edward the confessor promised the throne to both William and Harold.
But I disagree with you that this is the big question. To my mind, the real big question is whether Harold will be shown dying by the sword or with an arrow in his eye. Either way I hope they don't make too much of it (slow motion, Matrix style slow mos and choir music) as that could quite easily ruin the film.
Most exciting film news I've heard for a while.
Will probably suck.
Matt
MattPage wrote:
: To my mind, the real big question is whether Harold will be shown dying by the sword or with an arrow in his eye.
Oh, I wasn't aware that there were rival accounts. The arrow in the eye is the only version I think I've ever heard.
: To my mind, the real big question is whether Harold will be shown dying by the sword or with an arrow in his eye.
Oh, I wasn't aware that there were rival accounts. The arrow in the eye is the only version I think I've ever heard.
Well it's all down to this portion of the Bayeux Tapestry
There are three guys here under where is says Harold Rex Interfectus est, (King Harold is slain). One is pulling an arrow out of his eye, and this lead to the Harold arrow in the eye version. But then there's one figure killing another with a sword. And the theory is that actually this is Harold. As Wikipedia summarises it:
But I guess if an Anglophilic history buff like yourself is unaware of it, there's little chance that the movie will include it, revionist tendencies in recent epics or not.
Matt
There are three guys here under where is says Harold Rex Interfectus est, (King Harold is slain). One is pulling an arrow out of his eye, and this lead to the Harold arrow in the eye version. But then there's one figure killing another with a sword. And the theory is that actually this is Harold. As Wikipedia summarises it:
QUOTE
The identity of Harold II of England in the vignette depicting his death is disputed. Some recent historians disagree with the traditional view that Harold II is the figure struck in the eye with an arrow. The view that it is Harold is supported by the fact that the words Harold Rex (King Harold) appear right above the figure's head. However, the arrow may have been a later addition following a period of repair. Evidence of this can be found in a comparison with engravings of the tapestry in 1729 by Bernard de Montfaucon, in which the arrow is absent. A figure is slain with a sword in the subsequent plate and the phrase above the figure refers to Harold's death (Interfectus est, "he is slain"). This would appear to be more consistent with the labeling used elsewhere in the work. However, needle holes in the linen suggest that, at one time, this second figure was also shown to have had an arrow in his eye. It was common medieval iconography that a perjurer was to die with a weapon through the eye. So, the tapestry might be said to emphasize William's rightful claim to the throne by depicting Harold as an oath breaker. Whether he actually died in this way remains a mystery and is much debated
And there's more hereBut I guess if an Anglophilic history buff like yourself is unaware of it, there's little chance that the movie will include it, revionist tendencies in recent epics or not.
Matt
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.