1453: The Movie

[Linkwerk]

I'm sure it's been done, on a shoestring budget, with pirated hollywood action soundtracks, by the Turkish film industry in the 70's.


Get some carboard swords, paint huge crosses on everything "bad-guy", get the Byzantines to have outrageous greek accents, then sneak Cuneyt Arkin into Rumelihisar.....and ACTION! In and out in a weekend.

All for under 40 million lira!

 

[wormyguy]

That's one of the movies I would most like to see, focusing on the tyranny of him and Theodora, as well as the convoluted court politics. Though IMO Hollywood'd screw it up by leaving out all the juicy bits and general insanity of his rule. It would be best made as a low budget "artsploitation" movie, but those rarely get made.

I was more envisioning a very high-budget movie, about three hours long, the better for all the wars, rebellions, plagues, riots etc., although you are quite right that it simply wouldn't work if it were "Hollywood history" instead of something seated in reality.

 

[jacobus]

I'm sorry, this is a bit off topic, but there were some European specialists in the service of Sultan Mehmed's beseiging army, apparently they designed and cast his giant cannon, and did other things for him. Can anyone tell me why they helped bring down a Christian capital? Did they do it just for the money? Had they fallen in love with Turkish girls? Did they have some grudge against the Byzantines, or against Emperor Constantine XI?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Lepanto too.

Grrr. It was just a minor skirmish.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Because it have no Happy end. And it would be political incorrect to show our good friends, the Muslims, as the bad guys.

It had a happy end for the Ottomans. And anyway, it's such a romantic end for the Romans, with the Last Emperor flinging himself into combat to die in glory.

And if it's done right, there are no bad guys.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It would have to be an independent film, more than likely, due to the following problems it might have:

CAIR would go berserk and pressure the studios to not depict ANY misbehavior by Muslims at ALL during the fall of the city, in a similar manner to how they badgered Hollywood into changing the villains of "The Sum of All Fears" to some kind of elite cabal of Austrian Nazis (originally they were a coalition of radical Palestinians, a German Communist, and a Native American activist).

(It would be hilarious, in a really sad way, if thanks to CAIR complaints, they made the conquerors of the City Mongols or something with no Islamic references whatsoever, history be damned.)

However, at the same time, there'd be complaints from American cultural conservatives about portraying the Church, Christians, etc. a certain way.

Plus, do it "wrong" and the movie might be banned in certain countries, interfering with its marketability.

Perhaps we could persuade Mel Gibson that Constantinople fell because the Orthodox Church would not submit to reunion with Rome and he can fund it?

His "Passion of the Christ" was an indie film that made a colossal amount of money, after all.

And wouldn't this belong in Non-Political Chat?

You can always count on the right wing to try to make it an issue of political correctness.

Just make it historically accurate and there's no issue. If there's a cabal of politically-correct Islamophiles badgering Hollywood, they're doing a terrible job, because there's hardly an ugly stereotype that isn't stuffed into every movie that has anything to do with Muslims.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

hmmm, all these ideas for 1453, Lepanto & Malta are essential Well, thing is, there was also the MONGOL last yr as the 1st in the Genghis Khan trilogy- which I reckon could potentially mark the start of a renewed set of films in such medieval warfare themes. Oh, don't forget also a movie which oughta be made on the Spanish conquest of Mexico in 1519-21- including the epic siege of Technotitlan...

quote: Who would play Giovanni Giustiniani and Constantine XI?

hmmm, how bout a guy like say Josh Duhamel (I've just been watchin TRANSFOERS on tv lol) ofor the former, together with say Liam Neeson as the latter ?

I claim Josh Duhamel for Mehmed. Hell, I claim him for my personal use.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Straw man.

Do you have to use terms like that incorrectly all the time?

I said there is the possibility CAIR would complain like they did with "The Sum of All Fears" and that would make producing the film difficult, as would counter-complaints from more conservative quarters if the Ottomans are depicted as too good.

No, what you said was:

CAIR would go berserk and pressure the studios to not depict ANY misbehavior by Muslims at ALL during the fall of the city...

That does not mean the same thing as "there is a possibility CAIR would complain".

(Funny, you did not acknowledge those, nor did you acknowledge the possibility the film might be banned in Greece or Turkey if it was made in the "wrong" fashion.)

I don't see how either Greece or Turkey have the legal ability to ban the film. In Turkey there are no laws against maligning the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Where would 1453 be shot? On sight in Istanbul or maybe in green room with a huge amount of CGI. Or are there any locations that resemble Istanbul?

You'd probably film some of it in Istanbul and use lots of CGI. There are restored portions of the walls that would be useful, and Hagia Sophia is still there, as well as the Tower of Galata, which is supposedly in the state it was in in that period.

 

[Dan1988]

I agree totally, but be careful what you wish for. The Hollywood version might end up portraying the Ottomans as the stereotypical baby-eating villains.

Not if it's produced outside Hollywood.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Here's a bit of a semi sarcastic plot I came up with. Historical accuracy be damned, this is Hollywood!

INTRODUCTION
George Sphrantzes sits in a small monastery in Venetian Corfu in 1460. He begins telling his infant grandchildren the story of the Great Siege.

SCENE ONE
Sultan Murad II dies, and his son Mehmet becomes Sultan. Immediately afterward, Mehmet is put under pressure by the corrupt old paedophile Halil Pasha, who despises valiant young Mehmet, and secretly wants to sieze the throne for himself, since he is the secret love child of Timur the Lame and a Turkish princess. Mehmet silences his critics at Edirne by invading the Morea.

Meanwhile, in Mistra, Constantine XI becomes Emperor just as the Turkish armies penetrate into the Morea. He is forced to flee, in the process selling his unfortunate daughter into slavery in exchange for passage on a Catalan ship. The Ottomans make it to the beach (yeah, in this film Mistra is somehow a coastal city) and shake their fists theatrically at Constantine, before treating the inhabitants of Mistra with exemplary politeness.

SCENE TWO
Constantine arrives at his capital, and is horrified to find the Land Walls being taken down by his treacherous chief minister, Loukas Notaras. Constantine immediately orders Notaras to stop, but Notaras is a secret ally of the Venetians, who aim to sieze Constantinople for themselves, and ignores the Emperor. Just as Constantine's powerlessness is about to be proved, the heroic Giovanni Giustiniani arrives, and strikes down Notaras. Giustiniani then suggests to the Emperor that he should ask for the support of the Pope in dealing with the Turks.

Mehmet finds himself a lover, the daughter of a Hungarian merchant by the name of Orban. Orban and his daughter then convince the Sultan to attack Constantinople so they can settle a score with the dashing Byzantine, George Sphrantzes, who once rejected Orban's sister as a lover. When Mehmet enquires as to how this can be done, Orban shows the Sultan sketches of his cannons. Mehmet is duly impressed, and Orban leaves, eager for his revenge.




Someone else take this mangled plot from here

Mehmed was smitten with Notaras' 15-year old son, so you're giving up an OTL bit of juiciness.

 

[Dan1988]

Where would 1453 be shot? On sight in Istanbul or maybe in green room with a huge amount of CGI. Or are there any locations that resemble Istanbul?

Or go for something like what they did with the semi-animated version of Beowulf, which used techniques perfected from The Polar Express.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I would love to see a historically accurate (as best as can be agreed upon) depiction of those last sad days of Constantinople on film. Just seeing the Greeks and others on the tops of the enormous city walls, shouting defiance at the Turkish army, the huge Turkish cannon, the harbor full of galleys, would be spectacular. The magic of computer generated images gives us the ability to show the great city as it would have looked at that time. Unfortunately, too many people would be offended, I guarantee it, no matter what you did, critics would claim you defamed someone.

The city would have looked sad and pathetic. It had 50,000 inhabitants, which included refugees from surrounding towns. inside the walls were little but ruins and agricultural fields, with small stockaded villages among the crumbling cathedrals and palaces. It's a romantic setting, but maybe not so glorious.

If you want Constantinople in all its glory, you'll need to wait for the prequel, "1204", or the sequel, "Suleyman the Magnificent".

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople was in fact mentioned (though not actually depicted) at the beginning of "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

That was actually one of the most awesome scenes in cinematic history. I loved how it used the style of Ottoman shadow-puppet theater, and how the crescent atop Hagia Sophia became a claw reaching across the map of the Balkans.

 

[Dan1988]

It had a happy end for the Ottomans. And anyway, it's such a romantic end for the Romans, with the Last Emperor flinging himself into combat to die in glory.

And if it's done right, there are no bad guys.

Except the Venetians, who become everyone's stereotypical baby-eating enemy (leading to the film getting banned in Italy).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You know, the best main character for such a film would by John Grant, the mysterious Scottish engineer who turned by the Turkish subterranean mines. Since we know next to nothing about him, we can give him any personality we want and have any actor play him. Since he's in the thick of the action but not one of the most important leaders, he would an ideal lens through which the audience would see the siege.

Constantine XI: Commander Grant! We need to get those countermines completed pronto!

John Grant: I'm givin' it all she's got! She can' take much morrrrrre!!!

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm sorry, this is a bit off topic, but there were some European specialists in the service of Sultan Mehmed's beseiging army, apparently they designed and cast his giant cannon, and did other things for him. Can anyone tell me why they helped bring down a Christian capital? Did they do it just for the money? Had they fallen in love with Turkish girls? Did they have some grudge against the Byzantines, or against Emperor Constantine XI?

Why did the English bring down Paris? It was a Christian capital. Not everything is about religion. I think maybe you've lived too long in the Bush era.

The Roman Empire was finished. Why not work with the new sheriff in town?

 

[jacobus]

Mehmed was smitten with Notaras' 15-year old son, so you're giving up an OTL bit of juiciness.

All right, this is something I've heard about the fall of Constantinople: the Byzantine commander Loukas Notaras was taken prisoner, and was imprisoned in his home, together with his family, and Mehmed II promised that no harm would come to them (some have speculated that Mehmed planned to employ Notaras in a puppet city administration). But that night, as the Ottoman army celebrated their victory, the Sultan got drunk on the strong Greek wines, and a courtier told him that Notaras had a teenage son of extraordinary handsomeness, causing Mehmed to command that the boy be brought to him for his pleasure.
The Ottoman soldiers went to the Notaras home, and called out to the Greek to bring out his son, but Notaras somehow knew or suspected the reason for the summons, and refused to hand the boy over, whereupon the Sultan's men broke down the door, stormed into the house and killed all the men inside, seizing Notaras' wife as a slave. Being a cosseted noblewoman, used to a life of comfort, she is said to have survived the rigors of servitude for only a short time before perishing.
All right, now, how much of what I've related is nonsense, and how much of it is factual? To the extent that we can reliably say, so long after the event.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Mehmed was smitten with Notaras' 15-year old son, so you're giving up an OTL bit of juiciness.

God, I'd forgotten that Mehmed was bisexual. Parts three and four coming up this afternoon then. History be damned!

 

[MrP]

There's actually a spoof trailer on : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GM_C9qqpWk

It has Al Pacino as Halil Pasha, Orlando Bloom as Giovantii Giustiniani, Jeremy Irons as Constantine XI, and Ioan Gruffud (no idea) as Mehmed

PS. I think Ah.Com should make it's very own screenplay outline, cast list, etc.

Hornblower! Sargon had episode 1 of that up the other night. Try to catch #2.

I'm surprised you've not run across him before. He was in those two dreadful Fabulour Four films. To be fair, I only watched the first. The second might be less dreadful. IMDB suggests that you may have noticed him in the background of Titanic or Black Hawk Down. Keira Knightley fans will recall him from the passably poor King Arthur.