The Physician

Films about medieval times are always nice to watch, especially for me, who have a great affection for this historical period, about which I did a specialization as a historian. Unfortunately, and as happens regularly, this movie is full of mistakes.

The script is quite good, from an entertainment point of view: an English orphan who is raised and trained by an itinerant barber acquires a great fascination for medicine and for the ability to cure illnesses and physical ailments. However, he is aware that he knows very little, and that his master knows even less, and this awareness becomes clearer when he lives with Jewish doctors who learned his art in the East. So he decides to disguise himself as a Jew and travel to Persia in order to be admitted as a pupil of a master physician, Ibn Sina.

For those who don't know, the film is partly based on real facts and characters: Ibn Sina, for example, really existed and entered the history of medicine with his Westernized name: Avicenna. It is also true that the Arabs had, during this period (the so-called Year A Thousand), a much more advanced scientific knowledge than the Christians, and the Jews, who had a certain ease in circulating between the two worlds (East and West), ended up developing a particular vocation for science and medicine, which was later used in the West, especially in times of greater religious tolerance.

Unfortunately, many things in the film (particularly the details) don't make sense: it would be a bit difficult for a Christian without much education to disguise himself as a Jew without being recognized and "unmasked", nor would it be so easy to make a journey from the British Isles to the heart of Persia, although it would not be impossible. It would be impossible, however, to see the Persians of the year 1000 celebrating something with fireworks, since this technology only reached that culture two hundred years later. Modern notions of sorcery and necromancy would also only emerge from the 13th century onwards, and the Church never burned anyone, it declared the defendant a heretic and handed him over to civil justice, which (that one) could burn him or not. Even more egregious was the mistake of including in the film an epidemic of bubonic plague before the 14th century, when the disease historically appeared. And even though the Shah did exist, and the Seljuks were indeed a threat in the region during the time period depicted, we would never have seen Muslims prostrate themselves to the Shah because they simply won't. There are still other errors: the Tower of London, which appears at the end of the film, was only built a hundred years later and would not have the appearance of the current building until, at least, the 16th century. Don't get me wrong, the movie is worth it even with these problems. What we have to understand is that this is not a documentary and things were not exactly as they are portrayed.

Thomas Payne is quite good in the lead role and does a good job as an actor, even if he is sometimes overshadowed by the impressive and charismatic performances of colleagues like Stellan Skarsgard or Ben Kingsley, two actors who are in excellent shape and who give us truly committed performances. And interesting. Emma Ribgy has also done a good job, but has relatively little to do.

Technically, the film has good cinematography and good sets and costumes. They're not especially accurate from a historical point of view, but they're aesthetically well done. The CGI is reasonably good and works well, if not very realistic. The soundtrack didn't particularly convince or please me, but the visual and sound effects are good. The pace is also quite good, and despite the film being relatively long, you hardly feel the time passing.

I can understand that many history buffs would be disappointed with the movie. Okay, it is historical inaccurate, but it's just entertainment. The same with any novel which introduces fictional characters and imaginary or altered historical events. An example: In one of the best movies of all time (at least for me)Ben-Hur, the main character, played by Charles Heston, when almost dying of thirst, is given water by Jesus. Later on he tries to help Jesus carry the cross. Bible followers could be appalled by this since it never appear nor in he Bible or in the Christian traditions. This is very common with all historical novels or movies based on real life characters. Producers and directors play for their public at a given time. As in the movies of World War ll, Japanese where demons and all Nazis murderous monsters; in this day and age, anyone from the East or Middle East wearing a cloth around his head or a burka, is a fanatical zealot. As we know (or should know), that is not necessarily true.

So in the movie we have at hand I can safely say that is a very entertaining movie, with excellent photography, breathtaking landscapes, good action, excellent acting and an overall a very interesting story. What really bothered me was the almost quantum jumps it makes in its story line. How this impoverished boy managed to get accepted into a prestigious and exclusive medical school without even knowing the language? Furthermore, it is never explained how he managed to have the resources to live quite a lavish in this progressive city. Probably you'll have to read the book to find a plausible explanation. In the other hand, I cannot discard this movie because of its glitches. It has lots of other aspects going for it; specially that it made me feel good; it had that old time spectacular grandeur that has been lacking in today boisterous blockbusters.

While this movie is well acted and beautifully shot, there are so many departures from the original story that I couldn't help feeling a little let down. It's true that to include everything written by Noah Gordon would require a mini-series (which would have been a good idea) , there are a number of things that gave the story more depth that could easily have been included. An accurate account of where Rob J Cole was born would have been a good start.

Despite these omissions The Physician is still a good watch.

For those who question the truth of this title, it's fiction, total fiction.

I am lucky I didn't read the book. In fact, the book and film of any story is always very different from each other and should be rated separately without comparing them. It is a 2:30 hours movie and it isn't boring at any moment. From the beginning till the end you are entertained by the story and the action. It is a big production, one of those you have to see in the theater due to the imagine, the landscapes, the special effects. And talking about the special effect; there are enough, but for once this movie is not an "ONLY and overloaded action" movie. Lately, most of the films are possible to see on the screen at home, because the imagine is not of that type a cine-screen is needed. This production is made like the classical big productions, like Lawrence of Arabia or The English Patient. So, enough action, not boring, entertaining and you can leave the theater in a relax status and not tired of all the car chases.

Tom Payne, Mr Kingsley and Skarsgard make a very good act.

Negative parts ?! Missing some link in the voyage between England and the Orient. Some unexplainable jumps in the story, which for sure are treated well in the book. But, it is not disturbing and quiet normal in a big story as this one.

a beautiful novel. a great cast. splendid music. more than a good adaptation or remarkable work, it is an useful message about basic values of society. a film about tolerance as fruit of courage, about love and friendship as results of sacrifice. about vocation. all in seductive package. Ben Kingsley as Avicenna, Olivier Martinez as the shah, Tom Payne as lead actor are pillars of a wise, touching, subtle show.and they are not the only - the flavor of Arabian Nights is, in same measure, admirable ingredient. more than a film, it is a sort of delight. and a lesson out of didacticism laws. that fact is fundamental. for viewer. and for understand the delicate axis behind its beauty.