The Lion of Flanders

I was so well surprised by this obscure film from Netherlands and taking place in the Middle Age. It is a medieval tale so gritty, accurate, bloody and not to be watched by kids in matinees. I have rarely seen a so realistic medieval tale, except of course Paul Verhoeven's FLESH AND BLOOD, and maybe a couple of others, all recent films. But in the eighties, there was not many of them. Very few indeed. It looks like a Mel Gibson's feature, bloody, and the most accurate.

So the production values aren't great, but that wouldn't have been a problem if the screenplay had been any good.

I've read the novel (by Henri Conscience) on which this move was based, and in this case, again, the old cliché is true: the novel was better.

The screenwriter (by Hugo Claus, a prolific novelist, poet, and playwright) seems to make all the wrong choices. Imho this screenplay was one of the worst effort of the much-lauded author.

One of the main conflicts in the novel is the contrast between Jan Breydel, a violent butcher in every way, and Pieter Deconinck, a thoughtful strategist. Oddly enough, the screenplay makes almost nothing of this.

Central in the novel, is a love story (Machteld and Adolf). Granted, in the novel (published in 1834) it's a courtly and sentimental affair, but Claus the screenwriter chooses to leave it out.

So it you would condense the big novel this film was based on, you would probably concentrate on these two relatoinships. But Claus chooses to be an "artist", and the result is almost a confusing non-story. No contemporary Fleming would know what this is all about, and so he wouldn't care -- nor would anyone else care.

This is a shame, because the historic facts make a great story, and the novel has a great story, about the mightiest European state (France) trying to subdue one of the wealthiest regions of the world (Flanders) -- all this in the early 14th century.

The movie ends with the "Battle of the Golden Spurs", which is still commemerated in Flanders on the 11th july. This movie does not do it proud.

I hope that one day a capable screenwriter and ditto director will make this into a great movie.

During the reign of Philippe Le Bel, France was at the peak of its power and its wealth in the Middle-Ages;the king imposed a centralized kingdom, which displeased the bourgeois as well as the nobles; he was not very popular and few movies were made about his reign. The most famous was the TV miniseries "les rois maudits" :the celebrated destruction.of the order of the templars who represented an international financial power ;burnt alive on the stake with other companions, Jacques De Molay ,the Grand Master would have cursed all the kings to come ;historians say that the master simply appealed to God's justice ;the fact that Philippe died within the year fueled the legend. The second subject concerns Philippe's daughters -in -law ,two adulteresses,filmed by Abel Gance in "la tour de Nesles " in which history was given a rough ride .

But no film about Flanders ,it was the first time a movie had been made about this aspect of the king's reign ; it's a gripping historical epic, with shakespearian accents (all that concerns Gui De Dampierre) , scenes which verge on fantasy (the battle of the golden spurs ) and generally good acting .

Like the French, the Flemish were overburdened with taxes ;Philippe 's rapaciousness knew no bounds (he expelled the Jews,after confiscating their possessions) in the movie he seems a little listless, encouraged by his wife Jeanne De Navarre the First (was she really the cruel woman who insisted even Flemish women and children be slaughtered too? Opinions differ ,she married the king at 11 ,when he was five years her senior and her political role did not seem so important ).

This war ,which turns "holy" in the king's mind in the second part,was David against Goliath ;although the French lost the battle of the golden spurs , Philippe had the last laugh and the poor province was finally defeated in 1304 and was part of the kingdom till 1369.

This is a very violent movie, a story which in the end is a plea for oppressed people , a rebellion against the high and the mighty .

You know, this is a great Flemish war film! The story is set in the middle-ages, the 14th century (in the year 1302). Because all the gold reserves of the great French empire are gone, King "Filips De Schone" wants to have the complete power of a golden empire: "Flanders", which have ten times more gold, than there is in the whole French kingdom. The french army threatens the Flemmish people with slavery and death! City's get attacked, Woman's and Children are getting killed by soldiers and the whole Flanders is in the power of France. But the Flemish people don't want this, and a revolution breaks out. It all ends in a gigantic and bloody battle which is known as "The Battle of the Golden Spurs" (De Guldenporenslag!) This is a great and realistic film about: Love, Power, Death, Knights, Medieval and War. It shows one of the greatest victories of the Flemmish army in the whole History. Director Hugo Claus has done it well! The fight scenes are amazing and good. Even for a Flemmish film with a very LOW budget! I actually don't understand why everybody hates this movie.

Anyway, thanks for reading my comment!

De leeuw van Vlaanderen is a medieval movie about the Flemish resistance against the French invading armies in 1302. The Flemish peasants won the battle because of their courage and the helping hand of God, manifesting itself as a golden knight on the battlefield. A sort of Braveheart (1995), but without the skirts.

It could have been a good movie. But the director, actually a novelist who thinks he can direct, screwed it up BIG TIME, again. Everything is leading up to the battle, but the battle itself is poorly filmed. If you can't afford to put in hundreds of extras on the grass, you shouldn't use too much long shots. But concentrate on the dynamics of the battle. There were too many empty spaces, which made the whole thing look ridiculous. Even Monty Python in The Holy Grail (1975) was more convincing!

The rest of the movie is static and theatrical. The occasional bad acting sequences are followed by sequences of low dramatic value and pointless discussions, where you feel as a spectator the need to push the fast-forward button. Yes, thank God I didn't see this one in the theatre.

note: I am sorry if I kind of hinted that Hugo Claus is trying to be Ed Wood. Ed Wood is maybe the worst director, but has still something Hugo Claus will never have: PASSION.