Helen of Troy

The first thing I read about this movie was that it was terrible and that the first lady even though very gifted as far as bust is concerned was a nightmare when it comes to acting. However when I saw this film I had to disagree with those critics who tried to ruin a good movie. Even though the sets are nothing to those of "Ben-Hur", "Cleopatra" and other screen giants the sets of Cinecitta are stupendous. The colour is magnificent and the acting is quite good. It is true that the part of the heroine could have portrayed some more fragility, still Ms. Podesta' was quite satisfying. The cinematography is very good and the story never lingers. It is action-packed and is bound to marvel anyone who likes this genre.

I loved "Helen of Troy" when I was a young girl in the 50's. Paris, played by Jacques Sernas, was the most gorgeous man I had ever seen and to me, made his character come alive. I wondered how I would feel about Jacques' performance after seeing Orlando Bloom play a rather wimpy Paris in "Troy". Sadly, there didn't seem to be any chemistry between Paris and Helen in the new version. When comparing the original, classic version, I was pleased to find that it still remains an exciting and dynamic story and could not be improved with extravagant special effects. "Helen of Troy" has a romantic, poignant warmth and the audience is compelled to hope that Helen and Paris can have a happy life together. In the new version, it didn't seem to matter if they stayed together or not, their story almost felt secondary to the glorious story of Brad Pitts' Achilles. Needless to say, I highly recommend the remastered DVD of "Helen of Troy, 1956" for the discerning movie viewer.

HELEN OF TROY is a very respectable Hollywood sword and sandal effort from the 1950s, with a strong international cast and very good production values. Except ...

Why does every popular culture effort at retelling the Trojan War myth have to make Paris the hero? In the Illiad, by far the most significant and authoritative source of the story, at best shows Paris to be an ambiguous figure--the best looking man of his generation, but often a coward in battle. Helen expresses extraordinary contempt for him in one extended passage. In one or two brief sequences, Paris fights valiantly, but in his major appearance, his winner-take-all-and-Helen duel with Menaleus, after bragging and crowing about his prowess, he completely wimps out in the battle, and, once defeated, is transported by Aphrodite back to Troy to hide in his bedroom.

HELEN OF TROY is not the only effort to mis-read the Illiad into a Paris-and-Helen "runaway" love story. Perhaps in writing a commercial screenplay, that's what any writer would be forced to do. But that doesn't speak well for our popular culture, one that can't sustain the ambiguity and complexity of another culture--of 2700 years ago!

Still, the movie has its strong parts, particularly Stanley Baker as Achilles. Watch for Brigitte Bardot in an early, pre-star role as Helen's handmaiden.

As most people probably know from reading the Iliad by Homer, "Helen" (Rossana Podesta) was the most beautiful woman in the world and happened to be married to "King Menelaus" (Niall MacGinnis) of Sparta. "Paris" (Jacques Sernas) was a Trojan prince who got shipwrecked near Sparta and upon seeing Helen fell in love and then managed to take her back to Troy with him. Some accounts say that Helen was kidnapped by Paris but others say she left of her own choosing. In any case this abduction resulted in all of the Greek city-states joining forces to besiege the city of Troy in order to return Helen back to Sparta. Now, as I stated earlier, since most people are probably familiar with the story of the Trojan War I probably don't need to elaborate any further. That said although this movie isn't completely true to the Iliad it is an interesting interpretation of the Trojan War and since there are other Greek sources with slightly different variations I suppose this version is as acceptable as anything else. Be that as it may I thought the casting of both Helen and Paris were good choices and each of them played their parts quite well. I also liked the cinematography which was excellent for its time. Accordingly, I believe that viewers who appreciate epic adventures of this type will thoroughly enjoy this particular movie and I rate it as above average.

In comparing this version of Helen Of Troy with the more recent Troy it's quite the tossup. Both didn't quite live up to expectations, the casting in a few places doesn't quite work. There was also different emphasis placed on the classical figures in each film. This version also uses a cast of thousands and in the current version, computer graphics are used to show the mass armies of both sides.

I never understood why 20th Century Fox never thought to film this with Tyrone Power, the role of Paris seems like such a good fit for him. Jacques Sernas was adequate, but not more than that. Rosanna Podesta is one magnificent looking Helen in a role that asks nothing more than being the first celebrity romance in history.

I'd be hard pressed to choose between Peter O'Toole in Troy and Cedric Hardwicke. Each so well portrays the world weary and war weary Priam so well. Hecuba is reduced to a cipher in the current version. But Nora Swinburne is not just a magnificent queen, but a caring mother for her rambunctious brood of Trojan princes and one princess.

My favorite as he's likely to be in any film he's in is Stanley Baker. There is quite a difference between him and Brad Pitt. Brad was a reluctant warrior as in Homer's epic. But Achilles as Baker realizes him is just a warrior who likes battle with the zest of a warrior who knows the gods have given him near invincibility. Baker brings so much passion to anything he does, he usually blows me away with any performance.

Next to the stories of the Bible, Homer's epics are probably the most universally known tales and everyone is a critic. For me this Helen Of Troy is a good if not great retelling of the tale.