'The Mongol' is a film directed by Sergei Bordrov and depicts the rise of Genghis Khan from humble beginnings to becoming the greatest ruler of Mongolia. The film shot around Inner Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan has breath-taking camera-work and well-shot war scenes.
The problem with any of the History books we have encountered at school, college or otherwise is that they are mostly based on chronicles of Westerners which make them biased towards Western thoughts and ideas. Take up any history book and you get to read that Alexander was a legendary conqueror while Persians, Huns and Mongolians were barbarians. I think the western historians have conveniently pushed aside the fact that Mongolians have had some of the greatest warriors and a warrior like Genghis Khan had conquered half the world in his lifetime, more than what Alexander achieved. I don't understand how westerners classify Mongolians and Persians as barbarians and Vikings as honourable and brave warriors. Were Vikings and Greeks more civilised than Persians or Mongolians or better in warfare. Weren't the western warriors defeated at the Crusades at the hands of Sallaudin? Hope our text books bring out the actual facts of history than merely printing Western thoughts.
Anyway, back to the movie. In brief, the movie depicts how Temujin (childhood name of the Khan) overcomes childhood difficulties (father's death, starvation, slavery etc.) to rise to the position of a great commander and warrior in Mongolia. He chooses his bride (Borte) at a young age and later with her support surges ahead as a warrior. What I liked about the movie was the characterisation of Genghis Khan which I felt was very naturalistic and much more authentic than shown in any other movie or documentary. Unlike Western perceptions that he was cold-blooded barbarian, the movie depicts him as a brave, composed and shrewd warrior who is also a great commander.
Anyway, back to the movie. In brief, the movie depicts how Temujin (childhood name of the Khan) overcomes childhood difficulties (father's death, starvation, slavery etc.) to rise to the position of a great commander and warrior in Mongolia. He chooses his bride (Borte) at a young age and later with her support surges ahead as a warrior. What I liked about the movie was the characterisation of Genghis Khan which I felt was very naturalistic and much more authentic than shown in any other movie or documentary. Unlike Western perceptions that he was cold-blooded barbarian, the movie depicts him as a brave, composed and shrewd warrior who is also a great commander.
The dialogues are in Mongolian and Mandarin and so I had to rely on the English subtitles of the DVD (which were pretty good!). Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano gives a superlative performance as Genghis Khan with a very natural style of acting.
The Director says that he had planned this as a trilogy and if that is true, I am definitely looking forward to the next two parts. One reason is the magnificent war scenes which would be shown and the second is his conquer of China and Russia. As we all know, Genghis Khan was the only warrior who successfully conquered Russia. Two famous people who failed later in this feat were Napoleon and the anti-semitist Adolf Hitler. Also Genghis Khan attacked and successfully conquered China at a time when the Chinese had built the Great Wall to protect their country from invaders.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in History and wants to see a good movie. As simple as that. As to why the Director is a Russian, the reason is the affinity of Mongolian people with the early Soviet Communists. In fact, Russian language is commonly used in Mongolia along with the native language. Right now I am very glad that Sergei Bordrov had taken the painful efforts to direct this great movie and also depict a more authentic form of Eastern history. I impatiently await the release of the sequels.
The scenes which depict Genghis Khan's friend Jamukha's soldiers shifting their loyalties to the Khan is subtle and at the same time creates an impact on the viewer. They tell Jamukha that they find the Khan more just and kind. It shows us that Genghis Khan also had great people management and leadership skills which held him in good stead in his future campaigns.
The Director says that he had planned this as a trilogy and if that is true, I am definitely looking forward to the next two parts. One reason is the magnificent war scenes which would be shown and the second is his conquer of China and Russia. As we all know, Genghis Khan was the only warrior who successfully conquered Russia. Two famous people who failed later in this feat were Napoleon and the anti-semitist Adolf Hitler. Also Genghis Khan attacked and successfully conquered China at a time when the Chinese had built the Great Wall to protect their country from invaders.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in History and wants to see a good movie. As simple as that. As to why the Director is a Russian, the reason is the affinity of Mongolian people with the early Soviet Communists. In fact, Russian language is commonly used in Mongolia along with the native language. Right now I am very glad that Sergei Bordrov had taken the painful efforts to direct this great movie and also depict a more authentic form of Eastern history. I impatiently await the release of the sequels.
12 comments:
history is pack of official lies - that was balzac, i think.
when it is convenient, piracy undergoes a sea change, and the pirate drake becomes Sir Francis Drake!
countries go around massacring huma beings in the name of religion and this act is recorded as 'crusade' or holy war!
people who kill the maximium number of buffaloes become frontier heroes according to american history. every buffalo dead meant so many red indian families starving.
kochuthresiamma p j: Yes, lot of adulteration has been observed in History recorded by the Westerners.
That is why I feel there has to be a change in the way History is presented in Indian books. The next generation should not be made to blindly believe whatever is written in present-day books.
Thanx for visiting my blog! :-)
Probably has more to do with the treatment given to the losers, and less with the number of victories.
Ramakrishna
History is just a fable agreed upon -- Napolean
Very good post. I've gradually become accustomed to not believing everything in a textbook, and the experience has been very liberating to say the least.
In all fairness, Europeans do identify most people outside the old Roman Empire as barbarians - the Visigoths (who are now Spaniards), the Franks (no explanation needed there), the Lombards (Italians), the Slavs (in Yugoslavia), the Saxons (Britain). In China, Mongols and the Xiongnu before them, were considered barbaric because they lived outside conventional China. Essentially, barbarians were someone who were part of their culture.
Regarding Genghiz Khan, he did not conquer China or Russia. A huge chunk of the Mongol conquests were done by his descendants. Kublei Khan did, displacing the ruling Song dynasty, with his Yuan dynasty. Russia was mostly non-existent a state at that time. In fact, Moscow was less than a century old. But, Genghiz Khan did devastate Ukraine and other Causasian nations. The Great Wall was built in late third century BC to kepp out the Xiongnu and by the time of Genghiz Khan it was largely ineffective. The Wall, as we see it, was built by the Ming who came after Yuan three centuries later.
@all: Thanx a lot for your valuable comments!
Arby, I agree with you that the Russia during the Khan's time was not the Russia which Napolean or Hitler encountered. Neverthless his conquest inspired the future Mongol conquerers like Kublai Khan.
Sudipta, it is said that history is written by winners. The Western world today has to be praised for the advancement in science, industries and general hard work. But their history was not all rosy!
@in the shadows: If you meant racialism, then all I can say is that it has improves significantly than what it was a few decades back.
history is being recast-particularly in the excolonies - referred to now as subalterns.
i remember as a school student, i was taught that the 1857 uprising was a sepoy mutiny. your generation was taught it was the first war of independnce.
at the root of the problem is the belief among the europeon historians that europeon values have universal applicability, and all peoples are measured by their yardstick.
@kochutheresiamma: I forgot to comment on your point regrading American Indians. They were slaughtered at will by Christopher Columbus and his troops without any mercy. Sometimes I feel these guys have no right to say Hitler was an evil guy. They have done much worse.
Yes, portions of History are being altered. By the way, contrary to what I have expessed, I agree that the 1857 revolt was just a Sepoy Mutiny.
I read all your posts. But many a time I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment.
P.S I learn about a lot of unheard movies from this blog. All I did early was go to IMDB top 100 movies and note em, and watch 'em later.
I must say that in Britain about the only things the Vikings are known for are raping and pillaging. :) Not that I'm suggesting there haven't been misrepresentations, but let's be fair - they are increasingly coming around to critical points of view.
I should also stress the importance of academic rigour when going through this process - otherwise we end up with fiascos such as the BJP's attempt to rewrite history and science textbooks.
Sometimes I feel these guys have no right to say Hitler was an evil guy. They have done much worse.
I have two issues with that statement:
* It is incredibly unfair to lump them all together. I don't think even you are quite sure who you meant by these guys.
* Even if a group of individuals have done much worse, that does not condone Hitler's acts.
@thomman: Great! You should watch this film when you get time.
Karthik:
Oh absolutely. I apologise if it came across as if I'd accused you of such.
But then again, to use the case of oppression in N. America as an example, the folks actually responsible for slavery and violence against the natives are long gone - the present generations can't be accused of anything, the same way we cannot blame the Germany of today for the holocaust. We mustn't let anyone forget though. The effects of the sanctions were indeed appalling, and you won't find me disagreeing about anything like that.
I hope I'm not coming across as if I'm trying to defend anything bad :) - just that I have a problem with accusing an entire population or race for the actions of a relative few, often made in the past. It is particularly unfair to lump most of North America and Europe together as they vary as widely as the subcontinent.
Having never been anywhere near the US, I have at times felt that most of the place (barring the north east and parts of the west coast) to be made of gun-toting, jingoistic, religious freaks - it's easy to forget people like Jefferson, Paine and Twain.
I must note to watch the film sometime, just to get back on topic!
Post a Comment