Attila The Hun [DVD]

Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe and Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, and others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events and intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast and loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, and Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.

The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church and its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East and West, and the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtually no mention of the church at all, and the power brokers of the church are absent - history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, and not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.

Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways - some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun and other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, and his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shall ever know definitely.

These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smaller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' and 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.

A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) and Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts and direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her small cameo at the beginning, and Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable and loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironically, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian calls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.

The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) and for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overall sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street and three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence and barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.

Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends and I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not really great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overall direction and cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, and then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was really like.

If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila and the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.