I have mentioned this comment contains a spoiler. This is a tricky matter as the viewer of this film must certainly knows how it ends (much as a viewer of any film about the Battle of the Alamo or the Battle of Little Big Horn has to know, before seeing the film, the ultimate end); nonetheless, to be absolutely frank and forward I will state that my comment contains a spoiler or two.
A lot of viewers of historical films complain that some (if not all) films do not show things "as they actually happened" or is "historically incorrect". Well, they are correct, but usually the changes are made in order to make the film more desirable to the audience; after all, the various films (such as "Titanic") were made not for historians but for movie audiences. Therefore, the directors of most films will take a little "artistic license" during the production of the films.
This movie stays pretty much on course historically and has been criticized by a lot of people for that; people who probably would have also criticized the film had it been historically inaccurate. Sometimes you just can't win...And, that sums up the plot of this film (and historical drama). There is no way that either Trotsky or Jacson (his assassin) will win. Trotsky is convincingly played by Richard Burton. He shows Trotsky as a man who has refused to run any more from Stalin; no matter that this will inevitably doom him.
Alan Deleon (the French version of Richard Gere) portrays the assassin in a way the allows the audience to sympathize with him; even if not approving of what he is about to do. Romy Schneider portrays Jacson's mistress; a fellow communist. In real life a few years before DeLeon and Schneider had been a real life unmarried couple; then, after a couple of years their relationship had ended and they went on to marry different people. Deleon did help Schneider to get some parts afterwards and this was one of them. Knowing this makes viewing this affair (of Jackson and his mistress) on screen difficult as one knows that these actors had actually been in this situation; loving and fighting. Sometimes close; sometimes hating each other. A viewer watching some uncomfortable emotionally charged performances can insulate him or herself by the fact that the performances are simply acting; not real. Yet, in this case that emotional insulation is not there. These people were playing out a true relationship on screen, and it is painfully realistic to watch.
The nature of the murder is foretold in the movie by the bullfight. I have been to a number of bullfights and this one shows a sloppy end with a bloody and prolonged death of the bull. Though bullfight affecionados would like for you to believe that a bullfight ends with a skillful and swift sword stroke by the matador (such as seen in the movie "Fail Safe") the reality is that quite a few bullfights end up as little more than butchery. Which is a good reason to continue to ban those exhibitions in the United States. Well, I digress but not by much. The fact is that assassination is not a particularly noble affair and the film does leave one wondering why Jacson used a pick axe instead of his pistol.
The film shows the murder in painfully realistic detail. Nothing glorified. This movie shows it like it was, and it was gruesome.It does put into perspective the nature of assassination.
Some additional points about this movie: It was made in 1972 and at that time no one knew how the Cold War would end (the Communists were winning in Southeast Asia then). Trotsky is shown in this film as a Communist of a different sort; with some humanity much as we would later view Premier Gorbochev, but this was made years before anybody had heard of Gorby. Anyway, one underlying theme of the movie is how different things might be by 1972 if Trotsky had not been killed. Perhaps he would have thrown enough of a counterweight to Stalin that the Cold War might not have begun. Of historical interest is the portrayal of the American guards of Trotsky; Communists who did not have an accent! Most people do not know or remember that there were some very genuine Americans who were openly Communist before WWII and were proud of that. In fact, 1940 represented a high water mark of sorts of the membership of the American Communist Party. After WWII, when the excesses of the Stalin regime became known in the West, most of the American Communists dropped their membership in that party and joined the Democrats.
The movie is painfully realistic; hence the low ratings is sometimes receives. Yet, history is painful at times and this movie does not pull punches. It does not give us a typical Hollywood sugar coated ending because, quite frankly, that was not the type of ending in this matter. Jacson was a murderer who, like most murderers, could only discover how horrible murder is by actually committing it. Painful and realistic is how I would describe this forgotten jewel.
A lot of viewers of historical films complain that some (if not all) films do not show things "as they actually happened" or is "historically incorrect". Well, they are correct, but usually the changes are made in order to make the film more desirable to the audience; after all, the various films (such as "Titanic") were made not for historians but for movie audiences. Therefore, the directors of most films will take a little "artistic license" during the production of the films.
This movie stays pretty much on course historically and has been criticized by a lot of people for that; people who probably would have also criticized the film had it been historically inaccurate. Sometimes you just can't win...And, that sums up the plot of this film (and historical drama). There is no way that either Trotsky or Jacson (his assassin) will win. Trotsky is convincingly played by Richard Burton. He shows Trotsky as a man who has refused to run any more from Stalin; no matter that this will inevitably doom him.
Alan Deleon (the French version of Richard Gere) portrays the assassin in a way the allows the audience to sympathize with him; even if not approving of what he is about to do. Romy Schneider portrays Jacson's mistress; a fellow communist. In real life a few years before DeLeon and Schneider had been a real life unmarried couple; then, after a couple of years their relationship had ended and they went on to marry different people. Deleon did help Schneider to get some parts afterwards and this was one of them. Knowing this makes viewing this affair (of Jackson and his mistress) on screen difficult as one knows that these actors had actually been in this situation; loving and fighting. Sometimes close; sometimes hating each other. A viewer watching some uncomfortable emotionally charged performances can insulate him or herself by the fact that the performances are simply acting; not real. Yet, in this case that emotional insulation is not there. These people were playing out a true relationship on screen, and it is painfully realistic to watch.
The nature of the murder is foretold in the movie by the bullfight. I have been to a number of bullfights and this one shows a sloppy end with a bloody and prolonged death of the bull. Though bullfight affecionados would like for you to believe that a bullfight ends with a skillful and swift sword stroke by the matador (such as seen in the movie "Fail Safe") the reality is that quite a few bullfights end up as little more than butchery. Which is a good reason to continue to ban those exhibitions in the United States. Well, I digress but not by much. The fact is that assassination is not a particularly noble affair and the film does leave one wondering why Jacson used a pick axe instead of his pistol.
The film shows the murder in painfully realistic detail. Nothing glorified. This movie shows it like it was, and it was gruesome.It does put into perspective the nature of assassination.
Some additional points about this movie: It was made in 1972 and at that time no one knew how the Cold War would end (the Communists were winning in Southeast Asia then). Trotsky is shown in this film as a Communist of a different sort; with some humanity much as we would later view Premier Gorbochev, but this was made years before anybody had heard of Gorby. Anyway, one underlying theme of the movie is how different things might be by 1972 if Trotsky had not been killed. Perhaps he would have thrown enough of a counterweight to Stalin that the Cold War might not have begun. Of historical interest is the portrayal of the American guards of Trotsky; Communists who did not have an accent! Most people do not know or remember that there were some very genuine Americans who were openly Communist before WWII and were proud of that. In fact, 1940 represented a high water mark of sorts of the membership of the American Communist Party. After WWII, when the excesses of the Stalin regime became known in the West, most of the American Communists dropped their membership in that party and joined the Democrats.
The movie is painfully realistic; hence the low ratings is sometimes receives. Yet, history is painful at times and this movie does not pull punches. It does not give us a typical Hollywood sugar coated ending because, quite frankly, that was not the type of ending in this matter. Jacson was a murderer who, like most murderers, could only discover how horrible murder is by actually committing it. Painful and realistic is how I would describe this forgotten jewel.