Christopher Columbus (1949)

As a history teacher, I generally avoid film depictions of Christopher Columbus because they bear little similarity to real life. The biggest problem is that although he became famous, little is actually known about the man--especially before his famed voyages to the New World. So, much of the 'fact' in the film is fiction. In addition, the films also perpetuate myth--stories often retold so many times people just assume it to be true. THe sad fact is that we have no idea what he looked like and aren't even positive about where he was born. When the film begins, it says that during Columbus' time people assumed the world was flat--something practically no sane person at the time thought! They could see that the Earth had a curved horizon and the reason few traveled across the Atlantic had to do with a previous lack of navigational tools as well as it being completely unknown. People just did NOT think they'd fall off the world--a myth perpetuated by a mostly fictional history book by Washington Irving that purported to be a biography of the man.Today we are in an age of deconstruction of Columbus. Whereas in 1949, he was practically depicted as super-human, today he's seen as a genocidal maniac. Neither depiction is quite correct. There is a lot to admire as well as dislike about the man--and it's a darn shame that no film I know of even tries to give a balanced account of what we know about this skilled sailor.So why, then, did I watch this film? Well, I like Frederic March and think he's a bit underrated as an actor. Even a second-rate film (which this clearly is) with March is worth watching. There are some nice qualities about the film--the costumes and sets are reasonably accurate. As for the acting, it is a bit stilted and dull. Perhaps they talked this way back then, I am no expert on this, but the people seemed a bit too constricted and formal throughout. There were a few exceptions--the jolly fat guy was pretty cool. But even with a few decent performances, nothing can change the fact that the film is wildly inaccurate and rather dull. Plus, it perpetuates the idea that Columbus discovered America--omitting the fact that natives had discovered it first and the Vikings had been there several centuries earlier. Of course, there are several other possible expeditions that MIGHT have made it there before Columbus as well, but there just isn't enough space here to discuss the recent Chinese claim or other ideas that most likely will never be proved.By the way, the print shown on Turner Classic Movies is strongly sepia-toned. I am not sure if this was intentional--it might just need restoration!

SPOILER ALERT!!!! COLUMBUS "DISCOVERS" NEW WORLD AT THE END!!! Just saw this on TCM and was laughing and laughing and laughing. I swear,it was almost as if the Coen brothers had traveled back in time and made this movie. There are so many awful treasures in this well-made horrible movie I don't know where to begin. First: Frederic March's 1940's typical American Joe accent is priceless. Just picture Joe Biden playing Columbus. Did they even have casting directors back then? The filmmakers also take copious liberties with the story, my favorite one being that they paint Columbus as this maverick who sasses the Spanish court judges commissioned to approve or deny his voyage. He was this close to lighting a cigarette, popping his collar, hopping on a motorcycle and riding into the sunset. I could go on and on, but you get the drift. Batten down your brain cells and set sail to Over-Acting Island.

If you really want to make history boring, I advise you to see this epic 1949 flop.I imagine this misery was originally in black and white. Attempting to colorize it completely destroyed the texture.Fred March is the title role is totally colorless here as well as the writing.When the ships are at sea, the writing is so monotonous and it's only mid-September 1492. You can actually start rooting for October 12th to come. When it finally does, Columbus encounters new world people who are as dull as the picture is.When he talks about a hanging, he brings in the name Haman. Were the writers suspicious that Columbus was really Jewish? At least, they could have played up that angle to make the film more exciting.His enemies in Spain never relented and Columbus was charged with thievery and ineptness and was brought back in shackles in a scene similar to Charlton Heston's Moses coming in to the kingdom in shackles when it was discovered that he was the deliverer.Angry, that Ferdinand and Isabella have decided to keep him in Spain, he angrily retorts: "My name will be long remembered long after they're both dead!" He walks off and the film mercifully ends.1492 also marked the inquisition of the Jews from Spain. We should have also inquired why this abominable film was ever made.

I'm so sick of the PC and multicultural framework of all art today that it's good to see a rendition of the Columbus history told unashamedly from the viewpoint of Western hegemonists (my perspective)regardless of its obvious weaknesses as a film. March is a typical American actor who projects his own personna no matter what the part (Anthony Adverse or Phillip of Macedonia). It limited him but I happen to like the personna as did many other moviegoers. If I'm not mistaken his age is about right for Columbus at this time. It could have been more exciting but what is exciting is the whole enterprise that results in the discovery of the New World because of the persistence and vision of one man. Many earthshaking developments take years or months of plodding to come to fruition whether the Columbus landfall, the landing on the moon or the curing of polio. It's worth watching just to hear the great score.