Subscribe RSS
Comment RSSMel Gibson + Leonardo DiCaprio = Vikings
17.12.09 # News # 18 CommentsIn keeping with his trend of ultra violent period pieces (Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto), Mel Gibson’s next directing effort is about Vikings and Viking culture.
I defy anyone to write a caption that makes this picture any funnier.
The film will star Leonardo DiCaprio as he continues his string of testosterone-filled roles (Blood Diamond, The Departed, Shutter Island) to make up for that estrogen iceberg known as Titanic. Graham King is producing and William Monahan is writing the script, both of whom worked on The Departed and the upcoming Edge of Darkness (hence the Leo/Gibson connection).
Currently untitled and unscripted, filming is expected to begin in Fall 2010.
Fingers crossed that it includes people being tortured and forced to carry heavy things around:
Source: Variety
Posted by 
Lol – Leonardo de Caprio as a VIKING?! Oh give me a f@#$king BREAK!!!! Mel, as a person of scandinavian descent, I’m thrilled that somebody is making a Viking historical film, there are far too few of them, and none of them are particularly accurate. I hope since you are behind it, it will be one with action elements, will be great in scope, and hopefully do for Scandinavian heritage what Braveheart did for Scots. All that being said – for Odin’s sake, (and by Odin’s
beard!) PLEASE recast this – cast somebody else, ANYBODY else, please.
I’m assuming he’ll want to go beardless too, or refuse to wear one, or at only wear a tiny, wispy little one. He’s so weasel faced.
Some advice from someone who is REALLY into their culture:
1) Vikings were tall and broad shouldered – often described as TALL AS TREES by the people in Constantinople where they often served as members of the Varangian guard.
2) They didn’t wear horns on their helmets, EVER. This was attributed to them in error, and continued as a way of intentionally demonizing them and slurring them. If you do this, it would be the same as filming a world war II film with buck-toothed Japanese.
3) They wore beards, and being beardless was considered unmanly, a sign of being a child still, and being called unmanly was something worth killing over.
4) Additionally, despite what feminists Wiccans will want, they didn’t have warrior women either; women weren’t armed in their culture (except on great occasion), and although they were treated with great equality, because they didn’t fight, they didn’t speak at public assembly without an advocate willing to fight and/or die in their stead for what they said, advocates who often spoke for them.
5) They also preferred swords as weapon of choice, not axes, as they are often shown with. Though they often carried them as wood working tools, only the lowliest of soldiers used them, quickly replacing them with a sword at the first opportunity.
6) Chainmail. Chainmail, and more Chainmail as the armor of choice.
7) Despite perception, they were a very artistic and technologically advanced people in their age. Most “Vikings” were the outcasts of their people, often due to overpopulation, and went abroad seeking fortune in trade; only reverting to raiding as it was relatively common in that age and they were desperate opportunists who were good at it.
I ask you – to PLEASE do some research before making this film.
We don’t need a bunch of furry, armor-less barbarians with axes, running about in horned helmets with amazon barbarian girlfriends
Hey Bjorn,
Why is it that when Mel makes a movie that everyone crawls out of the woodwork insisting that it be ‘historically accurate’. It’s a movie for goodness sake. There is a guy, a professional screenplay writer, named Monahan writing the story.
So, some advice from someone who is into entertainment and freedom of expression in art;
1. If you want to make a documentary on the Vikings… go ahead. My bet is that no matter how accurate you are, some slob will be up your nostrils over someone’s hair color.
2. If you want creative control over this movie, apply for the position. Your heritage will surely qualify you to produce a critical and financial success. Lord knows that Gibson character has no idea on how to do so on his own… look at his record with that financial flop about Jesus.
3. If you want your version told… go make a movie yourself. You can cast Rutger Hauer in your version.
In saying that, we don’t need a bunch of flaccid, unhorned, unchainmailed, totally bearded, sword wielding outcasts clogging up our screens.
Bjorn maybe Leo is not perfect for the role, but who told you that Leo want to be beardless? Are you stopped in the Titanic era? Leo has always beard and had long beard in Body of lies and Blood Diamond and Gangs too.
Chris, since you asked “Why is it…” some basic simple truths are somehow escaping you, particularly amazing for someone who by his own statement is “into entertainment”. I will try to clear this up for your sake.
1) it isn’t just when MEL makes a movie – its ANYTIME someone makes a movie, documentary or not. The line between documentary and drama has always been very blurry when it comes to historical tales. Wake up. You’ve obviously been hearing this complaint for a while, and have just decided to get angry at the complaint rather than addressing the thing complained about. Typical. Personally, I really don’t care who’s attached, though I actually like the majority of Mel’s work, accurate or not. I sincerely hope the work in question has as few detractions from its perfection as possible in as many areas as possible – hence why I spoke up. Simply put however, unless the work is intended to be a total piece of fantasy, it will, like all works of storytelling, be set in a particular period, culture or era. We call this a setting. As such, it should represent that period, era, and/or locales accurately if it is representing an actual one since it is labelled as such, and if not – should represent the director and producer’s alternative vision of it as needed for the sake of the message their particular piece of art is intended to convey.
Braveheart for instance had many minor inaccuracies that while not getting in the way of the work as a whole, caused people to criticise it aggressively. I’d rather this not come up in the first place and that the producers make a better work as a whole. A case in point -the battle of Sterling Bridge taking place without Sterling Bridge.
The Scots in question being portrayed a certain way – to make them feel more the underdog is understandable, but at the same time, historians spend their lives trying to change public perceptions and educate the public about these periods and the practices within them, only to have one popular movie come along and set them back terribly. I wish the general public didn’t get their understanding of people and periods from entertainment venues, but they do, and for that matter, if the public WERE more educated, there would be more people complaining about the inaccuracies.
The work in question has been stated to be a piece about VIKINGS. Unless this is just the title of the piece and meant in a purely allegorical fashion, such as for the sake of arguement, a contemporary story about modern ruthless tradesmen who turn into violent opportunists. The work in question however, was not duscussed as being titled “Vikings”, nor was it discussed that it was about anything other than actual Vikings. This means it has a responsibility to present them, wherever it is not altered for directly intentional artistic reasons (like the tale of a beardless Viking dealing with prejudice or for that matter, being very youthful in appearance or underage), in some level of accuracy since it is their culture that is potentially being slandered otherwise. Perception, as well as labels, and words have meaning, if they don’t, then there was no reason for you to respond at all to my WORDS with your WORDS. The reason people get offended is simply because they see it happen so many times over and over, or in particular, to their people, while other ethnic groups seem to have the right to complain. If it is all about “freedom of expression” as you maintain, then make up your own things and tell those stories, but leave other people and their culture out of it.
Also – jumping to the assumption that some “slob” will pipe in on a documentary over hair color, is both critical to those that view documentaries, and assumptive. That and of course you’re childishly trying to paint myself in the role of that slob which makes it personal. All I can say is some unthinking juvenile, self-styled “artiste” or “free spirit” already has spoken up in your case, someone who obviously doesnt want any kind of KNOWLEDGE getting in the way of what he wants to believe or any kind of social conscience or responsiblity being involved. You should know that Art is an intended message to an intended audience. Muddying your facts and poorly representing your case with inaccuracies is a fialure to communicate.
2) I never said anything about wanting creative control. I have no directing experience and simply would not hope to get the job or want it. Mel will undoubtedly be far more capable of the task of getting the movie completed, speak the language of the actors and the business, etc. Additionally, my heritage would have nothing to do with that aspect of the task, nor did I imply that it would. Learn to read before you try to put words in other people’s mouths.
What I implied was instead, that, as someone really into their culture, there were some obvious, though basic, easily researched facts that have been previously and repeatedly overlooked in film. Facts which if included would put the film at least in the right ballpark. I also impied that they should, and asked, nay pleaded that they do some research in this regard. You Chris simply cannot tell me that you think this would hurt the endeavor, and though I know you are a moron, I know you are not that much of a moron, at least not in this regard.
More amazing to me is the fact that previous attempts have managed to miss so badly.
3) Well, in regards to your third point – I never said I was a film maker or producer. If I was, I would have done just what you suggest, though I am not sure if I would cast Rutger Hauer for the hypothetical role in question. I might though, depending on the role (and I certainly mean no slight to Mr. Hauer’s talents). As stated earlier, this was not a “I can do it better” contest of film making. I never implied that I was, or that I could, that is entirely your abstraction.
Your last statement that “we don’t need a bunch of flaccid, unhorned, unchainmailed, totally bearded, sword wielding outcasts clogging up our screens” I can only respond that again, I never said anything about them needing to be flaccid, or myself wishing them to be, though I think this is what would happen if Mr. DeCaprio is involved. Your putting it in obviously your wish fulfillment of some sort or another childish attempt at name-calling. I shall simply cut to the chase and again call you the one that applies in a more honest, straight forward fashion. Simpering effete idiot.
As far as unhorned, if they have horns, they can’t call them Vikings without being called racist at this point. Mr. Gibson doesn’t need any more bad press in that regard.
Chainmail may or may not be appropriate, to be fair, but if it is a story about warriors engaging in that profession, putting them in anything else would not only be inaccurate, but may speak to the character’s prowess – again an artistic choice. The story for instance may be about a Berserker who eschews armor. Beards are a cultural necessity unless again, done without for specific reasons. Sword or axe would as stated speak more to station.
As I come to the end I realize that I have had to repeat myself at the end in regards to the things I pleaded them to research and am forced at this point to simply say you obviously didn’t read what I posted very carefully, so I state instead – that before attacking someone who posted their plea, ACTUALLY READ IT and try to see it from their perspective and why they posted it. Your last statement literally makes contradictory sense. I would certainly say we don’t need what you stated, and would agree certainly if it was anything that would ‘clogg up our screens’ but there is nothing in the list other than the one you added, “flaccid” that would make it so. So instead I say “we don’t need your sensibilities clogging up our screens and your perceptions of our culture.”
Responding to Mary – your statement was “Bjorn maybe Leo is not perfect for the role, but who told you that Leo want to be beardless? Are you stopped in the Titanic era? Leo has always beard and had long beard in Body of lies and Blood Diamond and Gangs too”.
Mary – Nobody told me Leo wanted to go beardless actually. I mentioned that I was assuming this. No, I am not stuck in the Titanic era, though i will forgive your assumption there. I actually thought that his work in Titanic was.. well, at least completely adequate for the role. In my opinion, his acting work has gone steadily downhill in his career, at least until very recently when it took a sharp upturn. I hated him in Gangs of New York for instance. I didn’t find him remotely believeable as his character, and Daniel Day Lewis’ Butcher Bill would have eaten him for breakfast. I’m not sure if anyone could have stood toe to toe with DDL in that role, but I thought he was woefully miscast.
I should also point out, that as far as appearances are concerned, none of these beards you mentioned were particularly full, and were exactly the kind I was imagining looking rediculous on him. Actually the wispy one I was complaining about was specifically from Gangs of New York. Vikings wore long full beards, braided them even. They were used as the archetype to create fantasy Dwarves, particularly of the Tolkien variety, though in Norse folklore they had Dwarves too and Tolkien was borrowing from them, which is why dwarves in fantasy often have a very Norse appearance and culture, albeit greatly reduced in stature.
In all faireness to Leonardo, his work on Blood Diamond was the most masculine I’ve ever seen from him. Instead of feeling like a weasily, rat-faced boy like his other post adolescent appearances (admitedly I avoid him like the plague) he actually got my attention in that role with his acting, which he hasn’t really since his first appearances. Most of the time Leo has always come across as amazingly fey or androgenous, which although it has always helped him with his younger female fans, makes it hard to take him serious in more aggressive roles where he’s expected to be more physically imposing. Vikings were pretty tall, and pretty broad, which I mentioned.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say?
He does seem a bit small for our modern perception of a Viking, but I highly doubt, even withing a smaller, genetically restricted group like that, there weren’t some runts. Maybe that will be worked into the screenplay. If not, they’ll jus tmake him look bigger, like Stallone.
Of course, the fact they’ll probably speak English instead of … Norse? … will be historically inaccurate as well.
A very good point Dalmation. I remember reading about a scientist who was trying to account for the sheer percentage of recessive genes amongst the northmen. Given the rules for dominance and recessive traits, he was surprised to find so many recessives, and in such a seemingly dominant percentage. It could have been preferential breeding for all we know.
Well, as art is “an intended message to an intended audience” (as I mentioned in my earlier response), the English part will most definitely indicate that the intended audience is someone who speaks English. Also, as English remains close to qualifying as the #1 international trade language, at least at the moment still, a distinction I believe it shares with French to a lesser degree and German even less so, we could also assume that it may simply be so to aim for the widest possible audience. Movie making is still of course, a business venture in addition to its artistic properties.
This would definitely qualify as one of those intentional choices for specific reasons. Otherwise they would have to train the english or nordic actors, assuming they didn’t speak one language or the other, in the alternative language, or we’d be reading subtitles. Since Movies are a visual medium, I’ve always found subtitles distracting from the imagery.
As far as Viking runts were concerened, there of course would have had to have been some, yet at the same time, they would have been heavily pointed out as such. Norse “kennings” are often attached to individuals with distinctive traits – so such a person might have been referred to as “Ivar the hairless” for instance, or “Ivar the short”. The sagas do not recount that many of small stature to be honest, though they do recall many of colorfully odd appearances. It could be that the short ones didn’t last as long, and/or didn’t gain much fame, though there are many cases of bald, beardless or even fat people who were slain in arguements over such. It could also be that they didn’t fit in and simply moved away. Who knows on that one.
Norse culture used to leave infants on the stoop in the cold their first night to see if they were healthy enough to survive, particularly so if they saw any obvious defects. It sounds very cruel, but their harsh climate and environment was very unforgiving, so they made sure that those that survived were capable of pulling their own weight. Notably, when they converted to Christainity, they recieved special dispensation from the pope to continue this practice to maintain their strength.
Bjorn-I’m happy to hear about someone who is as proud of his Norse heritage as I am. My friend and I would talk quite a bit about some of the stuff you already mentioned. Don’t worry, Gibson for the most part likes to be very specific in detail so I don’t think he will do diservice to this culture. One thing I hope he includes that you didn’t mention was Berzerkers. They were perhaps the most fascinating of the Vikings because they would get so angry that they would increase their strength and fighting ability astronomicly. The Vikings actually watched for young boys with bad tempers and taught them to use this anger in battle and that is where the term to go Berzerk comes from. I hope he at least takes a look at it.
Whoops sorry Bjorn. I just read all of your posts and saw you already mentioned Berzerkers. My mistake. I forgot to mention though, that Berzerkers would eat mushrooms and drink large amounts of alcohol before battle to make them fight harder because the enemy would be perceived as more fierce or scary. I’d like to hear more of what you know about Berzerkers, you know a lot more about Viking culture than I do so it would be nice to hear what you have to say.
Well, Bjorn, about the vikings being tall guys:
There’s this movie called Vikings: The Conquerors that I don’t know exactly the name in English because I’ve watched it in my own language, anyway, in this movie happened a lot of research about the history and tradition of our nordic beloved fighters and one interesting thing that was discovered was that a great amount of vikings were not as tall as we think.
As they researched about the long ships used by the vikings, Drakkars, if I remember well, they discovered that the distance between two oars was not big, not allowing a man taller than 1,70cm to row it.
It is no an accurate and specific research, but is quite interesting. This information can be found in the movie, probably in the bonus part.
I’m really sorry for my bad english, I hope it can be understandable.
Thank you!
Rodolfo Salgueiro.
Considering how enveloped everyone sounds around this film’s content, you’d think that homework on the production itself would have been done. It has been rumored in a few places that (and rumor is most we all have to go on, for any details outside of the basic and obvious facts) the story might be about or include the telling of Njalls Saga. Njall was known in legend to be a man who specifically could not grow a beard, and did not meet certain traditional qualifications for being considered an ideal Norse man. Though I believe he was considered wise. Makes for very interesting story line.
So all you “viking enthusiasts” could at least read the stories we have about them, the Sagas, and the poetry pieces. Perhaps that story would have come to mind, on top of the fact that its not hard to find the rumors that they are in fact considering such a story. Just think, you could have saved yourselves all this 6th grade bickering over Leo Dicaprio (a common subject of many frustratingly petty 6th grade conversations when i was in middle school).
Go, be at peace.
Dude! There already bashing the movie without even seeing it.. or even made..
I can’t believe no one knows about HISTORY. The Lombards were from southern DENMARK and the settled in nother and central Italy!!!!! The Normans were known for their conquest of southern Italy! The Vikings were not all tall and blonde. The Vikings were in the Eastern Byzantine empire and in Russia. The modern scandinavians are not the VIKINGS. People in Scandinavia are of Viking descendent, but so are the Russians, the ITalians, people of Eastern Europe and the British isles. Good LOrd people read a book!
Oh and the average viking was five foot seven for a man and five foot 2 for a woman. The average Roman was about 5 foot 6 for a man.
I’m late to the party, but I still want to address Bjorn’s post.
“Lol – Leonardo de Caprio as a VIKING?! Oh give me a f@#$king BREAK!!!! Mel, as a person of scandinavian descent…PLEASE recast this – cast somebody else, ANYBODY else, please.
I’m assuming he’ll want to go beardless too, or refuse to wear one, or at only wear a tiny, wispy little one. He’s so weasel faced.”
Best choice for the role would obviously be Alexander Skarsgård.
That said, being born and raised in Scandinavia I guarantee that appearence-wise no Scandinavian would raise an eyebrow if they saw DiCaprio on the street (if he weren’t famous, that is). Apparently he’s 3/4 German, so no surprise. I daily see guys who could easily pass as DiCaprio’s more effeminate brothers. And judging by the combs, jewelery (pink and turqoise) as well as what is assumed to be make-up found in Viking era graves, they weren’t overly macho about their appearance. Give him a beard and long hair, maybe throw in a few scar, and this would be a non-issue.
I’m more worried about (1) his stardom getting in the way of the suspension of disbelief, and (2) his ability to pull off speaking Old Norse in a convincing way since that is in my opinion what mostly helped The Passion and Apocalypto achieve their authentic feel. I don’t speak any of the languages used in those films, but with this one it might bother me as I’ve never met a native English speaker who didn’t have a very noticeable accent even after achieving fluency in either Danish or Swedish (I speak both natively). Can DiCaprio pull off the intonation , or even the ‘r’-sound? I doubt DiCaprio would agree to having someone with the language background lend the voice to the character (ideally someone from the Faeroes or Iceland).
DiCaprio is actually pretty good at accents (Blood Diamond). Hopefully that factored into the decision, apart from giving the movie some the star quality that Apocalypto lacked (from a marketing perspective, that is). Gibson has also said that he want the Vikings to sound like “guttural German”, but – judging by Icelandic – Old Norse was actually a pretty soft and melodic language, so that gives me pause.
“Some advice from someone who is REALLY into their culture:
1) Vikings were tall and broad shouldered – often described as TALL AS TREES by the people in Constantinople where they often served as members of the Varangian guard.”
DiCaprio is big enough. “Tall as trees” is from Ibn Fadlan’s account, and he met them in Russia. Scandinavians aren’t noticeably taller than other northern Europeans today (the Dutch are taller). Average height of Swedes at the time was 5′8″ (172 cm). And Scandinavians aren’t particularly stocky or broad shouldered, they tend to be quite lanky. And Scandinavians have *less* ‘brutish’ facial features than most Europeans, if anything. There are plenty of baby-faced Scandinavian men.
“2) They didn’t wear horns on their helmets, EVER. This was attributed to them in error, and continued as a way of intentionally demonizing them and slurring them. If you do this, it would be the same as filming a world war II film with buck-toothed Japanese.”
Gibson has never stated that they would have horned helmets in the movie, and there is no reason to think there would be seeing as they are serious enough about authenticity to even insist on having the dialogue be in Old Norse.
3) They wore beards, and being beardless was considered unmanly, a sign of being a child still, and being called unmanly was something worth killing over.
I seriously doubt they would be clean shaven in the movie. And look at DiCaprio’s recent movies. They’re all macho. He’s also a something of a character actor (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator, Blood Diamond). And if Johnny Depp can have a beard, so can DiCaprio.
“4) Additionally, despite what feminists Wiccans will want, they didn’t have warrior women either; women weren’t armed in their culture (except on great occasion), and although they were treated with great equality, because they didn’t fight, they didn’t speak at public assembly without an advocate willing to fight and/or die in their stead for what they said, advocates who often spoke for them.”
Yeah, women wouldn’t have been fighters. Regarding their social status in general, this is actually a point of debate among the historians. They really don’t know much about it as there are almost no reliable contemporary sources, and what sources
they do have don’t give a comprehensive view of the society. Most likely a woman’s social status depended on a wide range of factors, e.g. wealth and family ties.
5) They also preferred swords as weapon of choice, not axes, as they are often shown with. Though they often carried them as wood working tools, only the lowliest of soldiers used them, quickly replacing them with a sword at the first opportunity.
This is wrong. While swords were used by lords and chieftains, they were expensive since they were made almost completely of metal which was precious and swords required a skilled blacksmith, whose services would not have been cheap. In Denmark and Norway axes are the most common weapon found (‘Dane Axe’), in Sweden spears seems to have been the most common.
6) Chainmail. Chainmail, and more Chainmail as the armor of choice.
Again, these were incredibly expensive and only used by the upper class. Most Vikings would have used leather armour or no armor at all. Same with the helmets, most were made out of leather, and shields were made out of (reinforced) wood. Many accounts of shields breaking during duels.
7) Despite perception, they were a very artistic and technologically advanced people in their age. Most “Vikings” were the outcasts of their people, often due to overpopulation, and went abroad seeking fortune in trade; only reverting to raiding as it was relatively common in that age and they were desperate opportunists who were good at it.
They don’t know why exactly the raiding, trading and exploration era started and ended when it did. Some were pure opportunists, others were pure raiders, others pure traders, others colonists, some were outlaws, some were kings, some were mercenaries.
Gibson should watch the Icelandic film ‘When the Raven Flies’ as it’s the most authentic Viking movie ever made (still with many inaccuracies though).