FilipeManuelNeto

**An effective and very pragmatic film, where Flynn is shown to be worn out and in difficulties.** Who would have thought that the last swashbuckling film starring Errol Flynn, an actor who has excelled in countless fictional heroes, would be a film loosely based on the life of a real historical character? Yes, this film, now completely forgotten, brings us an obviously invented situation, but created around the figure, totally real, of the Black Prince. I, as a historian, will try to explain some of this… As I think we all know that England and France fought a succession of wars during part of the Middle Ages, commonly called the Hundred Years' War. The focal point was sovereignty over a series of territories in present-day France and the right of English kings to the French throne. In 1066, centuries before, Duke William of Normandy, vassal of the French kings, conquered the English crown by arms, becoming king of a country without ceasing to be, as a French duke, vassal of the neighboring kingdom and lord of many lands there. In the following centuries, through the marriages of subsequent kings, more lands were added in Brittany, Anjou, Loire, Aquitaine, etc. When, in 1328, the French king dies without a direct heir, his sister claims the throne for her son, who is Edward III of England, nephew and closest male relative of the deceased... The French nobles, invoking a law that excluded succession by female line – called the Salic Law – refused to accept it and enthroned a cousin of the late king, the Count of Valois. The war that followed had great battles, mostly won by the English, which were led by Edward himself and his son, who is the Black Prince, so called because of the color with which he painted his armor. The prince's military brilliance, moreover, made him one of the main figures in the Hundred Years' War. The script starts from the historical basis to create an appealing and attractive, romantic fiction, with its ideas of courtly love, chivalry, adventure. The fact is that the film works, but it is evident from the beginning that we are dealing with the modern vision of what the time and the conflict would have been like. There are glaring anachronisms, especially in the behavior of the characters, which were stranger to me than anything related to the actors' accents. It is not understandable how the English Crown Prince could simply think of pretending to be a mercenary in the pay of a noble infinitely less important than himself, and all because of a woman. It is something inconceivable to the medieval mentality. Errol Flynn is a long way from his glory days here. The actor looks very tired, very worn out, and it is evident that his habitual alcoholism consumed him daily. Also, he just didn't have the vitality and youth left to play the character he was given. He knew this all too well, and it seems he only accepted the role for the money involved. Peter Finch is nice but has little to do really, and Joanne Dru was effective as a love interest, but she's not there for anything other than being saved. Technically, the film has its merits, mainly because the production, in order to cut costs, knew how to make good use of the sets and costumes from other productions made shortly before, and which were of great quality. The cinematography also does not disappoint and is very beautiful, with its color, light and pleasant movement. The fight scenes look very artificial, naturally they are choreographed to the millimeter, but they manage to have the minimal effect they seek to achieve.