1492: Conquest of Paradise

Une grosse production qui ne lésine pas sur les moyens et qui ne fait sans doute pas dans la finesse… on peut lui reprocher à juste titre d’en faire un peu trop dans le panégyrique, dans les effets de manches et de confondre « épique » avec « »naïveté » »… en somme un certain manque de recul mêlé à quelques atermoiements ici et là… sans compter quelques longueurs tout de même ! Mais « 1492 » reste un pour autant un très beau film, « beau » au sens strict d’ailleurs : c’est à cet égard le plus beau film de Ridley Scott après Blade Runner. Une esthétique soignée, une photographie très étudiée.. Et bien entendu, notre super Depardieu (inter)national est complètement habité par le rôle et la musique fabuleuse et majestueuse de Vangelis remet une couche à l’envoûtement général qu’on ne refuse pas. Non pas un chef-d’oeuvre le « 1492 »… mais un coup de coeur, certainement !

Ridley Scott grows more unlikable to me every time. I’m transported to 1492 with a mix of curiosity and caution. Curiosity because I’ve always been interested in the figure of Christopher Columbus and everything surrounding the so-called “discovery” of America; caution because, when cinema approaches history, it rarely does so without distorting it. And here the question quickly arises: what is the purpose of representing a historical event on screen if there is no clear intention to remain faithful to it? Beyond epic spectacle or heroic narrative, what remains when what is shown drifts so far from what actually happened? I have never defended the use of the term “discovery.” It has always struck me as a deceptive word, because it implies that something did not “exist” until it was seen through European eyes. America was not discovered: it was encountered by those who were already there. The film seems largely uninterested in this distinction. This is not about demanding an academic lesson or a docudrama, but about a minimum of coherence with historical facts. What is presented here differs noticeably from what I remember studying years ago at school, and this feels more like a rewritten version than a genuine audiovisual representation. While watching, I find myself checking information, and the same sensation keeps returning: what happened and what the film tells appear to belong to two different narratives. That disconnect becomes a constant background noise. Its two and a half hours could have been a ordeal, and they’re not. The first half flows with a certain agility and manages to hold my attention, but from the midpoint onward the rhythm slows excessively—heavy, tiring, and edging toward boredom. It doesn’t completely lose me, but it does wear me down. Visually, this is where I experience some of the film’s strangest sensations. There are shots that work, and work reasonably well on a purely visual level, but almost half of the film pulls me out of sync entirely. Not so much because of the framing, but because of the color grading. The etalonage feels excessive, artificial—almost like the work of a film student. Some images strike me as so ugly that I can’t help but pull a face. I fully understand why the film is often labeled “boring.” In my case, I don’t quite reach that point, but I do finish it with a strong sense of indifference. There is no lingering emotion, no lasting reflection. It ends and simply dissolves. I start and finish in almost exactly the same place. Still, I can’t say it was a negative experience. I expected much worse. Just enough not to feel like I wasted my time.