THE 13TH WARRIOR is a movie that tells the story of one Ahmad ibn Fadlan, an Arabian emissary who had the chance to travel and adventure for a brief time with a small band of Vikings in the Middle Ages. I personally remember looking forward to it coming out but it was just something that I never got around to going and seeing while it was in theatres. I finally got the chance to see it one night when I was surfing channels and found that it was on television and I don't think that I switched stations until it had ended. What I saw was a movie that combined a subject that I have interest in (Vikings specifically and Medieval times in general) and some great action scenes. The script wasn't the greatest and the story seemed as if it was short, despite the 103-minute length, but I enjoyed it regardless. However, mine was not the same opinion that many other people who saw it came to after their viewing.

THE 13TH WARRIOR was released in 1999 to mixed audience opinions. In the box offices it was deemed a flop, despite the star power of Antonio Banderas and Omar Sharif, and a great performance by Vladimir Kulich. The fact that it also had John McTiernan (the DIE HARD trilogy, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, PREDATOR) at the director's helm should only have added to its appeal, in addition to the popularity of Eaters of the Dead, the Michael Crichton novel that the movie is based on (Crichton and McTiernan, along with Ned Dowd, also produced the movie, which was distributed by Touchstone Pictures). However, it never turned out to be the hit that many thought it would be, and McTiernan tried to distance himself from the project to keep his name as clean as he could. Despite having a production budget of 160 million dollars, the film only ended up grossing about 32.5 million, which is a very large disparity (source #9).

One reason for the lack of box office enthusiasm for the film is the time period in which it came out. Finally making it to theatres in the summer of 1999, its opening day had been pushed back from the original in order to accommodate for another McTiernan flick, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, which was being released earlier. Another THOMAS CROWN related fact is that McTiernan left to work on that project after the initial shooting for THE 13TH WARRIOR, returning again when they decided to shoot more for it in the summer of '98. Fans eagerly awaiting the release were disappointed by the delays and also by the fact that the title of the movie was changed. It went from being originally titled EATERS OF THE DEAD, the same as the novel, to being THE 13TH WARRIOR, a relatively more mundane name that also does not get out the message that this was indeed based on the Crichton book. Crichton, who had a very great influence on the movie, as with all of his works, was the one who decided on the change.

"I changed the title because the original was just too disturbing for many people. Changing the title was my idea; the studio didn't want to do it. But I felt we should. During filming, people would say to me, "What are you working on?" and I would say, "Eaters of the Dead." And they would say, "What? What's it called?" and then when I repeated the title for them, most of the people said, "I don't want to see that" or "Ugh, I'll skip that one." They didn't even ask what it was about, they were just put off by the title" (source #7).

However, this change didn't seem to have a huge effect on how the movie so I believe that they would have been better off leaving it how it was and relying more on the popularity of the book and good previews for them to create regard for the movie. In short, it was Crichton who had the most say on the final version that was released to the public and one of the cast members, Asbjørn Riis (who played Halga, one of the 13 warriors) asserted this in an interview. When asked whether or not he had been involved in additional shooting and reasons for it, he replied:

"Yes, I was standing by for Disney all summer 98! These questions are all connected to the same thing: namely, that McTiernan and Michael Crichton did not agree on the final editing of this movie. So you are right about the reshootings in LA, in 98. McTiernan wanted to bring more life into us, the Vikings, and Crichton wanted to follow his book, with a twist of Banderas' ideas. He had in fact a back injury that he had for some time, but it had nothing to do with the reshootings! McTiernan was fired in 98, or should we say he left, and didn't even want to see the final result" (source #11).

As can be seen, Crichton basically took over the project, deciding what was going to be shown and what was going to be cut, in addition to changing the storyline from what McTiernan originally wanted. Riis says later in the interview that McTiernan was around for the reshootings and it was at the end of these when it became apparent that he was not going to get his way against Crichton that he left. The obvious end result of this was a movie that was constructed more by its producer than its director, and the change of roles was not beneficial to the results, although Crichton was apparently satisfied by the results (source #7).

Many film critics also failed to find the movie appealing, although there were also those few who thought that it was great. I think a great reason for this is that critics are, in my humble opinion, trained to look more deeply into the movie than your average cinema goers. They are the ones who are looking at the plot and character development and other more technical items like those instead of sitting back and just watching it. Dustin Putman, who writes reviews for All-Reviews.com (which in turn supplies reviews for other publications), gave it 0 out of 4 stars, saying that "There isn't an act, scene, shot, or frame in THE 13TH WARRIOR that I could say I liked" (source #8) He also labeled it as the worst film of 1999, which is a pretty strong assertion to make and he does this on the basis that "from what [he] can gather about the specifics of the film, THE 13TH WARRIOR has no signs of an actual plot, or even a reason for being made and wasting reportedly over $100 million" (source #8) Putman obviously had some very strong feelings about the movie, and he has strong facts to back up his opinions, and his wasn't the only view like this as many others thought that this was a weak release by Touchstone.

I would have to agree with the critics on the fact that there is hardly any plot whatsoever. The problem with making the movie from Michael Crichton's book is that the writers of the screenplay (William Wisher and Warren Lewis) had to take all of the subject matter that was contained in the novel and transform it into a movie that wasn't four or five hours long, which is a common problem when going from book to movie. There is just so much material that it can be difficult to decide what should be cut and which parts can be adapted for the screen. In spite of the fact that it is an hour and a half long, it seems to go much faster than that, because the story has been compressed so much from the book and essentially just bounces from one battle to the next, with an introduction in the beginning that leads into the situation but is very brief. The movie is what I would designate as an action flick that is trying to be an epic. It has all the epic conditions, the battles, the honor, the time period, but it simply does not have the plot complexity that would suggest to me that it is more than an action movie.

The film does excel in its visual representations though, and actually received an award from the Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild in the year 2000 for the Best Period Hair Styling in a Feature Film. Knowing Michael Crichton and the research and effort that he puts into making his books as accurate as can be, I know that he would have done an equally good job for a movie with which he was associated. The relation between the Vikings in whose company ibn Fadlan finds himself and the Arabs of his homeland is very similar to those of the other movies that we have seen. Ibn Fadlan is shown as being civilized and early on is disgusted by some of the Vikings' less sanitary customs while the Vikings are shown as barbarians. Weaponry is something that differentiates between the different groups as well. The Vikings are shown with their great broadswords, bows and arrows, barbicans, and axes but ibn Fadlan finds the broadsword that they give him much too heavy and clumsy for his own use and cuts it down to the traditional Arabian scimitar. And even more distinguishing from these two cultures are the crude weapons that the Wendol (Eaters of the Dead) use, made so that when they attack someone and hit them, the person looks as if he has been clawed by an animal.

The technical aspect that is best exemplified and has the best effect on the film is the use of natural lighting throughout. This gives the impression of a much more primitive time and makes the movie look more realistic. In fact, according to Asbjorn Riis in his interview, the night attack by the Wendols was actually shot in the pitch black, "There was no extra lighting, only from the torches and fires!" (Source #11). There was little computer editing done to the movie on the whole, although a few things, such as the stormy ocean scene, the fire worm snaking down the mountain, and the wounds given by the weapons. They also used it in the battle scenes to erase the wires used on some of the characters to pull them back as if they had been hit. The best example of this is in the final scene where the Wendol leader takes the hit from Buliwyf and is knocked backward completely off of his horse.

All of the scenes from the movie indicate that this was a very historically accurate movie and the research that I have done on this supports this notion. Interestingly enough, in the back of Eaters of the Dead, when Crichton is listing his sources, two of them (Brondsted and Arbman) are the same sources that I found in our library and am using myself in this paper. The first instance in which historical accuracy really comes into the movie is in the beginning when the dead Viking king is being given his funeral. According to Social Approaches to Viking Studies, burial was either through cremation or inhumation. The cremation was the way of the old times, while inhumation was an example of the spreading of Christian practices (source #6, p.46). Regardless of which method they used, they believed in sending what are known as grave goods along with them on their trip to the afterlife (source #6. p.46). As can be seen in the movie, the older custom was also more barbaric, as a live girl was also sent with the dead man to go along on the voyage with him. Another issue that comes into play is that Buliwyf, near the end of the movie when he has been poisoned by the Wendol mother, is distressed by the fact that he is dying but he has no property or possessions that could be sent along with him. He brings this up to King Rothgar who promises that he "will be buried as a king." With the new customs, the Vikings also set up grave markers known as rune stones for the runes that were engraved into them (source #6, p.46).

The location of the town which the Vikings are defending is also accurate. The greater majority of all Viking towns were located near water, as their boats were a primary means of transportation and it was easy for them to send goods and people along the water (source #5, map p.49). The Vikings had extensive trade routes all around Europe and they also used the water to their advantage in their raids on other towns and peoples, a common practice throughout all of Europe at the time, not just limited to Norsemen (source #5, map, p.43 and p.129). They were also usually based around an administrative building, as King Rothgar's wooden castle that dominated the countryside and surrounding buildings (source #5, p.66). The castle itself was typical of its time and culture, being essentially a great hall in which the King could hold court and into which he could gather his people if they were attacked (source #5, illustration p.52). The set was also very crucial to establishing the setting of the movie and the production crew did a very good job in choosing British Columbia, Canada and the way that the cameras are positioned to give some great landscape shots that really add to the effect of the movie.

The characters are obviously a crucial part of the movie, so how they look is equally as important. Vikings were very fond of decorative additions to their clothes and brooches, cloak pins and other ornaments were common accessories (source #2, p.102). As with other cultures as well, how a Viking was dressed was very indicative of their place in society, so those who could afford it wore gold and silver, while the freemen would have to content themselves most times with bronze (source #2, p.102). The sources of some of this information are the silver hoards that have been found buried and also from those same grave goods that I mentioned earlier (source #6). For every day dress, Viking women usually wore a long shift-like garment with a wool tunic over it. They would attach ornate brooches to the tunic to help hold it up; two of equal size just below or right at the collar bone (source #2, p.102). While we do not see the presence of the brooches in the movie that could just be an indication of the hard times that Rothgar's town was going through, although it does seem a little odd that even the queen does not wear them. Indeed the men in the movie, aside from the armor, stick to generally non-descript clothing, aside from Buliwyf and Halga, who both wear great fur cloaks over their shoulders and blocks and use cloak pins to hold them in place. For men the dress code was trousers, whether tapered, straight, or baggy, and a knee to mid-thigh length tunic, with a belt worn over it (source #2, p.113). In the winter, heavy cloaks were added to the attire. Footwear was simple: shoes or ankle-boots that were tied around the top. There was also a small amount of hat wearing, though usually a simple leather cap, not the massively decorated helmets that are commonly shown in popular culture (source #2, p.113). A point to make here is regarding Halga's helmet from the movie. According to his interview, it was a gladiator's helmet and there was originally a story behind it, but that part was cut from the movie during the edits (source #11).

The most important accessory to the outfit of a Viking male was, of course, his weapon. Indeed, here is where Crichton's research shines through, as the hilt of the sword that ibn Fadlan is given looks nearly identical to one of those which are shown in plate 1 of Brondsted's book (between p.160-161). Brondsted writes that, "A Viking's weapons of attack consisted of the sword, axe, spear, and bow and arrow. Of these the sword and axe took pride of place: any self-respecting Viking bore them about him always" (source #4, p.119). This is shown clearly in THE 13TH WARRIOR, with the warriors being armed to the teeth in most scenes, and the weapon most prominently featured being the broadsword. Of course on the opposite side of the offense are the defense; the shields and armor. Shirts of mail were the basic protection, with plate mail for those who could afford it, and simple leather armor for those who were poorer. A round shield, reinforced with metal was the standard, although this eventually was replaced by the longer, pointed shield that came over from continental Europe (source #3, p.21). And as mentioned before, helmets were worn, but these were close fitting with nose guards, not the horned versions shown in many illustrations (source #3, p.21).

Although Michael Crichton, in the reshootings and scene editing, was attempting to make the movie conform more to the storyline of the book, I don't think that the film does a very good job in this. It follows the basic storyline and gets the main parts across, but there are many places where the story has been cut down considerably. For instance, the first 104 pages of the book are compressed into the first 20 minutes of the movie, which doesn't allow for a lot of the character development that goes on. It also cuts out quite a bit of ibn Fadlan's travels before he meets the Vikings, because he doesn't just leave the city and encounter them right off, he make stops in other towns along the way before their first meeting. One more part that I though was significant to the story and also in creating the epic was that, in the book, on the journey north they stop in at the place where Buliwyf's family lives so that he can pay homage to his father and mother. When they arrive they find the village burning and not a soul alive. Buliwyf goes into the house of his father and comes back out carrying a massive broadsword, described by ibn Fadlan as being "as long as my own body and the blade was flat and broad as the palms pf two men's hands set side by side" (p. 89). This part is important because the details of the sword add to the epic side of the story, this family heirloom passed along and falling into Buliwyf's hands so that he can use it in the completion of his quest.

In addition to this, there are other scenes that I feel are important to showing the cultural differences and also enhance the plot. While they are sailing (and the lack of scenes involving this is another point that I do not understand, as one of the most recognized signifiers of Viking culture, in my opinion, are the Viking ships) they have an encounter with whales and the Vikings are very frightened by this because to them they are capable of crushing ships with their tails and they see them as sea monsters. Ibn Fadlan is also very scared by the encounter, as he has never seen them before and originally thinks the Vikings fools for believing in them (source #1, p.100-102). This shows the lack of knowledge of other parts of the world, especially the sea, which is still in great evidence during the Middle Ages. Another part that they leave out that I think helps to give a better indication of the Viking culture is that when they are traveling north, they pass through a few Viking towns. Ibn Fadlan talks about people in these towns coming forward and touching him, rubbing at his skin to see if that was really his color or if it was just painted on, which again highlights the lack of contact between the common people and outside cultures (source #1, p.81).

It seems to me that this movie is a great candidate for a director's cut version, although I don't know whether that would ever be in the cards what with the control that Crichton exerts over it. The film clearly exists in two different versions, the one that was released to the public, or Crichton's, and the one that John McTiernan had originally filmed and was later discarded by Crichton in favor of his own. Yet while it may not have been the greatest film ever produced, it certainly was not the worst and extensive effort was put into the depiction that it gives. Who knows, perhaps if the screenplay had been written a little better and the story given a little more time to develop, it might have turned into something worthy of real interest and recognition. Unfortunately what we were given was a beautifully shot action flick that was just too light on the plot to make it into the epic that it should have been.

Bibliography:

1. Crichton, Michael. Eaters of the Dead. Ballantine Publishing Group; New York 1976.
2. Graham-Campbell, James and Dafydd Kidd. The Vikings. William Morrow and Co. New York 1980.
3. Arbman, Holger. The Vikings. Frederick A. Praegar, Inc. New York 1961.
4. Brondsted, Johannes. The Vikings. Penguin Books Inc. Baltimore, Maryland 1965.
5. R.T. Farrell, Ed. Vikings. Phillimore and Co. Ltd. England 1982.
6. Ross Samson, Ed. Social Approaches to Viking Studies. Cruithne Press; Great Britain 1991.
7. Crichton, Michael. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/eaters/index.html
8. Putman, Dustin. http://www.all-reviews.com/videos/thirteenth-warrior-2.htm
9. Gray, Brandon. Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/13thwarrior.html, updated 12/26/99.
10. The Internet Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/Tawards?0120657
11. Interviews conducted by Cyrille Bossy with Asbjørn Riis, "Halga the 10th warrior" from the film. June 2001. http://www.ifrance.com/eaters/interviews/riis.htm