Talk:Genghis Khan (1965 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

english

the film iadmire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.145.55 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critic Responce

@MilkGams and 86.153.227.225:
I would partly agree with 86.153.227.225 on this issue. The section is unsourced, and full of fluff and should be rewritten. However, I don't quite think its worthy of WP:TNT yet. From my perspective as a vandal hunter, I believe that the section removal looked a little fishy, and I most likely would have reverted it myself. MilkGams, keep up the good work.
-SilverplateDelta (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking or deleting the paragraph as unsourced personal opinion. However, we should give something on the critical response to the film, and do not want to immediately reject a good-faith attempt to do this this.

I have looked up some reviews from the release of the film in 1965.

"Genghis Khan" errs mainly by treating the Mongolian manic - quite as cruel as Hitler, many accounts would suggest - far too kindly. Omar Sharif plays him with flashing eyes and a certain toughness - but Mr Sharif is congenitally incapable of being unsynpathetic. James Mason and Robery Morley make disarming appearances, however, and the whole film bounces along grippingly enough.

"Battle of wills for the soldiers of misfortune". The Guardian. London. 12 July 1965.

The main pleasure to be gained from this particular example (directed by Mr. Henry Levin) lies in Mr. James Mason's unlikely but strangely concincing appearance as a Chinese adviser to Ghengis Khan. At least he does have a go at acting the role, and makes the rest look like amateurs.

"A French Classic that Refuses to be Dated". The Times. London. 17 July 1965.

[...] Omar Sharif, in the title role, is so gay and romantic that he reminds you more of Robin Hood than the uncorrupted Hitler that Genghis really was.

"Big battle scenes in a meoldrama". The Guardian. London. 26 July 1965.

As played by Omar Sharif, Genghis is racially expansive on a Hitlerian scale, exotic in his possessive attitude towards women, but in other respects exactly like us - assuming that we are preternaturally tough and given to spasms of physical brutality. Like most heros of epic cinema, he converses mainly in proverbs compsed in words of one syllable. Robert Morley, brandishing 10 false finger-nails, plays the Chinese emperor who instructs him in basic aesthetics; while James Mason, equipped with an upper set of rabbit-teeth, brings off a genuine feat of impersonation as an effetely beaming Oriental diplomat. Henry Levin directs this grandiose act of homage to power: a distasteful chore, one would think, but carried out with no great show of reluctance.

Tynan, Kenneth (20 June 1965). "Two centuries out of date". The Observer. London.

The performances of the principals, including James Mason, as a nasal caricature of a Chinese minister; Robert Morley, as the sybaritic Emperor; Mr. Boyd, Telly Savalas and Michael Hordern are no better than their hackneyed persiflage.

Weiler, A. H. (24 June 1965). "Genghis Khan' Rides In". New York Times.

[...] there are some pretty good performances. James Mason as a Chinese mandarin manages to be extermely funny, without sending the film up, as well as convincing in spite of the fact that most of out pleasure in his performance comes from the knowledge that this old mandarin is none other then James Mason. Robert Morley does his usual bit as the Emperor; Francoise Dorleac makes a delightful wife to Genghis Khan and Omar Sharif brings to the title role flashing eyes and - what is more - a conviction that he really believes what he is saying."

Road, Richard (26 July 1965). "Big battle scenes in a meoldrama". The Guardian. London.

More US reviews, generally negative, are quoted here:

Kevin Sweeney (1999). James Mason: A Bio-bibliography. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 158–. ISBN 978-0-313-28496-0.

A 2002 notice is less positive about the yellowface actors.

Henry Levin's epic blockbuster delivers plenty of old-school thrills but few concessions to historical accuracy. Omar Sharif plays Khan as a charasmatic freedom fighter uniting his nation's tribes against tyrannical Chinese rule. The preposterous spectacle of Robert Morley, James Mason and Stephen Boyd in full oriental make-up stretches artistic license to breaking point, but Sharif is at his dashing peak, while his co-star Francoise Dorleac, the late sister of Cathterine Deneuve, adds a dash of Euro-glamour to the multinational mix.

"Television". The Times. London. 14 December 2002.

The last (2002) review gives some support for the current text, but I have failed to find an adequate source to support it.

I propose this paragraph, which I would source to some of the above:

On the films release, British reviewers criticised the film for ignoring Genghis's tyranny, but generally praised the acting, particularly that of Sharif and Mason. American reviewers were generally critical of the hackneyed performances.

Verbcatcher (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that stuff. If I'd done it with my actual user name and not as an IP, I bet it wouldn't have been reverted. Wikis hate and punish IPs. Equinox ◑ 00:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]