With historical films it is always very easy to say that it is not right, also with the new hero epic Michiel de Ruyter. That is why Kennislink enters into a conversation with screenwriter Alex van Galen, who is happy to explain his choices. Historian and biographer of De Ruyter Ronald Prud'homme van Reine tells what he thinks of those choices.
The film Michiel de Ruyter is about an ordinary man of the people who makes it to the highest rank in the navy. In the more than twenty years that the film covers, Michiel de Ruyter (1607-1676) fights several spectacular naval battles. Meanwhile, his friend and client Johan de Witt (1625-1672), the most powerful politician in the Netherlands, is murdered and the young Prince of Orange William III (1650-1672) plays a dirty game for power. Enough heroics and drama.
The film gives a romanticized image. What did De Ruyter's real life story miss? Screenwriter Alex van Galen:“Nothing, it often turned out to be more interesting than we had made up! To keep the story clear, we had to simplify it. For example, we had a version of the script where De Ruyter grew old and had grandchildren, but that got too complicated. We mainly wanted to show De Ruyter as a family man and as an ordinary boy, the 'Frank Lammers effect' (the actor who plays De Ruyter, ed.), so to speak. Maybe De Ruyter was a lot more authoritarian in real life, but I often find that a pity about historical figures in film. It creates such a distance. We wanted to emphasize the emotional aspect here, in addition to his strategic insight.”
By strategic insight do you mean the scenes where tactics are discussed using miniature wooden boats? "Indeed. It is very difficult to sell strategic insight in a film. How the hell do you explain that? So yes, then only with small wooden boats, even if that is historically not justified. Now we're putting it on a bit of a roll, also by letting him lead the way in the battle, but the historic De Ruyter got his men along. When you read his biography you might think, what a boring, religious man, but it must have been a character. He beautifully led the largest fleet in the world at a time when ships deserted for nothing and you immediately got a knife between your ribs in the pub for a wrong comment."
What is the idea behind De Ruyter's fictitious part in capturing the English flagship Royal Charles ? And his presence at the murder of Johan and his brother Cornelis de Witt while De Ruyter was at sea? “In a film, the main character has to experience everything, which is why he had to be present for the story. As for the Royal Charles we first had written in the script that no one was allowed to tell anyone that he was there, as a kind of secret conspiracy. But that got really complicated. And the murder? I think De Ruyter really would have gone if he hadn't been at sea. He also wanted to testify for the good character of his friend, the politician Cornelis de Witt, who was accused of treason, although he was advised not to do so. That says something about the man's sense of honor and justice. The used 'I speak the truth as long as my eyes are open' are really his words."
There are many historical details in the film. What sources did you use? “We have spoken to many experts. Historians, navy people and last but not least Arjan Klein, the maker of the VOC ship De Batavia that can be seen in the film. That man was able to tell so many details. What sailors shout for orders, for example. I had already put that in the script, but I actually had no idea. I also found very nice details in biographies and books about De Ruyter. For example, that he will feed the chickens on board after a naval battle. I really wouldn't have made that up myself! Or a gay prince who likes ballet more than politics. Although we wanted to show Willem's personal development from spoiled child to serious stadholder."
What did you find difficult about writing a historical screenplay? “That there are only individual biographies but no books about the dynamics between Willem III, De Ruyter and De Witt. That is the central theme of the film. And that we couldn't show everything. All the adventures of De Ruyter in his younger years, the loss of his first two wives. We couldn't take them all. Furthermore, there were few suitable sources about women in the 17 e century. There is still room for some research to be done.”
It's nice that you had the letters from sailors' wives returned. “Yes, I have read some of these women's letters and was very moved by the drama in them. So I wanted to refer to that at all costs. And I also wanted to portray the role of Anna, De Ruyter's wife. We know that she did his administration, paid wages and kept stocks up to date. In addition, she really spoke to that angry mob that stood in front of their house. People thought that De Ruyter was collaborating with the enemy during the war in 1672 and they came to tell her story. That just couldn't be the climax of the film, because that was the massacre of the fallen politicians Johan and Cornelis de Witt.”
What I found disturbing was the lack of religion at a time when it was present in all aspects of life and the emphasis on the Netherlands as a unity, the 'we Dutch'. “I also wanted more religion in the script, but Roel (director Roel Reiné ed.) categorically didn't want that. The characters had to remain modern enough for viewers to identify with. And as for the sense of unity, it has to do with the current political situation. There is already enough negativity surrounding 'proud of the Netherlands'. We wanted to make a positive film and show how a small country can produce great characters.”
Biographer speaks
Alex van Galen has, among others, the books of historian Ronald Prud'homme van Reine, Rechthand van Nederland, Biography of Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (1996) and Murders by Jan de Witt. The blackest page of the Golden Age (2013) used as source material for his screenplay. That is why Kennislink also asks the biographer some questions.
Mr. Prud'homme, what do you think of the film? “It is a real action film, suitable for a wide audience, but there are many inaccuracies in it.”
Can you give some examples? “De Ruyter will never have been the first to board an enemy ship. In any case, in the 17th e century, but a commander-in-chief had not joined. The presence of De Ruyter at the murder of the De Witt brothers is also fictitious. This scene is otherwise rather elaborate, when in reality the murder was over in no time. Discussing the tactics for a naval battle has also been invented. That was decided on the spot. After all, you don't know how the wind blows."
What did you think of De Ruyter's character? “What counted for De Ruyter as a person were the sea, the Bible and his family. You don't see anything about his piety and the protagonist does not radiate the charisma of De Ruyter. I like the character of Johan de Wit better, although he would not have dealt with life insurance in times of war. In addition, his clothing is too frivolous. In paintings we always see him depicted in a plain black cloak. These kinds of choices by the director say more about what should appeal to a wide audience and about our current time, than about the 17 e century.”
And the fact that De Ruyter doesn't seem to be getting older? “I don't understand how they did it like that. When the film starts he is 45 years old, but when De Ruyter is killed he is 68. He is then grey, old and sick. At that time, De Ruyter suffered from kidney stones, which made him fat and weak. They even had to carry him to his ship for the final expedition. And when he is shot through the leg, he falls down a deck. That would have given a nice dramatic effect on the silver screen, but they also leave that out.”
De Ruyter's wife, Anna van Gelder, is given quite a heroic role by addressing an angry crowd, is that correct? “The family situation as a whole is not right, but she has indeed addressed the mob in front of her house. Just not this way. She read them a letter from De Ruyter in which he wrote about how he was fighting the enemy at sea. That eventually calmed the crowd.”
Do you think Stadtholder Willem III has something to do with De Ruyter's death? “De Witt had never let De Ruyter go on that last expedition, it was too insignificant for that and the risks to expose his commander in chief too great. The States General took the decision, but William III was ultimately responsible in 1676. He could have resisted this and he didn't. That is strange, but on the other hand, De Ruyter was already so ill that he did not have long to live. He was not a threat.”