Tom Selleck's 1992 historical epic, "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery," is a prime example of a movie that went from promising to disastrous, leaving a trail of legal battles, creative differences, and a lasting mark on the careers of those involved. This film, which aimed to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage, became a vortex of misfortune, with every aspect seemingly going wrong. In this article, I will delve into the story behind the making of this movie, explore the reasons for its failure, and reflect on the impact it had on the careers of its key players. What makes this story particularly fascinating is the contrast between the potential of the project and the ultimate outcome, which raises a deeper question about the challenges of bringing historical narratives to the big screen. From my perspective, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about the delicate balance between artistic vision and commercial expectations, and the consequences when these forces collide in a chaotic production environment.
The genesis of "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" began with Alexander and Ilya Salkind, the father-son producing duo known for their work on "Superman." However, the production of this film was plagued by creative differences and legal battles from the very beginning. The original director, George P. Cosmatos, left early due to disagreements with the Salkinds, and was replaced by John Glen, who had previously worked on James Bond films. This change in leadership did little to improve the situation, as the film's star, Marlon Brando, also demanded changes to the script that highlighted Columbus' culpability for the genocide of Native Americans. The Salkinds refused, leading Brando to ask for his name to be removed from the film, which the producers ignored.
The film's star, Tom Selleck, was drawn to the project by the prospect of working with Brando, but he soon realized that the script was not up to par. "It actually wasn't a really very good script," he recalled, "and it turned out to be a lousy movie." Despite his reservations, Selleck accepted the role, only to have his personal life intrude on the production. His daughter contracted viral pneumonia just before he left for Madrid, and he struggled with the decision to leave her behind. "I stayed as many days as I could before going to Madrid," he said, "She was out of the hospital the day I left, but it really bothered me." By the time filming was over, Selleck wished he had stayed home.
The film's production was further complicated by the departure of Timothy Dalton and Isabella Rossellini, who filed lawsuits against the Salkinds. The film's budget ballooned to $40 million, and it made just $8.2 million at the box office, becoming a financial disaster. Critics were merciless, with Roger Ebert claiming that the movie "takes one of history's great stories and treats it in such a lackluster manner that Columbus's voyage seems as endless to us as it did to his crew." Peter Rainer of the Los Angeles Times was equally scathing, writing, "It's not politically correct. It's also not cinematically correct, humanly correct or historically correct."
What makes this story particularly fascinating is the contrast between the potential of the project and the ultimate outcome. The film had a strong cast, including Brando, Selleck, and Rossellini, and the Salkinds had a proven track record with "Superman." However, the production was plagued by creative differences, legal battles, and personal issues, which ultimately led to its failure. This raises a deeper question about the challenges of bringing historical narratives to the big screen, and the delicate balance between artistic vision and commercial expectations.
From my perspective, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of a chaotic production environment. The film's failure had a lasting impact on the careers of those involved, with the Salkinds never producing another film together, and Brando's reputation tarnished by his performance in "Island of Dr. Moreau." This story is a reminder that even the most promising projects can falter, and that the challenges of bringing a historical narrative to life are often more complex than they appear. It is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit, and the ability to learn from our mistakes, even in the face of disaster.
