Tripoli was supposed to film last year in Malta until tensions in the Middle East and Crowe's decision to take time off delayed shooting. According to Greg's Previews at Yahoo!, filming is now "scheduled to start sometime in 2004 in Morocco on a budget in the $100-120 million range (though there are reports that it may soar as high as $140-150 million)" for a 2005 release.
Touchstone Pictures and producer Gale Anne Hurd have a similar project, Shores of Tripoli, in development with Jean-Jacques Annaud directing.
Fox's Tripoli is a historical epic set against the backdrop of the Barbary Wars. It focuses on U. S. naval agent to the Barbary States William Eaton's (Crowe) military and diplomatic campaign to restore Hamet Karamanli (Kingsley?), the rightful but exiled Bashaw of Tripoli, to power in order to curb the piracy by Barbary corsairs against American merchant and military vessels.
In other words, Eaton is a hawk who schemes to oust the brutal Yusuf Bashaw from power and install a ruler who will be friendly towards the fledgling United States and their commercial and military interests abroad. (More on Tripoli's obvious contemporary overtones later.) Eaton led his ragtag army of U.S. Marines, Berbers and assorted mercenaries hundreds of miles across the desert to battle Yusuf Bashaw's superior forces.
Eaton and his troops endured many hardships along the way, eventually engaging the Bashaw's army in April 1804. (A good overview of Eaton's campaign can be found here.) I won't reveal the outcome of the campaign except to say that it wasn't quite what I had expected. (That's what I get for not brushing up on my history before reading the script!) By the way, please note that I'm using the spelling of Hamet and Yusuf Bashaw as they appear in the script; I've since found different spellings for them online.
Tripoli, as best I can tell, is a highly fictionalized work based on a historical event. It is not a biopic of either Eaton or Hamet; it focuses only on their campaign against Yusuf Bashaw. Monahan's script condenses events that transpired over the course of months and sometimes years, a creative license that is more than understandable. The screenwriter has also omitted a number of historical persons linked with the true story so don't bother looking for the likes of Stephen Decatur here (although Lt. Presley O'Bannon is a prominent supporting character).
The most glaring historical deviations, however, were with the outcome of Eaton's campaign. I will not delve too deeply into it for the sake of spoilers suffice to say that Tripoli reminded me of Braveheart in its (good-natured?) willingness to bend history for the sake of thematic value.
William Eaton (L) and Russell Crowe (R).
A notoriously indelicate diplomat, Eaton is frustrated by his government's unwillingness to confront these rogue states despite the American policy of "millions for defense, not a cent for tribute." The real Eaton apparently once wrote, "there is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror." Sounds like it could have come from a stump speech, doesn't it? Eaton IS America in this story. He's brash, self-interested, violent perhaps even imperialistic but also bound by honor, duty, justice and a sense of moral obligation. He is a man of vision even if he doesn't always grasp the historical and geo-political consequences of his actions.
The fact that we never learn much about Eaton's past made him seem more like a symbol than a person. I would have liked to have known just a little more about who William Eaton was and what motivated him without having to resort to supplemental texts. Overall, though, Eaton is portrayed as a complex and captivating figure; the role suits Russell Crowe.
The most memorable character in this particular draft was Hamet Karamanli who is portrayed here as a Westernized individual, highly educated and reluctant to be restored to power. He agrees to go along with Eaton because he despises the prospect of Tripoli suffering under his barbaric brother more than he disdains man's desire for power. Monahan's Hamet is practically Lincolnian, although I haven't found any documentation to support such a cinematic valentine to him. He may very well be deserving of it; as I said, I just haven't come across any texts yet that reveal who Hamet really was or what he was like. Whatever the case may be, this draft's Hamet is a noble and charismatic figure who more than once puts Eaton in his place and also serves as a mentor of sorts for him. They share a dream for a better Tripoli.
Another noteworthy character in this February 2002 draft was Joubert, a French mercenary in the employ of Yusuf Bashaw. Joubert is only in the story for parts of Acts One and Three but he is a fascinating character, a professional soldier whose sense of duty and chivalry seem at odds with his role as the Bashaw's hired gun. Since the themes of duty and honor run throughout many of Ridley Scott's films, I can see why Tripoli appealed to him.
Tripoli's contemporary overtones obviously make it a relevant tale. Ideally, it should remind filmgoers of why it's important to know one's history (so, as the adage goes, that you do not repeat it). Just to allay any possible fears some may have, Tripoli is not a jingoistic, anti-Muslim propaganda piece nor is it a screed against American interventionist foreign policy. It certainly has shadings of both and, if tinkered with by lesser filmmakers, could easily fall into one or the other category. But this draft achieves, at least in this layman's eyes, a fine balance.
Ben Kingsley
It is important to remember that Tripoli was sold well before the Bush Administration began its campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Given the date of this draft, it would seem that Tripoli was more of a response to America's post-9/11 war in Afghanistan than anything else. Hamet Karamanli reminded me of Hamid Karzai, the American-approved president of Afghanistan sent seemingly straight from central casting. Even their names sound alike! Yusuf Bashaw (whose thugs are depicted as terrorizing local women) would then be the stand-in for the Taliban. The outcome of Eaton's campaign also conjured up memories of America's cutting loose of the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan after the Cold War (and of our tragic lack of support for the uprisings against Saddam following the first Persian Gulf war).One of the points Tripoli makes is that if a nation doesn't take action against its enemies when it should it might someday come back to haunt them. Monahan's story, however, also makes clear that such actions can lead a nation down the proverbial slippery slope towards imperialism.
Whether it's fair or not to make such contemporary associations is beside the point. This draft's (sometimes heavy-handed) contemporary resonance is what makes Tripoli a compelling and important tale that will hopefully be produced someday. As long as the filmmakers focus on the characters' shared humanity and aren't overwhelmed by the story's political subtext then Tripoli will have been worth the wait. – STAX
