A movie

[dinadan]

Gore¹ rocks (and sells tickets to movies).


1: I do not mean Al Gore (can you just imagine him in a movie...oh no...)

[waterhouseemrys]

I was disappointed with the King Arthur movie too. I thought the only strong part of it was the casting especially Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd. I don't think Kiera Knightely was well cast as Guenvere. It is not her. She's a wonderful actress, but was not right for the part to begin with. She's beautiful, articulate, and athletic, but she does not seem like a warrior queen to me. My friend and I could not help but chuckle and few times when we saw the Badon Hill battle when Knightely took on a few huge Saxons. We were afraid she was going to be snapped at any moment. And yes, I think I someone little can take on the giant, but she just doesn't project the battlecheif she was made out to be more like a track star on a high school team. They needed someone a little more mature in age and experience to really full those shoes; someone with intensity; she was just a teenager and projects that on the screen. I think producers and directors are so overwhelmed by the maturity of her capability to say lines and the maturity of her looks, that they forget to consider her age and inexperience when they cast her for dramatic roles that really should go to an older actress. Most of the girls I talk to get a little distrubed when they see a seventeen-year-old Knightely being pared with a much older Owen, even though he's CLIVE OWEN. I also did not like that fact that they lessened Merlin's role and gave that role to Guenevere. Not that Arthur did not seek her counsel, but what is Arthur without Merlin? Merlin, in my opinion, is just as essential to the story as Arthur. It is like having LOTR without Gandalf. What is the hero without the mentor? Guenevere became the sexy sage, and Merlin was reduced to a rambling soothsayer not a powerful prophet or even wizrd. According to some of my research, there was a powerful bard named Myrddin in the Welsh tradtion that help with the storytelling. But the name changed to Merlin due to inappropriate connotation of the word, Myrddin, in Anglo-Saxon German. (See: Warriors of Arthur and Bufinch's Mythology..Mabiongeon for more details.) It would have fit well into the movie that Arthur being half British would receive both a Roman education as well as a Britian one to know the culture of the people he was to lead one day. I was so disappointed. I wanted the movie to be great. But it just hurts to watch it in my opnion.

[Gwalchmai]

I thought Keira was perfectly cast in the role. I mean she's fit enough to use whatever weapon she wants and even Lawhead mentions that its not about the muscle mass or whatever that makes warrior women great, but their minds. I thought Clive Owen was the badly cast one. There was something about the way he talked that just didn't seem right and the way he'd deliver certain important lines I didn't like. Plus he was apoor choice to team up wih Keira

[dinadan]

waterhouseemrys said:

But the name changed to Merlin due to inappropriate connotation of the word, Myrddin, in Anglo-Saxon German. (See: Warriors of Arthur and Bufinch's Mythology..Mabiongeon for more details.)

One, there is no such thing as Anglo-Saxon German. Anglo-Saxon is a distinct language that comes from the same language family as German.

Two, the name change for Merlin is because the popular Arthurian legends were written down by speakers of Norman French. So, the Celtic name Myrddin (pronounced MERdin) would sound a lot like the French world merd--which is an offensive word for excrement. A change was clearly called for.

[Gwalchmai]

You know what Din, your crazy knowledge about this stuff just proves you were the perfect choice to head house Avalon

[dinadan]

gwalchmai said:

You know what Din, your crazy knowledge about this stuff just proves you were the perfect choice to head house Avalon

*bows* Hey, not only do I study Arthuriana, I write Arthuriana. It's a professional hazard not to know as much as is humanly possible.

[waterhouseemrys]

Yes, you're right; I'm sorry. My mistake it was French that had the negative meaning towards the name, Myrddin. BTW, I know what it meant; due to its sexual content, I just did not what to type anything that would be offensive to people so I kept it broad to not offend but gave the source if they wanted the specifics. It was sensitivty not ignorance. I just mistakenly remembered it as Anglo-Saxon. And when I typed Anglo-Saxon German, I meant the same thing that you did. That it is a branch of language derived from Germanic languages. The phrase, Anglo-Saxon German, is something that I heard a language professor say to distinguish what language we were discussing; I did not make it clear to readers like you, who were not under his insturction, so are not use to hearing the phrase. I apologize for any miscommunication.

Secondly in focusing on minor mistakes found in my whole thought, you are missing the point. My point was to say how important Merlin is to the whole Arthur story. That Merlin, too, has literary and historical signficance as much as any of the knight or even Guenevere and it was huge mistake of the writer of the movie to pass that mentoring role over to Gunevere.

In regards to the casting, we all have our differences in who we see playing the characters we love. You have a right to respond to the actor who best fits the role in you mind. But, you must have read over my response to quickly. In your post, you made the statement: : I mean she's fit enough to use whatever weapon she wants and even Lawhead mentions that its not about the muscle mass or whatever that makes warrior women great, but their minds." You must have looked over what I said previously, so let me show you again for clarification that we are thinking a lot a like on this matter, but again saying it differently: "And yes, I think I someone little can take on the giant, but she just doesn't project the battlecheif she was made out to be more like a track star on a high school team." How can a little person defeat a giant: brains, intelligence, speed. I made that point, but I did not spell it out. Besides, what my main point was is that she lacks maturity..age.. to play such a signficant role. And women who used swords at that time did (as Kiera used)-if they had training with the weapons- would not be stick figure warriors like Knightly..she has muscle but not enough to wield any weapon she chooses like she did in the movie. Listen to the Roundtable Discussion on the DVD when they were discussing using the Hero swords vs. the light prop swords for long battle scenes, and how those buff actors had trouble doing it, and compare their muscle mass to Kiera's. I am not saying she would make a bad warrior. She could run around them, use a bow and arrow with ease, but not wield a real sword with her frame that way it was. She could not have lifted a broad sword and kept her energy up; therefore I do not think they would elected her to lead a charge. Knightley, as I stated above, does not look like she has trained all her life with a sword attached to her hip; she looks like she has trained for track. It is nothing against her; athough she lacks physically for the part I found her lacking mostly in maturity due to age.

[Gwalchmai]

Well I'm afraid I did readrather quickly but I love Keira so I tend to jump to here defense rather quickly. I also mis wrote it seems. I didn't have a broadsword in mind for her weapons of choice but I also don't see why she couldn't have led the charge. As for not looking like she was born with a sword on her hip, I felt she did a good enough job in the movie. And also, personally, I would have liked to see younger versions of everyone since Arthur's greatest victories where when he was young so it would make sense for everyone else to be young.

And I defend my sword statements with the fact that I'm a fencer. Now I've been officially training for about seven years but I'm sure my parent would say all my life. So when I watch these things, I know how much time went into it and what it would really have looked like and what was going through the corriagropher's mind. So on those observations I defend my remarks

[waterhouseemrys]

Tuche! (I guessing on the spelling on that one). I glad you are coming to the resuce of your fairy lady

[dinadan]

waterhouseemrys said:

Secondly in focusing on minor mistakes found in my whole thought, you are missing the point. My point was to say how important Merlin is to the whole Arthur story. That Merlin, too, has literary and historical signficance as much as any of the knight or even Guenevere and it was huge mistake of the writer of the movie to pass that mentoring role over to Gunevere.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I'm sorry my post came off as "focusing on a mistake" rather than "correcting the slight error"--which is how it was meant. I agree totally with your point; Merlin is a more central figure to the rise of Arthur than Guinevere. My hatred of that movie with all it's catagoric flaws is documented elsewhere here.

[Child of Immanuel]

Emrys, I wanted to point out that swords were never actually very heavy. It seems the maximum was 4.5 pounds, certainly manageable to a strong woman. More info here: www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Other than that, I enjoyed your post.

[Gwalchmai]

Swords don't weigh much but the balance reaks havoc on your arm. If you have the time or reasources, get some pvc pipe about the size of a sword and swing it around one handed WITHOUT using any of your shoulder muscles and see how tired you get.

[waterhouseemrys]

Child of Immanuel (love that name), Thank you for the source on swords. I noticed that you have a Phantom of the Opera quote on the side of your post. I love POTO! I would love to discuss it with you on another post somewhere it is appropriate.

[Child of Immanuel]

Just open it up in the Other Authors section. I'll look forward to it!

[Caledvwlch]

I thought the SoA was brilliant and the most beautiful trilogy i've read and it's what set Lawhead in my mind as my favorite author. I think it would make an amazing movie.

The only thing i have any qualms about is the sexuality. Now in his books it's in the right context, and is a beautiful thing. But a movie company might abuse or misinterpret that, in addition to the fact that inclusion of such things could lead others to stumble.

Just a thought.