A movie

[debinoxford]

while i enjoyed First Knight (for its romance alone) i found that King Arthur was better than i thought. not as good as i had hoped, but it was interesting. i studied arthurian lit while in england and did a ton of research on it, so i came back to the states with a bit more background than most people on the legend/history of arthur. while the movie definitely played up parts of the legend it did at least set it in a single historical setting (the most likely setting at that) and supported it pretty well. while there was no evidence that arthur became king in actual history, he did stand as a great war leader (the meaning of pendragon) and was likely alive during the time suggested by the movie, just after the romans left britain in the fourth century. overall, the movie did pretty well and i would buy it (if i only had the money to do so) and recommend it. though as with every movie about this legendary man, i suggest a grain of salt. because no one knows everything about this man who is mentioned only a handful of times before appearing in Chretien de Troyes stories of courtly love over a thousand years after his supposed existence... there you have it.

[dinadan]

debinoxford said:

while the movie definitely played up parts of the legend it did at least set it in a single historical setting (the most likely setting at that) and supported it pretty well.

Really, I have to say "What?"...there were no legions of Rome at the Pope's command. In fact, if we're assuming that Pelagius (who is Arthur's teacher in the film) is accurtate for the time, then we're putting Arthur somewhere between (very generously) 390-420. Given that the last Roman Emperor (Romulus Augustulus) was not deposed until 476 (Rome wasn't even sacked by Aleric until 410), there is no way in hell that the Pope, or any clerical authority, would be sending out legions. Aside from that, the legions, as depicted by the film, are way, way off for the time; by the 5th century, Rome was beginning to revive cavalry warfare, and uniform arms were no longer in use. Now, that being said, this deal with brining in "Sarmations" from the steppes of Russia (which, fyi, in the movie, they look decidedly Armenian) to use as auxilia is about insane; in the last years of the Empire, Rome didn't even move its legions around, much less its local auxilia, from province to province. They became locally-based toops. Oh, and their armor is about as wrong as wrong can be from comparative study of other steppe people around the time.

Now, I'm not even going to talk about the "woads"--which was about as thoroughly ridiculous as it could be. If someone has an objection to this claim, my next post will be a short explaination of the peoples living on either sides of the Antonine and Hadrianic walls.

So no, Arthur wasn't even close to historically accurate. Alexander, which was a fiasco, was better done than King Arthur--which is sad, given the lackluster nature of Oliver Stone's sleeper-epic.

[dgan]

As ignorant as I am about historical details, even I wrote off any historical ties to this movie after about 10 minutes. That said, however, once you detach yourself from that and stop holding the movie to any type of historical litmus test, I did find it entertaining.

The characters (if you can call them that - you learned absolutely nothing about any of them. It was the worst character building I think I've ever seen in a movie) were not compelling, but I thought the acting was tolerant and even pretty good at times. The plot, although grossly far-fetched as Dinadan pointed out, was still thought out fairly well. And, of course, the locations, camera work, and effects are what hold this movie together.

Altogether, I did enjoy it but would not watch it again. I think it has entertainment value if you do not have any expectations, as we obviously did.

[Riothamus]

My hatred for King Arthur is too well documented for me to say anything. However I wish dinadan would continue about the cultures on either side of the walls....

The movie's chief weakness--ok, I'm sucked into it--was that it wasn't remotely connected to Arthur-legend. I mean, we had French-named knights, a sword from a mound, and a round table, but it was all so dreary and pedestrian that no one would imagine for a second that Arthur would grow to become a legend. The story is made-up, for no apparant reason, so that the details we might reasonably expect--the Gueinevere/Lancelot thing (admittedly a French invention, but at this stage it hardly matters; and at any rate, even Lawhead played with the idea in Grail,) the fight with Mordred--are left out.

I think Lawhead does a better job, personally, which is why a movie would be so great, in the hands of a compentant--ahem, brilliant--director. The Cycle has every stregnth that the movie currently under discussion lacks, and more (sense of the transcendant, anyone?)

[dinadan]

OK, well, since Riothamus has asked for it, I'm willing to oblige.

First, the movie depicts a situation in which there are "Romans" living in Britain as well as the native population (which it lumps into the unfavorably depicted "Woad" catagory and tosses on the north side of Hadrian's Wall). Well, sadly, that's not the way Roman colonization worked. After Caracalla's reign (which was only from like 212-217), everyone living in the Roman controlled world was a Roman citizen. And, from the time of the late Flavian Emperors (i.e. just before the "crisis of the third century") the native Italian population of the legions has become about 2%. That means that the local populations were contributing men to the legions of their provinces.

What does this have to do with the movie? Everything. You see, there are no (or at least precious few) "Romans"--ethinic Italians--living in Britain. The "Romans" living there are a more or less Romanized Celtic population--and they are more or less Welsh-Celts than Irish/Scots-Celts. On the north side of the Antonine Wall, you have the Picts--now, whether or not the Picts were really Celts has been one of the great contentions of Celtic Studies for years--however, even if they were, they represent a Celtic population that Rome couldn't or wouldn't (probably because they were living North of the Antonine Wall, and if you've ever been to the Scotish Highlands, while it may be roughly pretty, there is nothing of value to a conqueror there) subdue. The Picts were perhaps very much like the "Woads" of the movie--however, the idea that they were the "British" is insane. The Britons would have been offended by that entirely, because, moreover, the legacy of post-Theodosius Rome left a devoutly Christian Briton population in what is now England and Wales (i.e. lands south of the Hadrianic Wall). So the very concept of the realtionship between the "Romans" and indigenous population makes this movie hardly watchable for me, because it throws off any sense of reality that they might have been trying to capture.

[Riothamus]

Thanks dinadan.

It's curious how insistant the producers were on the "accuracy" of the movie when in reality they were so slipshod about it (they couldn't even get Pelagius's supposed "heresies"--assuming they were his--right.)

Bruckheimer has a positive mania for claims of historicity--it's even all over the DVD for Pirates of the Carribean, of all places. Too bad he couldn't follow through on this one.

[dinadan]

I know...I think that the thing that irked me the most was the tagline that the film was the real history of the man called Arthur. I mean, when you make claims like 'we're making the most historically accurate version of the King Arthur story ever attempted' I expect a litting historical accuracy--and I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

Now, I think I'm going to go watch Excalibur--a film that never claimed to be more than a neat fairy-tale, which it does rather well.

[amodman]

dinadan said:

So no, Arthur wasn't even close to historically accurate. Alexander, which was a fiasco, was better done than King Arthur--which is sad, given the lackluster nature of Oliver Stone's sleeper-epic.

Aw c'mon, Aurther was horrible and based on nothing, but no hints of historical accuracy can save that hellshod of a movie, Alexander. I mean, at least Aurther was semi-coherent...I don't even know what Alexander was.

[dinadan]

Oh, come on--Alexander out ranks King Arthur just because of the one great battle scene against the Persians, and the Babylon set.

Oh, and Anthony Hopkins was stellar, despite the rest of the movie.

[Gwalchmai]

Well let me start out by saying the Director's Cut is better than the version released in theatres. I have to say that yea... they really messed up the historical setting. And from what I saw, I'd say they had problems reading the facts correctly

Now I havn't taken any classes on the subject so all the stuff I know has been self educated so I'm sorry if I mess up my own facts. Now for the sarmation connection, it was my understanding that there were units of those people stationed up at the Wall for centuries for their cavalry. The idea was that many of them settled down with the local celts with the area and merged the 2 cultures together. And I think the main supportive point for Arthur from coming from these people was that some of the religious standards of these people was a sword stuck in a stone or other such things. The book "In Search of King Arthur" goes pretty in depth on this theory.

Yea I agree with your whole Lancelot deal. Not a big fan of the guy. And then again, Tristan doesn't really belong with King Arthur either, being its own seperate tale which only later was intergrated into the mythos of Arthur.

And as far as the Pendragon Cycle in concerned I would have to say it's not the most realistic version I have ever read. There are a couple others that would trump it in my opinion. But what I do think the series has that makes it my #1 favorite version is that... too me at least, its how these people should be remembered. I mean Arthur comes to shine as a true King of men and all of his captains embody all the winning attributes we associate, or just me, with the celts. If this was their last great epic tale, at least it was won thats been rememebered and retold from now till the end of ages.

And I think I said it before but I'll say it again, the series is a work of art. I think what mister Lawhead did was take every version of the story to date, created an appropriate setting and just mashed it all together. I mean their are details in this from every where... just takes a while to dissern them all

Anyway, thats all i got to say really.

[dinadan]

I'm aware of the theory of the Sarmation cavalry being in north Britania--it is a well researched and entirely plausible hypothesis. However, it is just that, a hypothesis. Just like Lawhead's well researched and entirely plausible hypothesis that the Vandals came to Britain after the Byzantine's kicked their **beep** out of Mauretania and Cyrene. Unfortunately, just because you have a theory that fits the facts doesn't make it true. And there's no evidence that Slavs or Mongols, or whatever ethnic group the Sarmations would fall into, were ever used as auxilia in Britian; and, even if they had been, and had "meshed" together with the Celtic people living there, as you suggest, they would have long since given up their seperate identity and desire to return to their homeland (unless they were living as a separate group, but even then, if the were taking Celtic wives for generations, eventually what I'm saying would have to take place).

I'm not attacking you; I'm just saying this film has holes big enough to drive one of Hannibal's elephants through--while presenting itself as "true and authentic" history. I mean, that's like saying Gladiator was "true and authentic" history because there was an emperor Marcus Aurelius and a Commodus--historically named characters do not make the story you're telling true.

COI EDIT: I'm going to have to ask you to watch your language. Thanks!

[Gwalchmai]

I agree completely. Thats what makes the treasure hunt for King Arthur so much fun ^^

Besides, I'm not sure I want to know the truth when I have all these other stories out there to read to substitue the truth

[dinadan]

My point is, don't claim to be presenting truth when you are really presenting a spin. It's claims to authenticity are what bothered me, because when you claim that, then you're inviting it to be evaluated as such.

[Child of Immanuel]

Good point. As a fantasy epic, I rather enjoyed it, but I didn't think about the "history".

[Inkling]

I'm going to step into the line of fire and say that I enjoyed King Arthur as entertainmnet. It had a few good fight scenes and I liked most of the characters, under-developed though they were. As to the history of the movie.....you have to admit that the King Arthur story is a legend. For that fact, I was able to ignore the historical inaccuracies(if they were inaccuracies, that is...who knows really? ) and just let myself be entertained. I enjoyed the grittier take on Arthur and his knights...they weren't portrayed as the usual knights in shining armor but rather as real men. But I have to agree with the statements made by several people already: I HATE when movies/TV shows spin their stuff as "definitely true", "this is the REAL story"... ...ugh......I still vivdly remember seeing the "True Story" of Laura Ingalls Wilder on tv....That was two hours of my life that I'll never get back. Laura Ingalls having a make-out session in the cornfields....I still feel ill, thinking about it.....