King Arthur - the Movie

[Valandil]

After answering a thread about 'Ancient Cultures' last night, I did yet another search on 'historical king arthur'. I was quite surprised and very excited when I saw there was a movie coming out this summer about King Arthur, which was supposed to be based on actual historical stuff - not the legends which grew and were written down many centuries later.

Looked a little more and got disappointed real fast. Seems they're going on the theory that Arthur was a 2nd century Roman officer named 'Artorius' - a theory with very little support. Further, they seem to be keeping a lot of the other characters who were added later: Lancelot, Guenivere, Galahad, etc. (EDIT: Oh - and his knights are going to be Russians! - Roman cavalry recruited from Sarmatia!!!)

Theories on the historical Arthur abound. The one that makes the most sense to me is that he was originally some kind of field captain under Ambrosius Aurelianus in the late 400's in a sort of hybrid Roman-Britton state (complete with internal strife from the Vortigern family), that he succeeded Aurelianus and crushed the Saxon invasions sufficiently enough to halt their advances for 50-100 years. In this theory, he's a descendant of Cunedda, who migrated with his Votadini tribe from southeastern Scotland to northern Wales at the invite of Aurelianus.

Merddyn (Merlin) appears to have been a warrior displaced in time, transformed into a wizard and placed in Arthur's court. Gawain seems to work with the naming used at the time, Medraut (Mordred) has historical sources, but it's unclear if he was actually an enemy of Arthur or an ally. Most of the rest of the stuff was added much later and can be discarded: Camelot, Round Table, Lancelot, Guenivere, Holy Grail, Chivalry (though Arthur may have led a Roman-style cavalry division). And, Medraut or not - it's still possible that Arthur was betrayed and done in by cousin(s) / nephew(s)...

(EDIT: I was sorely disappointed by First Knight - I hope this one doesn't get that bad, but I sure didn't stay hopeful very long!!!)

[Millane]

i have heard mention of this movie but no real info so thanks,
thats a spin on King Arthur that i thought would not be made into a movie, First Knight was an enjoyable film at best but the story could make such a great movie if done well... i'll be interested more in The Passion of the Christ and Timeline, both look to be interesting movies and i just love scenes with lots of Archers shooting at once...
you didnt happen to see anything that explained why they were going from that theory or anything

[Nurvingiel]

As far as Arthurian movies go, The Mists of Avalon and Excalibur are the best movies ever made, and probably impossible to match. I enjoyed First Knight, but though Lancelot is cool, I don't identify with him very well. I like books and movies that feature King Arthur himself (and you'd be surprised how often he gets sidetracked), Sir Kay (the best!), and Sir Gawaine. Sir Percival is also awesome.

As for King Arthur, it looks like it will be entertaining, but not reflect extensive research into Arthurian legends.

They cast Kiera Knightly as Guinevere, which I feel is a huge mistake, but she may turn out to be decent. I have seen Knightly in Bend it Like Bekham (as Jules), and in Pirates of the Caribbean (as Elizabeth Swan). She's an okay actor, but I don't think she's queenly enough to play Guinevere. In addition, from the few pics that I've seen, she is depicted half the time as a scantily clad archer, and looks very Pictish.

There's nothing wrong with the Picts, but I can assure you Guinevere was not one, and she did not run around wearing random scraps of leather.

I'll go see it, but I'm prepared for Hollywood fluff in a midieval setting. (Or pre-midieval - are they really setting it in the 2nd century? Not only would that be more difficult, but it is improbable.)

[Valandil]

Millane - I read that someone involved in 'Gladiator' (and I think it said 'Gladiator 2' - but how do you make a sequel??? They all died!! ) is also working on this one... so maybe they like the period or setting or ran across something in researching the one that led to the other. Oh - btw, after seeing 'Gladiator' I did a little research and was again disappointed at how Hollywood distorts history. Commodus was not a great emperor, and his wife had him killed, but the Empire REALLY went down after that... the Praetorian Guard basically started auctioning off the position, and nobody lasted very long... (Commodus was actually emperor for 18 years or so) Similar thing with 'Braveheart' - as far as distorted history...

Anyway...

Nurvingiel - Yes, I love 'Excalibur' too! I love Mallory's version of Arthur - and it's mostly taken from him. About 5 years ago I started getting interested in the historical setting and the possibilities of what actually happened... what the truths are behind the legends. It's just a little disappointing to see this movie present itself that way - but not really be what it represents itself to be.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Valandil
It's just a little disappointing to see this movie present itself that way - but not really be what it represents itself to be.

That's the most disappointing part to me.

About Gladiator, the small amount of research that I did turned up no opinion on whether or not Commodus was a good Emperor, but his sister was exiled for plotting against him. There was, of course, no mention of a General-turned-gladiator.
Maximus Aurelius was a great Emperor and a lot is written about him. I believe that's what he was reffering to with the line, (paraphrase) "How will they remember me? Philosopher? Warrior? Tyrant?"

Interestingly, I don't like Malory's Arthurian legend as much as others - Jack Whyte, T.H. White, Marion Zimmer-Bradley, and the unknown early author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Mallory disregards the earlier epic and portrays Gawaine as a complete jerk, if my memory serves correctly. (I have trouble reading Mallory, but I did read John Steinbeck's "translation" of the text.) I believe Sir Kay also comes out badly. Annoying to me, since Kay, Gawaine, and Arthur are my favourite characters.
As a side note, when Mallory was writing La Morte D'Arthur, he was in jail for rape and armed assault. Way to go champion of chivalry. (That doesn't mean his book isn't any good, it just makes you go hmm.)

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Interestingly, I don't like Malory's Arthurian legend as much as others - Jack Whyte, T.H. White, Marion Zimmer-Bradley, and the unknown early author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Mallory disregards the earlier epic and portrays Gawaine as a complete jerk, if my memory serves correctly. (I have trouble reading Mallory, but I did read John Steinbeck's "translation" of the text.) I believe Sir Kay also comes out badly. Annoying to me, since Kay, Gawaine, and Arthur are my favourite characters.
As a side note, when Mallory was writing La Morte D'Arthur, he was in jail for rape and armed assault. Way to go champion of chivalry. (That doesn't mean his book isn't any good, it just makes you go hmm.)

Yes, Malory was certainly not an admirable character... there was a lot of pretense, double-talk and double-standards in many people's ideas about 'chivalry'. I read Steinbeck's version long ago... but he doesn't really get very far, as I recall. He did greatly expand on one or two stories though (I remember now the one with the three knights who went out questing and met the three maidens - one young, one middle-aged and one old).

Kay seems to do well in some of the earlier parts of the book - but not the later ones. And yes, even Arthur seems to disappear (you start to think: "Was this guy just such a great king because he had so many great knights??") By the end of the book, I like Sir Dinadan most!

[Snowdog]

I think they will have to try really hard to unseat the #1 King Arthur movie.... which is of course Monty Python & the Holy Grail.

[Valandil]

"Brave Sir Robin, Brave Sir Robin!
When Danger reared its ugly head,
Sir Robin bravely turned and fled!"

etc... I don't remember the rest of that!

Why am I hearing the sound of coconuts knocking together?

[Elfhelm]

This post seems to be damaged in some way. I will re-post.

[Elfhelm]

Personally, I like Camelot and Excalibur the best.

This search for an historical Arthur is interesting to some extent, but the mythical Arthur is what really matters. The stories by various medieval writers about the mythical Arthur indicate the way the people of their cultures thought and how they lived. I know some people think mallory is the end-all and be-all of all Arturian chroniclers, but I don't agree. If I HAD to choose one about all others it would be Chretien... but I don't want to choose one over the others. I LIKE the fact that there are so many different versions. That's such a typical medieval mindset, I think seeking authenticity in some sort of factual history completely misses the point, which is that Arthur, the knights, chivalry, the quests, and the grail are vessels for transmitting the values of the society in which the author lives.

So, since the premise of this movie is the polar opposite of my take on Arthur and Arthurianism, I am afraid it will suck bigtime.

[Nurvingiel]

In replying to your post, I realized I was off topic so I started a new thread in the General Literature forum:
Arthurian Legends

[afro-elf]

Just saw thw advance showing here in Tokyo.

Worse than TROY.

[Grey_Wolf]

I copying this site in here as well:

http://www.io.com/~tittle/books/arthurian.html

if anyone's interested.

[Mercutio]

I agree with what Nurv said about Guinevere. Where is the queen being queenly? Instead we have a very scantily clad woman taking part in the war battles with all the men! Definitely not Guineveresqe.

[Coney II]

Hmm.......I'm a big fan of Arthurian mythology. Havn't seen the movie but I'm certainly not keen on the idea of this Guinever-Xena-Warrior-Princes-Queen malarky.

Then, I don't really like the idea of the highly christianised Mallory et al later versions either........I prefer the more Celtic roots of the myths from the Mabinogion etc

(In Welsh: Gwenhwyvar) The wife of Arthur, daughter of King Leodegrance of Cameliard in Malory. Welsh tradition calls her father Gogrvan or Ocvran, while in DIU CRONE he is called King Garlin of Galore. A late literary source, Thelwalls play THE FAIRY OF THE LAKE (1801), suggests that she is the daughter of Vortigern. Wace makes her Mordred's sister. In Geoffrey, she is of Roman stock, and while Arthur was fighting the Roman war, Mordred abducted her and made himself king. In the later version of the arthurian story she was the lover of Lancelot. Their intrigue discovered, Lancelot fled and Guinevere was duly sentenced to burning. Lancelot rescued her and war followed between him and Arthur. While Arthur was away, Mordred rebelled. Arthur returned to do battle with him and received his final wound. Guinevere took the veil. However, there are a different tales of her end. According to PERLESVAUS, she died in Arthur's lifetime, while Boece averred she ended her days as a prisoner of the Picts. She and Arthur had a son called Loholt, though he was also said to be the son of Arthur and Lionors. The ALLITERATIVE MORTE ARTHURE says that she and Mordred were the parents of two sons. B. Saklatvala has suggested she was really a Saxon named Winifred, and J. Markale has opined that Kay and Gawain were originally amongst her lovers. Welsh tradition stated that Arthur was married, not to one, but to three Guineveres. Some have argued that Guinevere is a mythical figure, representing the sovereignty of Britain, over which contenders fight; in this respect she is a parallel figure to Eriu, the goddess of the sovereignty of Ireland. C. Matthew's contends that this interpretation is supported by the legend of three Guineveres married to Arthur, saying these are not three separate persons but a single triune goddess. J. Matthews contends that Guinevere and Morgan are like two sides of a coin, the beneficent and maleficent aspects of sovereignty.

Efforts to connect Guinevere with Findabair, daughter of the Irish goddess Maeve, have not proven successful. Guinevere was very susceptible to being abducted and it has been suggested that her story is a parallel of the Irish story of Midir and Etain. In this, Etain was once an otherworldly bride of Midir but she retains no memory of this fact and is now married to an Irish king. Midir turns up to lure her back to the Otherworld. Similarly, it is said, Guinevere's abductor, be he Meleagaunce or Lancelot, Gasozein or Valerin is merely taking her back to the Otherworld whence she came.

We are told in the MABINOGION that Guinevere had a sister named Gwenhwyvach; in French romance that she had an identical half-sister who, for a while, took her place; and in the German DIU CRONE that she had a brother, Gotegrin. # 156 - 438 - 710

She's been through quite a few changes over the centuries.....bless her

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
... Similar thing with 'Braveheart' - as far as distorted history...

No kidding! Great movie, but I wish he would have been more historically accurate - I'm a descendant of Robert the Bruce, whose history got really changed for the worse in that movie!

[Draken]

I've always thought that any historical character who is a basis for Arthur must be from the 6th century to make any sense.

The Romano-Celt nations resisting the Saxon invasion could have thrown up any number of "Arthurs". Maybe tales of heroic resistance from all across Britain became merged into one semi-mythic figure. There ARE some fairly well documented characters from the time such as Arthur of the Pennines. Also the often overlooked King Rheged of North Rheged has parallels with Arthur: he is even linked into the "classic" Arthurian legend as Urien. He was a patron of the bard Taliesin, often seen as a "northern" Merlin, and had undoubted military success that almost (but not quite) saved his people from invasion. He was betrayed by one Morcant (which sorta sounds a BIT like Mordred).

Rheged's bio is

here

Knowing as I do both Bamburgh and Lindisfarne quite well, it's hard to believe the Celts managed to lose having driven the Saxons back that far!

[Insidious Rex]

Saw it expecting it to be utterly awful hollywood garbage (in the vein of Robin Hood and Last Knight). But I was happily surprised with the first half of it. The costuming and weaponry and such were great. The land scape shots were stunning at times. And the story worked for a while till guiniverre inexplicably goes from being a cowed shivering peasent prisoner to Sheera the Queen of the Picts or whatever. I can only assume some connecting scenes got cut out. And Merlin is SUCH a disapointment. He should have at least had some sort of mystic aspect to him. Instead he was just this dirty old man with an expresionless face who lead the wild folk. The focus at first on Lancelot confused me because they never really went anywhere with that. And the end battle scene was horribly disapointing.

I liked the Saxons and Greg Allman looking Saxon leader and his dead pan almost sick of life mentality. Had the best line of the movie when he confronts Arthur at Badden Hill: "Finally a man worth killing." The battle scene on the frozen lake was well done I thought. So go ahead and see it if you are a fan of the genre. May as well. But dont expect too much. Might want to have a few drinks before you go. Its one of those movies that works well with a bit of grog in the stomach if you know what I mean.

[QueenAnnesLace]

On a scale from 1 - 10 how does everyone that has seen the movie rate it? Is it just ok or a must see?

[Insidious Rex]

5 maybe? maybe... Go ahead and see it if you like this kind of genre I say. But like I said dont expect TOO much.

Its basically a Brave Heart meets Excalibur meets The 13th Warrior. Only not as good as any of those.