Ow. My head.
Jul. 11th, 2004 01:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andverygingerIt's 1:45 in the morning, and I've just arrived home from the 10:50 showing of King Arthur. DH and I had "date night": I stayed home from ShoreLeave so that we could go out to Outback (A Wallaby Darned, Shrimp Grillers, two glasses of Coke, one glass of water, and half a tub of coffee -- mmm!), and then to a movie. The movie was, for the first time in a long time, my choice, and I have to admit I was conflicted. Both of the movies I wanted to see -- The Notebook and King Arthur -- each got crap reviews; Arthur had the added sinking weight of my Arthurian professors' staunch disapproval. While I absolutely adore the idea of watching Gena Rowlands and James Garner in a sappy romance flick, I opted to go see Arthur...Mainly so that when I bitched about it, I could at least be educated.
I'm sitting at home now, and the movie still makes me furrow my brow. Part of me really wants to like it: As a strange conglomeration of fantasy, history, and action flick, it somehow works. I adored Clive Owen as Arthur, and I loved how the Lancelot/Guinevere thing was handled -- though I didn't like why it was handled that way. I could shoot the French writers who started that part of the legend.
On the other hand, the history student and Arthurian buff in me is absolutely clutching the head and screaming (a la Sirius Black) about the inconsistencies. The entire premise of the movie is based on the work of one man (whose name I can't recall at this exact moment, of course), in which he claims to have found the legendary Arthur. Why is this a problem? Among most of his fellow scholars, this guy is considered something of a flake. He's taken primary sources out of context, he's taken secondary sources and confused the timelines; the archaeological evidence they've found only shows the existence of a Roman-type fort in a specific location. There is still nothing more discovered in the ramblings of long-dead monks, priests, Roman generals, or the like that speaks directly of a real Arthur. To be honest, Arthur, in the many contexts in which it is presented, has been interpreted as everything from a Roman war lord to some odd, rambling reference to Arthur representing a bear, somehow tying him to the very Celtic Arthur we have seen emerge in the past twenty years. This movie does a huge disservice to the public in presenting itself as an interpretation of history. If anything, it is a historic interpretation of legend -- and nothing more.
The "traditionalist" in me also finds the plot twists a tad concerning as well. The idea of Lancelot not as "Lancelot du Lac" but instead as a conscripted cavalry "knight" in Roman service is something that, within the first five minutes of the movie, really threw me off balance. Recovering from that blow made it very difficult to suspend my disbelief and be engrossed in the unfolding tale. I also wasn't quite sure what to do with the Battle of Badon Hill. Yes, it was expected that characters would die but, if all this were based on "history" that "inspired the legend" wouldn't they all have to survive in order to meet the tales Malory gives us in Le Morte d'Arthur?
There were plot holes which also gave me trouble. I'm attempting not to spoil too much, but one of the larger issues that bothers me is the fact that it is never explained who Guinevere's father is, how he knows so much of Arthur, and how she has come to know (what one can only assume) is Latin (spoken as English for our untrained ears). I got the impression -- right or wrong -- that Guinevere, in this instance, was Merlin's daughter. This was drawn from the interaction between the three during the escape from the Saxons in the north, and from the end. It is further complicated by the fact that the costumers, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to costume her with a torque -- a brass/gold necklace which indicated "royalty." If this is the case, that makes Merlin a "royal" ruler, rather than a Druid or even the wizard of rumor, and that's a lot for my brain to wrap around. We won't even get into the fact that ideas of "freedom" and "equality" weren't quite bandied about as freely in the Dark Ages as they seemed to have been in the movie. Again I say, "Ow. My head."
Costumes were also a sticking point for me. The men were fairly well outfitted, but I was just screaming at what they kept putting Keira Knightley in. First, she looks like some combination Celtic/Roman woman of leisure, running around in the snow in a blue, flowing, almost medieval gown, and then she's dressed in something that looks like it was left over from "Xena: Warrior Princess." And the blue paint -- oy. Yes, there is some evidence to suggest that there were women warriors among Pictish/Celtic society, even "Briton" society of the time. And yes, there is the theory that, much like the tribes of the American west, the Picts/Celts may have painted themselves blue in some form of religious tie to warfare. But I really think things went a little overboard here. As Guinevere, Knightley looked more like an ethereal elf from WarCraft or the like than as a "warrior princess" of the Celts.
Reading what I've read so far, you might get the impression that I didn't like the movie. To be honest, I'm not sure whether I liked it or not. I think that really depends on which category you lump it into. As an historic film, I have to say it sucked. There's just not enough fact to really back this up as at all plausible. I'm not even sure just how well it represents the time period. As an action flick, as an interpretation of legend, it wasn't bad. In fact, I was mildly suprised that I liked it in that respect as much as I did. As I said before, I really liked Clive Owen; the chemistry he sparked with Keira Knightley as Guinevere was interesting, if not overwhelming; and it was nice to see Lancelot as something other than a pretty boy. It was also faboo to see that, maybe, Arthur and Guinevere could have a happy ending. I've always wanted that for them...
The movie also left me somewhat with a feeling of incompletion. After the rescue of the Roman kid, I halfway expected there to be some connection with Arthur and the rescued. I'll have to check my notes, as there might be a name that I'm missing in there, but it almost seemed prepped for a sequel.
So, overall, like with stars and all that, I think I might give it 2.5 -> 3 stars. I think the historical inconsistencies, the uneven handling of fact and fiction -- i.e. the "based on evidence" meeting the fairy tale-like ending, and the lack of costuming for Keira Knightley really hold this film back from being something as strong and moving as it might have been. On the other hand, it is a decent action film with decent acting, and probably one of the better Arthur portrayals I've seen. I won't see it again in the theatre, but once it's out on video, I hope the DVD has some cut scenes that explain away some of the gaps left behind. And, hey, I can't expect too much. It is, after all, still a Bruckheimer flick.
I'm sitting at home now, and the movie still makes me furrow my brow. Part of me really wants to like it: As a strange conglomeration of fantasy, history, and action flick, it somehow works. I adored Clive Owen as Arthur, and I loved how the Lancelot/Guinevere thing was handled -- though I didn't like why it was handled that way. I could shoot the French writers who started that part of the legend.
On the other hand, the history student and Arthurian buff in me is absolutely clutching the head and screaming (a la Sirius Black) about the inconsistencies. The entire premise of the movie is based on the work of one man (whose name I can't recall at this exact moment, of course), in which he claims to have found the legendary Arthur. Why is this a problem? Among most of his fellow scholars, this guy is considered something of a flake. He's taken primary sources out of context, he's taken secondary sources and confused the timelines; the archaeological evidence they've found only shows the existence of a Roman-type fort in a specific location. There is still nothing more discovered in the ramblings of long-dead monks, priests, Roman generals, or the like that speaks directly of a real Arthur. To be honest, Arthur, in the many contexts in which it is presented, has been interpreted as everything from a Roman war lord to some odd, rambling reference to Arthur representing a bear, somehow tying him to the very Celtic Arthur we have seen emerge in the past twenty years. This movie does a huge disservice to the public in presenting itself as an interpretation of history. If anything, it is a historic interpretation of legend -- and nothing more.
The "traditionalist" in me also finds the plot twists a tad concerning as well. The idea of Lancelot not as "Lancelot du Lac" but instead as a conscripted cavalry "knight" in Roman service is something that, within the first five minutes of the movie, really threw me off balance. Recovering from that blow made it very difficult to suspend my disbelief and be engrossed in the unfolding tale. I also wasn't quite sure what to do with the Battle of Badon Hill. Yes, it was expected that characters would die but, if all this were based on "history" that "inspired the legend" wouldn't they all have to survive in order to meet the tales Malory gives us in Le Morte d'Arthur?
There were plot holes which also gave me trouble. I'm attempting not to spoil too much, but one of the larger issues that bothers me is the fact that it is never explained who Guinevere's father is, how he knows so much of Arthur, and how she has come to know (what one can only assume) is Latin (spoken as English for our untrained ears). I got the impression -- right or wrong -- that Guinevere, in this instance, was Merlin's daughter. This was drawn from the interaction between the three during the escape from the Saxons in the north, and from the end. It is further complicated by the fact that the costumers, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to costume her with a torque -- a brass/gold necklace which indicated "royalty." If this is the case, that makes Merlin a "royal" ruler, rather than a Druid or even the wizard of rumor, and that's a lot for my brain to wrap around. We won't even get into the fact that ideas of "freedom" and "equality" weren't quite bandied about as freely in the Dark Ages as they seemed to have been in the movie. Again I say, "Ow. My head."
Costumes were also a sticking point for me. The men were fairly well outfitted, but I was just screaming at what they kept putting Keira Knightley in. First, she looks like some combination Celtic/Roman woman of leisure, running around in the snow in a blue, flowing, almost medieval gown, and then she's dressed in something that looks like it was left over from "Xena: Warrior Princess." And the blue paint -- oy. Yes, there is some evidence to suggest that there were women warriors among Pictish/Celtic society, even "Briton" society of the time. And yes, there is the theory that, much like the tribes of the American west, the Picts/Celts may have painted themselves blue in some form of religious tie to warfare. But I really think things went a little overboard here. As Guinevere, Knightley looked more like an ethereal elf from WarCraft or the like than as a "warrior princess" of the Celts.
Reading what I've read so far, you might get the impression that I didn't like the movie. To be honest, I'm not sure whether I liked it or not. I think that really depends on which category you lump it into. As an historic film, I have to say it sucked. There's just not enough fact to really back this up as at all plausible. I'm not even sure just how well it represents the time period. As an action flick, as an interpretation of legend, it wasn't bad. In fact, I was mildly suprised that I liked it in that respect as much as I did. As I said before, I really liked Clive Owen; the chemistry he sparked with Keira Knightley as Guinevere was interesting, if not overwhelming; and it was nice to see Lancelot as something other than a pretty boy. It was also faboo to see that, maybe, Arthur and Guinevere could have a happy ending. I've always wanted that for them...
The movie also left me somewhat with a feeling of incompletion. After the rescue of the Roman kid, I halfway expected there to be some connection with Arthur and the rescued. I'll have to check my notes, as there might be a name that I'm missing in there, but it almost seemed prepped for a sequel.
So, overall, like with stars and all that, I think I might give it 2.5 -> 3 stars. I think the historical inconsistencies, the uneven handling of fact and fiction -- i.e. the "based on evidence" meeting the fairy tale-like ending, and the lack of costuming for Keira Knightley really hold this film back from being something as strong and moving as it might have been. On the other hand, it is a decent action film with decent acting, and probably one of the better Arthur portrayals I've seen. I won't see it again in the theatre, but once it's out on video, I hope the DVD has some cut scenes that explain away some of the gaps left behind. And, hey, I can't expect too much. It is, after all, still a Bruckheimer flick.
