In brief: Very entertaining period war movie, but do we need all the hype?

Written by David Franzoni (Gladiator, Amistad)
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun)

Running time: 2hrs, 5 minutes

---Cast
Clive Owen Artorius/Arthur Castus
Ioan Gruffudd Lancelot
Ray Winstone Bors
Keira Knightley Guinevere
Stellan Skarsgård Cerdic (The Leader of the Saxons)
Til Schweiger Cynric (Cerdic’s son)
Ivano Marescotti Bishop Germanius
Ken Stott Marcus Honorius
Lorenzo De Angelis Alecto
Hugh Dancy Galahad
Sean Gilder Jols
Ray Stevenson Dagonet
Pat Kinevane Horton
Joel Edgerton Gawain
Stephen Dillane Merlin

There is a saying that goes, “Change or die,” and nowhere is this more true than in the cyclical world of popular entertainment, where producers are constantly dealing with a dearth of new ideas by presenting new twists on old ones. Given the number of films on the Athurian legend, good and bad, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea to try and tells the story of the real-life historical person on whom the legend is based. Sure, T.H. White purists may grumble and scoff, but it’s a choice between trying something new, or instead putting up with charges of “rehash.” So the creators of this movie about King Arthur chose to set their movie in the 5th century, and focus on that period. There’s no Mordred or Morgan Le Fay or Lady of the Lake, no mention is made of Uther Pendragon (or the Pendragon name period), etc.

I can’t speak for others, but I’m fine with this.

What I’m not fine with, is the movie, which is portrayed as being about the historical Arthur, wants to play it both ways, by dragging other familiar aspects of the Medieval legend into the story. Guinevere. Lancelot. Merlin. Excalibur. Galahad. The Round Table. I mean, c’mon, guys, if you want to do a story on the 5th century guy on whom King Arthur is based, then do it. Don’t drag in Guinevere and Merlin and whoever else from the familiar stories, and then say that it’s the “true” Arthur, particularly when the historicity of a “true” Arthur is not even a fact. My research indicates that contrary to the title card that opens the film, there isn’t any archaeological evidence for a historical Arthur. Mind you, I’m okay with fiction. I just hate it when the marketing and advertising hypemasters want to pretend it’s somehow authentic when it’s not laboring under this inexplicably popular thinking in entertainment marketing that people will somehow be more likely to go to movies simply because they’re convinced it’s historically true. Tell a fiction, or a tell a true story. But don’t insult my intelligence by telling me one is the other.

Now that I’m done ranting, is the film any good? In my opinion, yes. Taken soley on its merits as a story, it’s very entertaining. This Arthur is a commander of a squadron of knights working for the Roman empire, and whose freedom from 15 years of servitude is imminent, but who are called back into duty for one more mission to escort an important family to the Southern side of Hadrian’s Wall to escape the barbaric Saxons, who are approaching their home. We are explained this point by way of a scene in the opening of the film in which a very young Lancelot must bid farewell to his family when knights come to his village to take him under their wing for a period of 15 years, which while a positive future for the young lad, is obviously very sad for the scared young boy and his family. Flash forward 15 years, and we see Lancelot’s group— Arthur the Leader, Galahad, the boisterous Bors (the likeable breakout supporting character of the movie), Dagonet, Jols, Horton, and Gawain, who ride the area of ancient Britain called Sarmatia, anticipating the Bishop’s delivery of their release documents freeing them from their service to Rome. Conflict arises when the Bishop refuses to give them these documents, because he needs them to rescue an important Roman family from north of Hadrian’s wall, which divides Britain in two, and provides a buffer against barbarian hordes. The knights just want to go home to their families and plan their futures, but if they leave without the bishop’s consent, they will be branded traitors, making their journeys home through the Roman Empire impossible . It is here that the knights’ adherence to duty is tested by their resentment of Rome, and we see how they are conflicted by their duty to kill fellow Britons at the command of a ruling Empire they don’t necessarily feel loyalty to, and its religion, which they don’t necessarily share. This is where the movie functions on a character level, and it works well. Is it really that deep, or even as epic as Gladiator, Braveheart, or Troy? Maybe not, but the characters form a rapport with the audience, and the battles are pretty darn good, with plenty of thrills all around.

I recommend it.

NITS & NOTES:
I remember someone commenting on how PC The Missing was, in that even the evil Native American kidnapper protected Cate Blanchet’s daughter from being raped by his men while in his captivity. I had the same feeling here when Cerdic stops one of his men from raping a captured woman. Did anyone else here buy his line about not wanting to water down Saxon blood and making it weak because of the kind of child such a union might produce? I mean, are we really supposed to believe a barbarian back then would care about this? It seemed more like the creators flinching at showing actual barbarian sexual atrocities, and if I didn’t know better, I’d say that (SPOILER WARNING) the creators had Cerdic then ordering her killed just so that he wouldn’t seem soft. (END SPOILER WARNING)

Speaking of Cerdic, did anyone else think his accent sounded just a tad bit American, especially given the accents of everyone else in the film?

In the beginning of the film, Bishop Germanius refers to the Pope as Neus Germanus. But none of the Popes during the 5th Century were named this. The 5th century Popes, whose reigns span the years 399-514, were: St. Anastasius I, St. Innocent I, St. Zosimus, St. Boniface I, St. Celestine I, St. Sixtus III, St. Leo I The Great, St. Hilarius, St. Simplicius, St. Felix II, St. Gelasius I, Anastasius II, and St. Symmachus. Now I notice that the name of the bishop, which I got at imdb, is Germanius. Did I hear wrong, and the Bishop was referring not to the Pope, but to himself?

MAJOR SPOILER WARNING MAJOR SPOILER WARNING
This post has at least one major spoiler warning contained.

Saw it last night. Not bad, not too bad at all. It had a good running time, felt pretty much just right, and didn't really seem to drag anywhere. The action is great, the story believable and pretty interesting, and most of the characters are unique and good. Of course, being an ensemble film throws more characters into focus than others, but that's the nature of these things. Arthur, Lancelot, Bors, and Guivevere are all solid and intriguing characters. Merlin and the main villain, not so much. Though that lead barbarian guy did make me think of Rob Zombie a few times.

I do agree with Luigi on the unneeded "fact" shown at the beginning of the film. I don't know why they need to confuse audiences by saying that this is the true story, but whatever.

AND HERE'S THE SPOILER (IN WHITE)

I couldn't believe they killed Lancelot. That made me sad. Or shocked anyway.

Luigi Novi: Arthur the Leader, Galahad, the boisterous Bors (the likeable breakout supporting character of the movie), Dagonet, Jols, Horton, and Gawain
Were one of those guys the squire dude? Because I could've sworn there were only six knights with Arthur.

Luigi Novi: we see how they are conflicted by their duty to kill fellow Britons at the command of a ruling Empire they don’t necessarily feel loyalty to
Wasn't Arthur the only one with Brit blood?

I dunno, maybe I misunderstood.

Another nit: Does anyone else think Guinevere was able to wield a bow so soon after suffering such a traumatic realignment of her fingers?

I saw this film yesterday morning before seeing Spider-Man 2 about an hour after KA ended. KA was pretty good and I like period films, which is also why I like fantasy films and Role-Playing Games which are usually fantasy-themed. I thought that Cedric was played by Kris Kristofferson cuz he sounded so much like him but of course it wasn't; it was Stellan Skarsgård.

Anyone catch Keira Knightley's talk show circuit last week with her curly hair and very long bangs? I tell ya, no one does long bangs like British girls! Maybe it's her accent or the retro-80s look she's got but I just think British girls look the best with long bangs. And she's darn cute, too. And no, Luigi, I didn't exactly buy how she could so readily and excellently handle a bow or blade so soon after having her fingers reset by Arthur. Then again, the film didn't exactly give a length of time in between the incidents, either. I also didn't mind the different take on the Arthurian legends. It was a nice change of sorts from the admittedly much better "Camelot" and "Excalibur" films.

The only option left is to do Peter David's Knight Life. An Arthurian comedy set in modern day New York? GOLD! Just get someone like Steven Soderbergh or Kevin Smith (or dare I hope Terry Zweigof(sp?)?) to direct it.

Brian, there's no way Kevin Smith would ever direct a movie based on a Peter David, given how Smith slammed Peter's writing in the past.

Sarmatia is not part of Britain, nor is it near there. It's in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, I think in the Balkans or further east. When the soldiers took Lancelot away at the beginning, one says that his term of service is 15 years, plus the months it would take to get to Britain, so either it's a really long way even over the roads, or they made some stops on the way.

Also, the family Arthur is sent to aid lived north of the wall, among the Picts, for some insane reason. That was why the mission was so dangerous. They could run down raiding parties from the north, and bands of rebels hiding up there and coming down, but half a dozen men riding into the belly of the beast was considered nearly suicidal.

The movie was very good, not a work of genius, but entertaining. It did have noticable inaccuracies. I didn't expect perfect accuracy, since such a movie would unbearably dull, but some of them were glaring.

1. The Saxons are portrayed as proto-Nazis, with their leader refusing to let his men mate with Britons for fear of weak offspring, and his son looking like a skinhead. I doubt the Saxons really cared much about who they made a baby with, and it was just a way to make them look even more evil, like burning and looting didn't do enough.

2. The Celtic population of Britain were not fur-wearing savages at this point in history. The Greeks and Romans had long considered the Celts barbaric, but that doesn't mean they were cavemen.

3. Why would Sarmatians or anyone in this time have names found in later medieval stories about King Arthur?

4. Why does Arthur take orders from the Pope? Wouldn't the Emperor, or at least a governor, have been the one to issue discharges? The Pope might request that the army do something for one of his favorites living in Britain, but the Church couldn't give orders to the army.

5. Was Britain so isolated from the rest of the Empire that Arthur was kept in the dark about Pelagius for so long? He didn't even hear a rumor about what happened to his teacher, apparently.

Sarmatia was, I believe, part of what today is Russia.

There was this really interesting piece on 20/20 about the archaelogical and historical evidence for the real-life person on whom the Arthur legend may be based, which the point about where Sarmatia is, and included interviews not only with experts on the subject, but with director Antoine Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. It clarified many things that I had forgotten or not caught while watching the movie by the time I had written my review.

I'm no historian but was Guivevere's role really the way a woman would act in this time period? I believe Luigi hit the nail on the head with the "Change or die" theory but just because it's the 21st century doesn't mean writers/directors should give women a bigger role in a dated storyline. The Lord of the Rings movies did it to with the extra Liv Tyler scenes. They turned ok but not every movie needs to beef up the feminine aspect because of semi-current social changes.

I'm no historian but was Guivevere's role really the way a woman would act in this time period?

Not necessarily in general, but this movie was set in Celtic Britain. The British and Irish Celtic sagas often have the heroes being trained by warrior women. And of course there is the story of Queen Boadicea (sometimes spelled Boudicca). Think of Eowyn as Guinevere's Rings counterpart rather than Arwen.

What I’m not fine with, is the movie, which is portrayed as being about the historical Arthur, wants to play it both ways, by dragging other familiar aspects of the Medieval legend into the story. Guinevere. Lancelot. Merlin. Excalibur. Galahad. The Round Table. I mean, c’mon, guys, if you want to do a story on the 5th century guy on whom King Arthur is based, then do it. Don’t drag in Guinevere and Merlin and whoever else from the familiar stories, and then say that it’s the “true” Arthur, particularly when the historicity of a “true” Arthur is not even a fact. My research indicates that contrary to the title card that opens the film, there isn’t any archaeological evidence for a historical Arthur.

So little is known about the man or men who might be considered the "original" for Arthur that some details have to added from somewhere. Most novels that take this kind of "historic" route try to keep to only the oldest Welsh legends. This means no Lancelot. If the author still wants go with the romantic triangle (which was a French invention borrowed from Tristan and Isolde), she will usually use Bedivere (or rather Bedwyr the Welsh version of the name) who was one of Arthur's closest companions in the oldest legends but who became just another face in the crowd in the medieval stories.

Guinevere, on the other hand, is more or less authentic. She appears in the earliest records. In fact, some early Welsh records give Arthur two or even three queens, and all of them have Welsh names that Guinevere would be a French version of. It is possible that Gwyn-Hwyfar and the other variations is a title rather than a name.

Arthur's sword Caliban (Frenchified to Excaliber) is also in the legends, as are Ron, his spear and Pridwyn, his shield*. It was not uncommon for a man, especially a hero, to name his weapons back then.

Merlin's legend is as old as Arthur's and the two legends were tangled early, so it is not really wrong for him to appear, although most "historical" authors prefer not to include him.

Likewise for the cauldron which was the prototype for the Holy Grail. It was only one of the "Thirteen Treasures of Britain," and it and its 12 companions are usually ignored.

The Round Table is more problematical. The story as we know it is definitely a late addition, but the legends do speak of a select group of warriors (knights) as Arthur's special Companions. Generally the authors slide around this by talking up Kay, Bedwyr, and Gawain, and sometimes the group name "Companions" without going into great detail about who else is in the group, or how it first formed or how any later Companions (if any) joined.

-----

*Oddly, he also named his boat Pridwyn. Or maybe it's not so odd. Britons in the 5th century used wood and canvas boats called coracles that looked like oversized shields, and were constucted almost identically. In many Welsh legends, the hero was a giant compared to the rest of humanity. A large man needs a large shield. If the mythical Arthur was large enough, then seven men could fit into his shield and use it as a boat.

What was that Roman family doing living north of Hadrian's Wall!? Said wall was the border of the Empire, and was built to keep the Picts out! No Romans lived beyond that wall, right in "Indian country"!