Good lord this movie was Horrid!!!

[David O'Brien]

This film struck me as being made by a guy who had no interest at all in the
historical Arthur or even any of the myths and tales surrounding him, but
was more like some guy who had read one book on the historical Arthur and
just totally wrote his own story about him. Even given that, it was still
just total shite.

[Daniel]

Post by David O'Brien
This film struck me as being made by a guy who had no interest at all in the
historical Arthur or even any of the myths and tales surrounding him, but
was more like some guy who had read one book on the historical Arthur and
just totally wrote his own story about him. Even given that, it was still
just total shite.

You may want to blame that on the script writer (whoever he is), the
producer, director and the so-called Arthurian expert and author, John
Matthews.

[FerchArthur]

Post by David O'Brien
This film struck me as being made by a guy who had no interest at all in the
historical Arthur or even any of the myths and tales surrounding him, but
was more like some guy who had read one book on the historical Arthur and
just totally wrote his own story about him. Even given that, it was still
just total shite.
--
Dave Of Tasmania

Well not exactly one book. I wonder how much of the general population seeing
the movie (by this I mean, people with lives that DON'T revolve around Arthur
and haven't done the depth of research many of us on this list have) how many
would understand the significance of Germanus and the Pelagian heresy?

Of course the scriptwriter wrote his own story about Arthur. That's what
writers have been doing all along--each writer creates Arthur in his/her own
image. I considered the movie as merely another fiction--based somewhat on
history. There was too much wrong about the history I didn't try to keep
score. I don't think the people who made the movie had any less passion for
Arthur than me or anyone on this list. You didn't like the movie, fine. But I
don't think we should make assumptions on the motivies of someone we might not
agree with.
Debra A. Kemp
House of Pendragon I: The Firebrand
2003 Dream Realm Award finalist
http://www.telltalepress.com/debrakemp.html

[Scott Needham]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David O'Brien" <***@octa4.net.au>

| This film struck me as being made by a guy who had no interest at
all in the
| historical Arthur or even any of the myths and tales surrounding
him, but
| was more like some guy who had read one book on the historical
Arthur and
| just totally wrote his own story about him. Even given that, it was
still
| just total shite.
| Dave Of Tasmania


Folk:

Since I haven't read here for quite some time, I may have missed much
comment regarding the film, but I must say--and so I will--I thought
it the best Arthuian movie I've seen, and the only one based on what
is (or at least used to be) a heavily subscribed theory for the thread
of history behind the legend, that is, the Saramatian *cataphracti*
stationed in Britain. I googled on "Littleton" and "Sarmatian
connection" and this popped up, which fairly summarizes the theory in
the first part of the page:
http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/1997-3/GRAIL.htm. I place this
in the same general category as Sutcliffes's _Sword at Sunset_,
constructing a credible Dark Age milieu for the legends. But I must
also say, I didn't much care for Saxons invading north (apparently way
north) of the wall, or that crossbow thing (did they exist that
early?) or the superflous hollywoodisms like Lance's two sword rig.
But--small armies, period armor etc--jake with me.

So now for the question I meant to post in the first place. Some time
ago I read a work by a British antiquarian/historian type, can't
remember whether he had a scholarly background, but I believe he was
ex-military; as I recall, the book included "black horse" in the
title. From memory now, the point was that (1) Roman cavalry tended
toward a strain of horse that was preponderantly black in color; (2)
there are many toponyms and old pub and tavern names in Britain that
include "black horse"; and (3) plotting these on a map results in
locations that correspond very closely with places heavily associated
with the Arthur legend (well, sure, there are a lot of those, but...)
So--anybody got the skinny on the author and title of the work?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Scott Needham]

| So now for the question I meant to post in the first place. Some
time
| ago I read a work by a British antiquarian/historian type, can't
| remember whether he had a scholarly background, but I believe he was
| ex-military; as I recall, the book included "black horse" in the
| title.

Never mind--http://www.fellpony.f9.co.uk/fells/rom_dark/k_arthr2.htm

Should've googled before posting.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Falca]

This is from a UK university Union catalogue, and I believe is the
book you're looking for:

Main Author: Wildman, Samuel Gerald
Title Details: The black horsemen : English inns and King Arthur /
[by] S.G. Wildman
Publisher: London : J. Baker, 1971
Physical desc.: 176p, 4plates : illus, maps ; 20cm
ISBN/ISSN: 0212983881
Subject: Legends, Arthur, King, Sources of evidence, Public houses
called 'Black Horse'

Post by Scott Needham
Since I haven't read here for quite some time, I may have missed much
comment regarding the film, but I must say--and so I will--I thought
it the best Arthuian movie I've seen, and the only one based on what
is (or at least used to be) a heavily subscribed theory for the thread
of history behind the legend, that is, the Saramatian *cataphracti*
stationed in Britain. I googled on "Littleton" and "Sarmatian
connection" and this popped up, which fairly summarizes the theory in
http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/1997-3/GRAIL.htm. I place this
in the same general category as Sutcliffes's _Sword at Sunset_,
constructing a credible Dark Age milieu for the legends. But I must
also say, I didn't much care for Saxons invading north (apparently way
north) of the wall, or that crossbow thing (did they exist that
early?) or the superflous hollywoodisms like Lance's two sword rig.
But--small armies, period armor etc--jake with me.
So now for the question I meant to post in the first place. Some time
ago I read a work by a British antiquarian/historian type, can't
remember whether he had a scholarly background, but I believe he was
ex-military; as I recall, the book included "black horse" in the
title. From memory now, the point was that (1) Roman cavalry tended
toward a strain of horse that was preponderantly black in color; (2)
there are many toponyms and old pub and tavern names in Britain that
include "black horse"; and (3) plotting these on a map results in
locations that correspond very closely with places heavily associated
with the Arthur legend (well, sure, there are a lot of those, but...)
So--anybody got the skinny on the author and title of the work?

[Luminaria]

Post by David O'Brien
This film struck me as being made by a guy who had no interest at all in the
historical Arthur or even any of the myths and tales surrounding him, but
was more like some guy who had read one book on the historical Arthur and
just totally wrote his own story about him. Even given that, it was still
just total shite.
--
Dave Of Tasmania

Yeah, generally speaking, I'd tend to agree.... and that's from a person who
actually, for some unknown reason owns TWO copies of Molly Cochran & Warren
Murphy's "The Forever King".... LOL

Ok, I couldn't resist. Yesterday I went with my 14 year old son. Yep, it's
true.... the story has very little to do with either known history about
Arthur or the time-frame in which we know Arthur lived, or the legends. I
can tell, and I'm no expert... The beginning of the movie states that the
story is based on "new archeological evidence", but I can't seem to find out
what that might be. Are they talking about the Wall excavations? Anyway, the
Wall looked nice - very much like the recent History Channel presentation...
the concept that the Saxons haven't settled anywhere, that Vortigern didn't
exist, and that the Saxons are attacking from the north was a bit odd. Oh,
and calling the Picts "Woads" was really weird... Oh... the costumes for the
Romans and the pseudo-Romans was quite nice. Bright and shiny.

Ok, in addition to slaughtering the Arthur story, I have another bone to
pick with this thing - To me, it seems like a central point of the movie is
not so much the legend, or even Arthur-the-man, but to Christian-bash. The
movie spends a lot of time making the Christians either look like they're
out and out psychotic, or arrogant, nasty, liars, or just fuzzy little
sheep.

Pelegius comes up right away. They never mention his central heresy - his
disbelief in Original Sin and his belief that grace isn't needed, that works
alone could earn a person a place in heaven. They make it sound like he's
the forerunner of the Declaration of Independence or something, preaching
"equality for all". Treatment of the Church and Christianity is horrendous,
in general. Rome, for some odd reason, is always equated with Christianity,
which is called "the Roman religion" and Christ is the "Roman god". [insert
shaking head hear.... yeesh] I recently read Stephen R. Lawhead's "Patrick",
about St. Patrick, and Lawhead not only butchered Patrick's story, but was
apparently a big fan of Pelagius as well... weird... is Pelagius the "new
thing" in the Christian bashing scene??? Does he have a fan club???

The good guys are all pagan, of course, other than Arthur, who is apparently
a fairly nominal Christian. Bors, who early on brags about the size of his
penis at the beginning of the movie, mocks the little monk who prayed, after
the ambush - he mimicking the man's folded hands and closes his eyes,
mumbling, pretending to pray, then grins and says, "Ooo! Nothing! Didn't
work!" Did they put that in just to be mean and nasty in the general
direction of people who do have some kind of faith, who do pray? Yeesh...
And why does Arthur, who is presumably Christian, and would thus be aware of
the concept of a "sacramental marriage", consent to be married by a pagan
rite? Some of the novels have dealt with the dichotomy between the two
cultures, and Arthur's need to find a balance - but it's always been handled
much better than this...

My son liked the battle scenes. They scenes had a lot of flashing swords and
he particularly liked the "ghost knights" at the end battle - they cleverly
used burning smoky tar to hide the few "good guys" behind. I was just happy
they didn't have any limbs hacked off or torture scenes a la Braveheart...
My son doesn't dwell too much on the "themes" in movies anyway, and tends to
get annoyed with me if I try and correct the history, philosophy, or
theology of a movie. He's well aware that "movies never get it right", so, I
guess I'm going to have to be content with that...

Ah well... will they EVER come up with a decent King Arthur movie? We can
only hope and dream...

[Heather Rose Jones]

Post by Luminaria
And why does Arthur, who is presumably Christian, and would thus be aware of
the concept of a "sacramental marriage", consent to be married by a pagan
rite? Some of the novels have dealt with the dichotomy between the two

To be fair, Christian theology didn't begin developing
marriage into a sacrament until the early medieval period.
During the putative era of the movie, there isn't yet a
Christian conept of "sacramental marriage" -- marriages were
considered pretty much entirely a secular arrangement.

Heather

[Luminaria]

Post by Heather Rose Jones

Post by Luminaria
And why does Arthur, who is presumably Christian, and would thus be aware of
the concept of a "sacramental marriage", consent to be married by a pagan
rite? Some of the novels have dealt with the dichotomy between the two

To be fair, Christian theology didn't begin developing
marriage into a sacrament until the early medieval period.
During the putative era of the movie, there isn't yet a
Christian conept of "sacramental marriage" -- marriages were
considered pretty much entirely a secular arrangement.

Ahh.... not according to (St.) Paul.... the Christian vision of marriage was
decidedly different than the Roman marriage contract, which was, as you say,
a purely legal arrangement. The idea of "cherishing" one's spouse the way
Christ cherished us - that is, to the point of dying for the other - was
bizarre beyond our modern ability to understand, for the Romans, and maybe
even the Jews, for whom marriage was also more of a civil contract and a
matter of Law. As for developing the theology - early "Fathers" of the
Church were pretty clear on the sacramental nature of marriage. Unless
you're watching the History Channel's "experts" from the Jesus Seminar
group...
The classical Scriptural text is the declaration of the Apostle Paul in his
letter to the Ephesians, (Eph.,5:22-33), who emphatically declares that the
relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ
and His Church: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the
Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to
Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands,
love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up
for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the
word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and
without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own
flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church:
because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." After
this exhortation the Apostle alludes to the Divine institution of marriage
in the prophetical words proclaimed by God through Adam: "For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and
they shall be two in one flesh." He then concludes with the significant
words in which he characterizes Christian marriage: "This is a great
sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Nevertheless, let every
one of you in particular love for his wife as himself."

Augustine wrote about the sacred and sacramental nature of marriage in 397
AD in his works "De bono conjugii" and "De nuptiis et concupiscentia".
Augustine's mentor, St. Ambrose of Milan also wrote regarding the
sacramental nature of marriage in at least three separate works. The movie
takes place in 452 AD. These works would have been well known by an educated
Christian, especially one who'd lived in Rome.

Also, we have copies of liturgical books and sacramentaries of the different
Churches, Eastern and Western, which record the liturgical prayers and rites
handed down from the very earliest times. They can be traced back to the
Apostolic era, and in all of these liturgies marriage, contracted before the
priest, during the celebration of the Mass, is accompanied by ceremonies and
prayers similar to those used in connection with the other sacraments; they
expressly call marriage a sacrament, and, because it is a "sacrament of the
living", require contrition for sin, and the reception of the Sacrament of
Penance, before the marriage can be performed.

This is why, according to the Council of Trent, this dogma has always been
taught by the Church: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and
properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by
Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer
grace, let him be anathema."


Take care,
Be well,

Lisa
Those who are not spammers may write me at:
lanat-at-RCN-dot-com

[Roselore57]

It took the Church centuries to formulate what we know now as a sacramental
marriage. Christianity continued to borrow aspects of paganism to find
converts. It wasn't until the rule of Constantine that Christian script was
altered and coersion applied (even to this day) to affect the beliefs and
practices of what we know as Christianity today.
As to the movie, I enjoyed this version which placed Guenevere as not only
Arthur's mate in spirit, but as an equal in social status and on the
battlefield. Such was life for womenkind before the rewriting of Christianity.
I have done my own research through the years as I had questions my Catholic
upbringing could not answer with regards to the history of women through the
ages. I was often fascinated and appalled at the injustices done to my gender
through the centuries following the proposed divinity of Jesus bar Joseph.
What is sad is that because of the desecration of the improtance of the
feminine icon and the indoctrination of females to the patriarchal viewpoint,
women have supported these ancient political beliefs. They have been the
unwitting accomplices and suppressed perpetrators of their own continued 2nd
class status beside our male companions.

L. Magdalen