Mark Gamon
2004-09-18 13:44:11 UTC
This has been posted elsewhere but I've only just stumbled across this
newsgroup, courtesy the King Arthur Books website.
First, upfront, an admission. I've got a vested interest, having just
written and produced my own fiction on this subject. See the King
Arthur website list if you're curious, but I'm not here to advertise.
Not in a big way, anyway. I know the film was fiction so it's a little
harsh of me to snipe at someone else's fiction about the same. But but
but...
To the Broadway Cinema, Letchworth, yesterday, with the Bechstein.
There to view the Touchstone blockbuster 'King Arthur'. Reportedly the
subject of detailed research: the untold true story which inspired
the legend'. The first film about Arthur that places him in the Dark
Ages around the time the Romans were leaving Britain, no less.
A must-see, really, if you've just written a book that attempts to do
the same thing. So let's compare notes
I know: movies are about story-telling, not historical accuracy. The
same as novels. Arthur was a Roman general' probably seemed enough
when the idea was first pitched to Touchstone. Brilliant. Original.
And hey it ties in with the archaeology, right? We can use that
Then the script development starts. Someone writer, producer, or
whoever stumped up the production money gets hold of Howard Reid's
Arthur the Dragon King', which casts Arthur as a mercenary warrior
from the steppes of Asia. Interesting book, plausibly argued, but
looks just a tad shaky when you stack it up against the wealth of
archaeology and academic research that favours Arthur as a native
Briton. A tradition that can be traced back to pre-Norman times, and
nobody even mentioned Sarmatians till the year 2000
Let's continue the script development. Who shall we cast as Guinevere?
Kiera Knightly's hot (in so many ways). She'd look great in one of
those flowing medieval robes, right? Then someone else pops up with
the nugget of information that Pictish women were supposed to have
gone into battle naked (maybe). Wow, that's great. Of course we
couldn't do naked, but we could wrap her in some scanty leather
thongs. Better make her a Pict
Hang on a mo. The Picts were Scottish, weren't they? No problemo, guys
lovely locations up there. Wouldn't have to spend so much money
dressing up the English countryside to look Post-Roman. And there's
that great Hadrian's Wall thing they used in Robin Hood, Prince of
Thieves'. Didn't that have something to do with the Romans?
Now at this point our writer's ears prick up. Because he has been
doing some research, of course. And he knows very well that there's a
school of thought (in Scotland) that rather likes Arthur having a
Scottish power base. Just as the Welsh and Cornish prefer him in their
neck of the woods (all conveniently forgetting there were no national
or county boundaries in the Dark Ages anyway). But hey, there's this
Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall called Camboglanna, which might have been
Camelot (Arthur's home) or Camlann (Arthur's last battle). Or
something. And we're trying to tie Arthur in with the Romans, right?
And the Romans are leaving Britain? The frontier outpost of the
Empire? So we could have them all hiding behind the wall as the
barbarian hordes approach. And we could have a Roman frontier outpost
beyond the wall which Arthur and his homies have to rescue before the
barbarians arrive. Perfect. Sort of like The Alamo' meets The
Magnificent Seven'. In fifth century Britain - sorry, Scotland, or
whatever it's called. We'll put this frontier outpost at the bottom of
a valley, without apparent defences and a garrison of only six
troopers, so our heroes look properly outnumbered, right? Of course we
will
Now then. About these barbarians. Who's sweeping down from the North?
Can't be the Picts (who actually did sweep down from the North and
were the main reason the wall was built in the first place) because
we've cast Guinevere as a Pict. Great costume, remember? She's on
Arthur's side, so it'll have to be the Saxons
Writer breathes a sigh of relief at this point. This is the enemy
Arthur's always supposed to have fought. In fact we've got genuine
writing from the 6th and 7th century that documents a lengthy
guerrilla war between the Britons and the Saxons. Only one snag.
Touchstone's Saxon army is supposed to be sweeping down from the
North. And all the archaeological and written evidence has the Saxons
raiding along the East coast of the British Isles, about as far North
as Yorkshire. Which is rather a long way South of Hadrian's Wall.
What the hey. Great wall, lovely scenery, Guinevere's a Pict. Stick
the Saxons up there, no-one'll ever notice. Blur the edges a bit by
calling the Picts Woads'. That'll explain all that blue paint on
their faces. Just like that Mel Gibson Braveheart' thing that made
all that money a few years back. Always a crowd-pleaser, that blue
paint
Now let's look at the characters. Hey those knights had great names,
right? Lancelot, Gawain, Bors, Tristan, Galahad, Merlin. Got to get
them in there somewhere
At this point our writer's squirming a bit, knowing full well that all
these names are part of the medieval tradition, and the only ones you
have a hope of tracing back to the post-Roman Dark Ages are Arthur and
Guinevere. You can trace Tristan back to Cornwall, about a
half-century later, but we've decided by now that Tristan's this
really cool, James Coburn-like character with a tame eagle who has to
die at the hands of the big bad Saxon leader, so we'd better ignore
the possibility that Tristan may not even have known Arthur, let alone
fought with him.
And we've got to have Lancelot, even though he's the least likely to
be an actual historical figure. A love triangle always plays well in
the movie houses. Even if you have to reduce it to a little passing
flirting in order to make room for the battles.
As for Merlin, it wouldn't be right to have an Arthur film without
him. Never mind that you can't trace his name back much further than
the 7th century with any clarity: he'd look good in blue paint. We'll
make him a Pict too
Writer breathes a sigh of relief and scribbles hasty notes. Picts are
Barbarians, Romans are Christians. Ergo, Merlin has to be a Pict. Then
he can wander round the Scottish woodland looking mysterious and
druid-like. Without actually doing any magic or anything after all
we're supposed to be historically accurate here. Apart, that is, from
the names and the location and Arthur's origins and the enemy and the
time frame
Time frame? Hey, we got that one on the button, guys. The Romans leave
Britain in the fifth century, so that's when we'll make it happen.
We'll even put a date on the screen right at the start of the film. A
date that's right smack dab in the middle of the fifth century. That
way there'll be no doubt whatsoever.
AD 450. Plus fifteen years to allow Lancelot to grow up and shoehorn
in that great scene on the Russian steppes.
Here's our writer, whipping out the blue pencil yet again. Knowing
full well from his researches that the Emperor Honorius wrote to the
cities of Britain in 410, instructing them to look to their own
defences. After that date, Britain isn't a Roman colony at all. It's a
Roman society, rapidly going to ruin in the face of the Barbarian
invasions, and its people are British, maintaining contact with Rome
primarily through the church.
And the only two listed dates in any of the Dark Age histories that
mention Arthur are 516 (the battle of Badon) and 537 (the battle of
Camlann). That's an awfully long time after the Romans have left the
building.
Oh well, says our writer, tearing up his notes. Dates in Dark Age
histories are notoriously hard to substantiate. It's all about story
and characterisation, right? Oh, and great scenery
Now how are we going to end this film, guys? Better be a happy ending,
so we'll close with a wedding. A wedding conducted by Merlin (a
pagan), between Guinevere (also a pagan) and Arthur (a Christian).
Guinevere in flowing Pre-Raphaelite white, natch.
Never mind the religious differences, and the fact that there were
plenty of Christian churches in which the new king of the Britons
might choose to wed the woman of his dreams. We've got two pagans in
this scene, so we'll set it in a pagan location.
Whassatmean, guys? What looks pagan?
I know! Stonehenge.
The writer, despairing, mutters something about Stonehenge being in
Wiltshire.
Never you mind, old son. We'll relocate it to Scotland. We'll put it
on the clifftops so we can end by firing some more flaming arrows over
the ocean. For no particular reason other than the flaming arrows seem
to have played particularly well in viewing the battle scene rushes.
Stonehenge-by-the-Sea. The writer falls silent, dreaming of many
Martinis.
Which just about covers it. Except to mention:
- The stirrups (which Roman cavalry probably didn't use)
- The Saxon warlord. Who totally stole the show, and gave a pretty
accurate portrayal (to this writer at least) of the kind of character
Arthur really might have been...
Hollywood. Go figure.
newsgroup, courtesy the King Arthur Books website.
First, upfront, an admission. I've got a vested interest, having just
written and produced my own fiction on this subject. See the King
Arthur website list if you're curious, but I'm not here to advertise.
Not in a big way, anyway. I know the film was fiction so it's a little
harsh of me to snipe at someone else's fiction about the same. But but
but...
To the Broadway Cinema, Letchworth, yesterday, with the Bechstein.
There to view the Touchstone blockbuster 'King Arthur'. Reportedly the
subject of detailed research: the untold true story which inspired
the legend'. The first film about Arthur that places him in the Dark
Ages around the time the Romans were leaving Britain, no less.
A must-see, really, if you've just written a book that attempts to do
the same thing. So let's compare notes
I know: movies are about story-telling, not historical accuracy. The
same as novels. Arthur was a Roman general' probably seemed enough
when the idea was first pitched to Touchstone. Brilliant. Original.
And hey it ties in with the archaeology, right? We can use that
Then the script development starts. Someone writer, producer, or
whoever stumped up the production money gets hold of Howard Reid's
Arthur the Dragon King', which casts Arthur as a mercenary warrior
from the steppes of Asia. Interesting book, plausibly argued, but
looks just a tad shaky when you stack it up against the wealth of
archaeology and academic research that favours Arthur as a native
Briton. A tradition that can be traced back to pre-Norman times, and
nobody even mentioned Sarmatians till the year 2000
Let's continue the script development. Who shall we cast as Guinevere?
Kiera Knightly's hot (in so many ways). She'd look great in one of
those flowing medieval robes, right? Then someone else pops up with
the nugget of information that Pictish women were supposed to have
gone into battle naked (maybe). Wow, that's great. Of course we
couldn't do naked, but we could wrap her in some scanty leather
thongs. Better make her a Pict
Hang on a mo. The Picts were Scottish, weren't they? No problemo, guys
lovely locations up there. Wouldn't have to spend so much money
dressing up the English countryside to look Post-Roman. And there's
that great Hadrian's Wall thing they used in Robin Hood, Prince of
Thieves'. Didn't that have something to do with the Romans?
Now at this point our writer's ears prick up. Because he has been
doing some research, of course. And he knows very well that there's a
school of thought (in Scotland) that rather likes Arthur having a
Scottish power base. Just as the Welsh and Cornish prefer him in their
neck of the woods (all conveniently forgetting there were no national
or county boundaries in the Dark Ages anyway). But hey, there's this
Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall called Camboglanna, which might have been
Camelot (Arthur's home) or Camlann (Arthur's last battle). Or
something. And we're trying to tie Arthur in with the Romans, right?
And the Romans are leaving Britain? The frontier outpost of the
Empire? So we could have them all hiding behind the wall as the
barbarian hordes approach. And we could have a Roman frontier outpost
beyond the wall which Arthur and his homies have to rescue before the
barbarians arrive. Perfect. Sort of like The Alamo' meets The
Magnificent Seven'. In fifth century Britain - sorry, Scotland, or
whatever it's called. We'll put this frontier outpost at the bottom of
a valley, without apparent defences and a garrison of only six
troopers, so our heroes look properly outnumbered, right? Of course we
will
Now then. About these barbarians. Who's sweeping down from the North?
Can't be the Picts (who actually did sweep down from the North and
were the main reason the wall was built in the first place) because
we've cast Guinevere as a Pict. Great costume, remember? She's on
Arthur's side, so it'll have to be the Saxons
Writer breathes a sigh of relief at this point. This is the enemy
Arthur's always supposed to have fought. In fact we've got genuine
writing from the 6th and 7th century that documents a lengthy
guerrilla war between the Britons and the Saxons. Only one snag.
Touchstone's Saxon army is supposed to be sweeping down from the
North. And all the archaeological and written evidence has the Saxons
raiding along the East coast of the British Isles, about as far North
as Yorkshire. Which is rather a long way South of Hadrian's Wall.
What the hey. Great wall, lovely scenery, Guinevere's a Pict. Stick
the Saxons up there, no-one'll ever notice. Blur the edges a bit by
calling the Picts Woads'. That'll explain all that blue paint on
their faces. Just like that Mel Gibson Braveheart' thing that made
all that money a few years back. Always a crowd-pleaser, that blue
paint
Now let's look at the characters. Hey those knights had great names,
right? Lancelot, Gawain, Bors, Tristan, Galahad, Merlin. Got to get
them in there somewhere
At this point our writer's squirming a bit, knowing full well that all
these names are part of the medieval tradition, and the only ones you
have a hope of tracing back to the post-Roman Dark Ages are Arthur and
Guinevere. You can trace Tristan back to Cornwall, about a
half-century later, but we've decided by now that Tristan's this
really cool, James Coburn-like character with a tame eagle who has to
die at the hands of the big bad Saxon leader, so we'd better ignore
the possibility that Tristan may not even have known Arthur, let alone
fought with him.
And we've got to have Lancelot, even though he's the least likely to
be an actual historical figure. A love triangle always plays well in
the movie houses. Even if you have to reduce it to a little passing
flirting in order to make room for the battles.
As for Merlin, it wouldn't be right to have an Arthur film without
him. Never mind that you can't trace his name back much further than
the 7th century with any clarity: he'd look good in blue paint. We'll
make him a Pict too
Writer breathes a sigh of relief and scribbles hasty notes. Picts are
Barbarians, Romans are Christians. Ergo, Merlin has to be a Pict. Then
he can wander round the Scottish woodland looking mysterious and
druid-like. Without actually doing any magic or anything after all
we're supposed to be historically accurate here. Apart, that is, from
the names and the location and Arthur's origins and the enemy and the
time frame
Time frame? Hey, we got that one on the button, guys. The Romans leave
Britain in the fifth century, so that's when we'll make it happen.
We'll even put a date on the screen right at the start of the film. A
date that's right smack dab in the middle of the fifth century. That
way there'll be no doubt whatsoever.
AD 450. Plus fifteen years to allow Lancelot to grow up and shoehorn
in that great scene on the Russian steppes.
Here's our writer, whipping out the blue pencil yet again. Knowing
full well from his researches that the Emperor Honorius wrote to the
cities of Britain in 410, instructing them to look to their own
defences. After that date, Britain isn't a Roman colony at all. It's a
Roman society, rapidly going to ruin in the face of the Barbarian
invasions, and its people are British, maintaining contact with Rome
primarily through the church.
And the only two listed dates in any of the Dark Age histories that
mention Arthur are 516 (the battle of Badon) and 537 (the battle of
Camlann). That's an awfully long time after the Romans have left the
building.
Oh well, says our writer, tearing up his notes. Dates in Dark Age
histories are notoriously hard to substantiate. It's all about story
and characterisation, right? Oh, and great scenery
Now how are we going to end this film, guys? Better be a happy ending,
so we'll close with a wedding. A wedding conducted by Merlin (a
pagan), between Guinevere (also a pagan) and Arthur (a Christian).
Guinevere in flowing Pre-Raphaelite white, natch.
Never mind the religious differences, and the fact that there were
plenty of Christian churches in which the new king of the Britons
might choose to wed the woman of his dreams. We've got two pagans in
this scene, so we'll set it in a pagan location.
Whassatmean, guys? What looks pagan?
I know! Stonehenge.
The writer, despairing, mutters something about Stonehenge being in
Wiltshire.
Never you mind, old son. We'll relocate it to Scotland. We'll put it
on the clifftops so we can end by firing some more flaming arrows over
the ocean. For no particular reason other than the flaming arrows seem
to have played particularly well in viewing the battle scene rushes.
Stonehenge-by-the-Sea. The writer falls silent, dreaming of many
Martinis.
Which just about covers it. Except to mention:
- The stirrups (which Roman cavalry probably didn't use)
- The Saxon warlord. Who totally stole the show, and gave a pretty
accurate portrayal (to this writer at least) of the kind of character
Arthur really might have been...
Hollywood. Go figure.