Went to see 'King Arthur'

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

David

2004-08-01 11:16:51 UTC

And actually quite enjoyed it. I had read loads of bad reviews and was
expecting a total disaster, but far from it I thought. Some of it
didn't work and I didn't like the whole 'Woads' thing, but I liked the
Sarmatian idea (nice armour at any rate) and Clive Owen was very good:
nowhere near as dour as people have been saying. The knights were good
also - sort of a Wild Bunch/Seven Samurai theme - and the battle
scenes well done (though I doubt Badon really happened like that!)

I admit that having a roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall was a bit
odd, as was having Saxons invading from the north, but never mind.
They got things like Pelagius and Bishop Germanus in there, which I
was quite impressed by. So overall a thumbs-up really.

What does anyone else think??

Falca

2004-08-03 10:44:11 UTC

Permalink

Hrumph! I haven't been yet. Our local cinema (Odeon) had posters up,
but this (opening) week aren't showing it and have taken the posters
down - does this mean the film's a bad risk when they can have
'Garfield' instead!? KA's on at the multi-screen on the ring road,
but since I don't have a car, it's a saga getting there and back. If
it's still on next week, I'll have to haul myself out there, I guess,
if I can find the time it takes by bus.

btw, I've seen stills and the armour's way-off. Still, I'd like to go
all the same, if only to have some idea of what I'm going to have to
cope with; I do late Romano-British re-enactment and forewarned is
forearmed when it comes to answering the Public's questions/mis-guided
criticisms/funny ideas: "No, for the 99th time, I'm not a Woad, I'm a
Briton, thank you. I loved the Roman Army, and now they've gone I'm
begging them to come back and save me from the chaos" ;-)

Falca

Post by David
And actually quite enjoyed it. I had read loads of bad reviews and was
expecting a total disaster, but far from it I thought. Some of it
didn't work and I didn't like the whole 'Woads' thing, but I liked the
nowhere near as dour as people have been saying. The knights were good
also - sort of a Wild Bunch/Seven Samurai theme - and the battle
scenes well done (though I doubt Badon really happened like that!)
I admit that having a roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall was a bit
odd, as was having Saxons invading from the north, but never mind.
They got things like Pelagius and Bishop Germanus in there, which I
was quite impressed by. So overall a thumbs-up really.
What does anyone else think??

Catherine Green

2004-08-03 19:23:11 UTC

Permalink

Well...from what I'd read I was expecting something really bad, but it was
OK, I suppose. The trouble is that when you try to make a film about the
'historical' King Arthur, you have to miss a lot of the good bits of the
story out! Some of the reviews I've read blamed the 'Dark Age setting', for
the story being rather thin, but as anyone who has read any recent Arthurian
novels knows there are plenty of authors (Bernard Cornwell, Helen Hollick,
Rosemary Sutfcliff etc etc) making good use of a 5th Century setting to
write stories far more interesting than the film was! OK, they included
various bits from Arthurian tales and varying degrees of myth and magic, but
if it improves the plot, why not? If Arthur did exist he probably was a
rather dull man who did nothing but fight a load of battles and get drunk,
but is that any reason to make a film about it? Those myth makers
embellished for a reason, you know!

(I ought to admit at this point that I'm a girl, and I don't like films
where nothing much happens except a lot of fighting. Gladiator left me
cold. The final battles in Lord of the Rings nearly sent me to sleep.
Troy? Where were all the good bits? Where was the romance? Where was
Cassandra?)

After seeing the film I couldn't help feeling rather sorry for the film
makers who were obviously trying to present an 'historical' picture, but
then, of course, failed miserably. And of course they had to fail - even if
you stuck to one theory down to the tiniest detail, got all the armour right
and managed to film it so you couldn't see the stirrups, there would still
be plenty of people telling you you were completely wrong! It struck me
that they were trying to be too faithful to not one, but all the ideas about
an historical Arthur. "Arthur is Lucius Artorius Castus who led a bunch of
Sarmatian warriors near Hadrian's wall in the 2nd Century. But Arthur
fought the Saxons, so we'll have to move it forward to the 5th century. Now
what Saxons can he fight? How about Cerdic and Cynric, they were around at
roughly the right time. Arthur is up at Hadrian's wall so they'll have to
invade through Scotland..."

I don't think that Cerdic and Cynric's names were ever actually mentioned in
the film but you can see them on the credits. It's a bit of a stretch of
the imagination for someone like me, watching the film in a cinema a stone's
throw from Southampton Water, to believe the legendary founders of Wessex
came in via Scotland. Maybe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle didn't like to
mention they took the scenic route...but I'm being unfair, it can't be the
same Cerdic and Cynric because Arthur killed them before Cynric had a chance
to invade Salisbury. It must have been a completely different Cerdic and
Cynric.

I would have preferred a film that at least stuck to one time period, and
didn't try to transplant a Roman cavalry unit 3 centuries into the future.
What were Roman cavalry still doing at the Wall in the 460s? If they were
going to do a film about Lucius Artorius Castus, I wish they had had the
guts to really do it - show him fighting battles this particular historical
figure might have actually fought, against the Picts, and don't even try to
turn him into a king. That would have been something new and original and
worth seeing (assuming someone came up with a good story to go with it...)
Or they could have done the 5th century version. But don't do both!

And Woads? Whose bright idea was that? When they were riding through a
thick forest and someone shouted "Woads!" was I the only one who wanted to
shout back "No, just a couple of bridle tracks!"

From Catherine
(Who is going to read Bernard Cornwell's trilogy again and appreciate it a
bit more than I did the first time. But I'm still going to skip the
fights.)

David

2004-08-04 09:28:31 UTC

Permalink

Well, if you're not into the old blood and gore and clanging swords
then King Arthur is a funny subject to be interested in! I know
there's a romance element too, but that was tacked on later and the
original story is all blood and death and people charging about
dealing mighty blows etc. The story is 100% testosterone.

As for the film I wasn't expecting brilliant historical accuracy and
that aspect didn't bother me too much. I just thought it was a lot
better presented and well made than it's been given credit for. Maybe
I wasn't disappointed because I don't really have any pre-conceptions
of what the 'real' Arthur was like, so Clive Owen in a feathery hat
was fine.

I would like to see a book devoted to Ambrosius Aurelianus though,
with or without Arthur.

Post by Catherine Green

Well...from what I'd read I was expecting something really bad, but it was
OK, I suppose. The trouble is that when you try to make a film about the
'historical' King Arthur, you have to miss a lot of the good bits of the
story out! Some of the reviews I've read blamed the 'Dark Age setting', for
the story being rather thin, but as anyone who has read any recent Arthurian
novels knows there are plenty of authors (Bernard Cornwell, Helen Hollick,
Rosemary Sutfcliff etc etc) making good use of a 5th Century setting to
write stories far more interesting than the film was! OK, they included
various bits from Arthurian tales and varying degrees of myth and magic, but
if it improves the plot, why not? If Arthur did exist he probably was a
rather dull man who did nothing but fight a load of battles and get drunk,
but is that any reason to make a film about it? Those myth makers
embellished for a reason, you know!
(I ought to admit at this point that I'm a girl, and I don't like films
where nothing much happens except a lot of fighting. Gladiator left me
cold. The final battles in Lord of the Rings nearly sent me to sleep.
Troy? Where were all the good bits? Where was the romance? Where was
Cassandra?)
After seeing the film I couldn't help feeling rather sorry for the film
makers who were obviously trying to present an 'historical' picture, but
then, of course, failed miserably. And of course they had to fail - even if
you stuck to one theory down to the tiniest detail, got all the armour right
and managed to film it so you couldn't see the stirrups, there would still
be plenty of people telling you you were completely wrong! It struck me
that they were trying to be too faithful to not one, but all the ideas about
an historical Arthur. "Arthur is Lucius Artorius Castus who led a bunch of
Sarmatian warriors near Hadrian's wall in the 2nd Century. But Arthur
fought the Saxons, so we'll have to move it forward to the 5th century. Now
what Saxons can he fight? How about Cerdic and Cynric, they were around at
roughly the right time. Arthur is up at Hadrian's wall so they'll have to
invade through Scotland..."
I don't think that Cerdic and Cynric's names were ever actually mentioned in
the film but you can see them on the credits. It's a bit of a stretch of
the imagination for someone like me, watching the film in a cinema a stone's
throw from Southampton Water, to believe the legendary founders of Wessex
came in via Scotland. Maybe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle didn't like to
mention they took the scenic route...but I'm being unfair, it can't be the
same Cerdic and Cynric because Arthur killed them before Cynric had a chance
to invade Salisbury. It must have been a completely different Cerdic and
Cynric.
I would have preferred a film that at least stuck to one time period, and
didn't try to transplant a Roman cavalry unit 3 centuries into the future.
What were Roman cavalry still doing at the Wall in the 460s? If they were
going to do a film about Lucius Artorius Castus, I wish they had had the
guts to really do it - show him fighting battles this particular historical
figure might have actually fought, against the Picts, and don't even try to
turn him into a king. That would have been something new and original and
worth seeing (assuming someone came up with a good story to go with it...)
Or they could have done the 5th century version. But don't do both!
And Woads? Whose bright idea was that? When they were riding through a
thick forest and someone shouted "Woads!" was I the only one who wanted to
shout back "No, just a couple of bridle tracks!"
From Catherine
(Who is going to read Bernard Cornwell's trilogy again and appreciate it a
bit more than I did the first time. But I'm still going to skip the
fights.)

Catherine Green

2004-08-04 20:35:00 UTC

Permalink

There are plenty of aspects of the Arthurian legend you can be interested in
that don't involve too much blood and gore. Yes, the earliest references
are about battles, but it's become much more than that, and that's what
helped keep it alive. Would Marie of Champagne have been so keen to have
Chrétien de Troyes' work dedicated to her if he'd written about a war?
Wouldn't Tennyson's Idylls of the King have become a bit repetitive if he'd
just stuck to the battles? And where would the Arthurian legend be without
Merlin? Or the Knights that say Ni?

What interests me are the relationships between the characters - Arthur and
his sisters, the whole love triangle thing (though that's a bit old hat
now), Arthur and Merlin, Arthur and Kay, Uther and Igraine...if you want to
you can look into the magic, Celtic myth, the holy grail...you don't even
have to be that keen on blood and guts to be interested in the possible
historical backgrounds - military history is only one aspect of the history
of any period, albeit an important one. Personally I prefer reading about a
battle in a history book to sitting in a cinema watching it getting played
out in glorious technicolour.

It's not that I don't accept that any film trying to be even vaguely
historically accurate would have to include a lot of fighting. I'd just
like a bit more character development too. Although I'm not saying there
haven't been worse Arthurian films. Given the choice of watching a long
drawn out battle or the sight of Richard Harris singing "how to handle a
woman" I'd vote for the blood and guts every time!

I do agree that Clive Owen was a better Arthur than he's being given credit
for. I didn't find him wooden as some critics have claimed - serious, and
sometimes withdrawn perhaps, but that's what you'd expect in a leader under
those circumstances. We don't want him skipping around bursting into song!
(I'm back with my Richard Harris nightmare again now...)

Catherine

Post by David
Well, if you're not into the old blood and gore and clanging swords
then King Arthur is a funny subject to be interested in! I know
there's a romance element too, but that was tacked on later and the
original story is all blood and death and people charging about
dealing mighty blows etc. The story is 100% testosterone.
As for the film I wasn't expecting brilliant historical accuracy and
that aspect didn't bother me too much. I just thought it was a lot
better presented and well made than it's been given credit for. Maybe
I wasn't disappointed because I don't really have any pre-conceptions
of what the 'real' Arthur was like, so Clive Owen in a feathery hat
was fine.
I would like to see a book devoted to Ambrosius Aurelianus though,
with or without Arthur.

Post by Catherine Green

Now

Post by David

Post by Catherine Green
what Saxons can he fight? How about Cerdic and Cynric, they were around at
roughly the right time. Arthur is up at Hadrian's wall so they'll have to
invade through Scotland..."
I don't think that Cerdic and Cynric's names were ever actually mentioned in
the film but you can see them on the credits. It's a bit of a stretch of
the imagination for someone like me, watching the film in a cinema a stone's
throw from Southampton Water, to believe the legendary founders of Wessex
came in via Scotland. Maybe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle didn't like to
mention they took the scenic route...but I'm being unfair, it can't be the
same Cerdic and Cynric because Arthur killed them before Cynric had a chance
to invade Salisbury. It must have been a completely different Cerdic and
Cynric.
I would have preferred a film that at least stuck to one time period, and
didn't try to transplant a Roman cavalry unit 3 centuries into the future.
What were Roman cavalry still doing at the Wall in the 460s? If they were
going to do a film about Lucius Artorius Castus, I wish they had had the
guts to really do it - show him fighting battles this particular historical
figure might have actually fought, against the Picts, and don't even try to
turn him into a king. That would have been something new and original and
worth seeing (assuming someone came up with a good story to go with it...)
Or they could have done the 5th century version. But don't do both!
And Woads? Whose bright idea was that? When they were riding through a
thick forest and someone shouted "Woads!" was I the only one who wanted to
shout back "No, just a couple of bridle tracks!"
From Catherine
(Who is going to read Bernard Cornwell's trilogy again and appreciate it a
bit more than I did the first time. But I'm still going to skip the
fights.)

Diane L. Schirf

2004-08-16 03:23:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by David
Well, if you're not into the old blood and gore and clanging swords
then King Arthur is a funny subject to be interested in!

What originally attracted me to Arthurian romance was the idea of going
off into the forest to find something, perhaps the same reason I like
fairy tales. A mysterious forest setting with mysterious possibilities.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

Cherith Baldry

2004-09-01 08:12:44 UTC

Permalink

I finally managed to see the film last night, and I hesitate to say this but I
found it...well, a bit boring, really. Less carnage and more character
development would have been a good thing. (But the bit on the ice was
riveting).

However, I'd take issue with anyone who calls it historical. You don't get
'historical' just by putting it into 5th century dress. The plot was entirely
invented, and many of the characters were taken from the later literary
tradition.

And where was Kay? (Woe! Shame!) Especially as he appears in some of the
earlier source material.

Things I liked:
The Samartian cavalry thing was interesting.
Arthur himself: a tough job to make him someone that people would follow.
The ice (see above).
Tristan's hawk.

Things I didn't like:
All the Christian-bashing (yawn).
Guenevere the warrior princess (mega-yawn).
The gung-ho ending. (Hello? This is a tragedy.)

Best regards,
Cherith

RodneyFFC

2004-09-02 02:00:35 UTC

Permalink

It is hard for Cherith to respond as politely as she just did. She has this
Sir Kay fixation, even to the point of writing some pretty good fiction about
him! By the way, when can we expect some more?

Rodney

P.S. I have set my filters to stop any of this Arctu... stuff and suggest most
of you do the same, unless that is your thing!

Cherith Baldry

2004-09-02 11:54:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by RodneyFFC
It is hard for Cherith to respond as politely as she just did.

How kind.

Post by RodneyFFC
She has this
Sir Kay fixation

Very true.

Post by RodneyFFC
even to the point of writing some pretty good fiction about
him!

Thank you.

Post by RodneyFFC
By the way, when can we expect some more?

A Kay short story, 'The Avowing of Sir Kay' should appear in the US magazine
_Paradox_ some time next year.

Best regards,
Cherith

martymonster

2004-08-08 02:03:16 UTC

Permalink

There were a couple of continuity probs i felt...

When they first go through the wall, a big production is made of the opening
of the gates, clydesdales etc, a la, LotR. But come the battle scene, the
gates are flop-flopping themselves open and shut like a saloon in the old
west...at least that's how I remember it.

Also, when the (ahem) "Woads" have the party held up overnight in the woods,
we see native chiefs asking Merlin "why don't we just kill them?", but in a
later confrontation between Merlin and Arthur, Merlin is selling him the
line "Our people believe you can do Anything"...did i miss something in
between these scenes? Or am I supposed to assume Merlin was lying in order
to get what he wanted?

And I still don't understand how felt they could use Lucius Artorius Castus
considering the period in which they decided to set the film.

-mart

David

2004-08-08 10:18:59 UTC

Permalink

I read in a couple of interviews, and I think it may have been briefly
mentioned at the start of the film, that the 'Arthur Castus' in the
film is supposed to be a descendant of Lucius Artorius Castus. So they
weren't quite so shameless as to boot the roman officer 300 years out
of time.

If they wanted Arthur to be a Roman, why not just use Ambrosius?
Doesn't sound much like Arthur I suppose...(in fact it sounds like a
brand of Devonshire cream)

Post by martymonster
There were a couple of continuity probs i felt...
When they first go through the wall, a big production is made of the opening
of the gates, clydesdales etc, a la, LotR. But come the battle scene, the
gates are flop-flopping themselves open and shut like a saloon in the old
west...at least that's how I remember it.
Also, when the (ahem) "Woads" have the party held up overnight in the woods,
we see native chiefs asking Merlin "why don't we just kill them?", but in a
later confrontation between Merlin and Arthur, Merlin is selling him the
line "Our people believe you can do Anything"...did i miss something in
between these scenes? Or am I supposed to assume Merlin was lying in order
to get what he wanted?
And I still don't understand how felt they could use Lucius Artorius Castus
considering the period in which they decided to set the film.
-mart

martymonster

2004-08-11 02:50:42 UTC

Permalink

Apparently many things slipped by me, must have been concentrating on
something else at the time/s.
I obviously need to watch it again, but I think I'll hold off until the dvd
is out though.
Thanks David and Deb for your corrections.

I do like that idea of an Ambrosius piece.
Or a straight Lucius Artorius Castus exploration, from what i've read
(interpolations of notes on gravestones or some such educated guesswork) he
led a possibly, very interesting life.

So, side issue...that disc thingy that Germanus smashed on the floor so
politely, was that some sort of Pelagius merchandise? I had thought it was
something relating to "Arthur's" father (being, at the time, unaware of
Pelagius and also unable to read the thing when it was on the screen).

Post by David
I read in a couple of interviews, and I think it may have been briefly
mentioned at the start of the film, that the 'Arthur Castus' in the
film is supposed to be a descendant of Lucius Artorius Castus. So they
weren't quite so shameless as to boot the roman officer 300 years out
of time.
If they wanted Arthur to be a Roman, why not just use Ambrosius?
Doesn't sound much like Arthur I suppose...(in fact it sounds like a
brand of Devonshire cream)

FerchArthur

2004-08-08 19:55:24 UTC

Permalink

Post by martymonster
And I still don't understand how felt they could use Lucius Artorius Castus
considering the period in which they decided to set the film.

Actually, they didn't. The Arthur in the film is supposed to be a descendant
of L.A.C. I'm not versed in the Sarmatian theory. For anyone interested, Dr.
Malcor is an active member of Arthurnet. You could join that and ask her
questions yourself about her theory and the movie.
Debra A. Kemp
House of Pendragon I: The Firebrand
2003 Dream Realm Award finalist
http://www.telltalepress.com/debrakemp.html