In an exaggerated Lon Chaney Sr. voice...

[Bert Olton]

"...it's like being the last living cell in a dead body..."...

Come on folks...there has to be something Arthurian that someone feels
is worthy of a little discussion!

The new show on British T.V.? The most recent "Camelot High" film or
whatever it was? Alien theories on the Artognov stone? Agreement or
disgruntlement with the Sarmatian theory? Were the Picts actually
called "Woads"? <grin>

I do again apologize for having seemed to have ignored the last few
posts from a couple of former regulars.

I won't make excuses but I will vow an oath: "I shall henceforth, and
with sincerity and purity of heart, swear to those who come to this
place, that I shall respond in kindness and thoughtfulness to any and
all questions, requests, irrational statements and unreasonable
surmises. 'Tis a Round Table after all, in the best tradition of
himself, Arthur.

Bert

p.s. Mr. Corveddu...are you out there yet, our friend?

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton
"...it's like being the last living cell in a dead body..."...
Come on folks...there has to be something Arthurian that someone feels
is worthy of a little discussion!
The new show on British T.V.?

Already seen in full in the US, and already canceled. It actually
sprang from the same development process that produced the more
successful "Merlin" series.

Post by Bert Olton
The most recent "Camelot High" film or whatever it was? Alien
theories on the Artognov stone? Agreement or disgruntlement with the
Sarmatian theory? Were the Picts actually called "Woads"? <grin>

If they were supposed to be Picts in the first place. I couldn't quite
figure that part out. (I also couldn't figure out the tactical aspects
of the Big Battle. Perhaps I was too bowled over by the writers'
evident belief that Pelagius was an 18th-century Whig.)

[Bert Olton]

Post by Bert Olton
"...it's like being the last living cell in a dead body..."...
Come on folks...there has to be something Arthurian that someone feels
is worthy of a little discussion!
The new show on British T.V.?

Already seen in full in the US, and already canceled. It actually sprang
from the same development process that produced the more successful
"Merlin" series.

Ah. Being on 'basic cable', missed it. I'll have to look around on line
for it.

Post by Bert Olton
The most recent "Camelot High" film or whatever it was? Alien theories
on the Artognov stone? Agreement or disgruntlement with the Sarmatian
theory? Were the Picts actually called "Woads"? <grin>

If they were supposed to be Picts in the first place. I couldn't quite
figure that part out. (I also couldn't figure out the tactical aspects
of the Big Battle. Perhaps I was too bowled over by the writers' evident
belief that Pelagius was an 18th-century Whig.)

<grin>...that film certainly took huge departures from the sources they
claimed to use, to say nothing of the history that is actually known of
the era. But, Keira made a lovely little Amazon - uh, Woad.

Bert

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
"...it's like being the last living cell in a dead body..."...
Come on folks...there has to be something Arthurian that someone feels
is worthy of a little discussion!
The new show on British T.V.?

Already seen in full in the US, and already canceled. It actually sprang
from the same development process that produced the more successful
"Merlin" series.

Ah. Being on 'basic cable', missed it. I'll have to look around on
line for it.

It jumbles things around, just as "Excalibur" did, though not so much
as "Merlin" does.

Modern art forms seem to have trouble dealing with Morgan and Morgause.
The discovery of character by Shakespeare, Richardson, Austen, etc., is
no doubt a great boon to storytelling, but it makes many characters
from earlier eras fall badly out of focus. That's happened before, of
course; the new notion of heroism introduced in the Arthurian corpus
makes such characters as Theseus and Herakles look like random thugs.

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
The most recent "Camelot High" film or whatever it was?

"Avalon High". Didn't catch it.

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
Alien theories
on the Artognov stone? Agreement or disgruntlement with the Sarmatian
theory? Were the Picts actually called "Woads"? <grin>

If they were supposed to be Picts in the first place. I couldn't quite
figure that part out. (I also couldn't figure out the tactical aspects
of the Big Battle. Perhaps I was too bowled over by the writers' evident
belief that Pelagius was an 18th-century Whig.)

<grin>...that film certainly took huge departures from the sources they
claimed to use, to say nothing of the history that is actually known of
the era. But, Keira made a lovely little Amazon - uh, Woad.

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject,
it probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

[Bert Olton]

It jumbles things around, just as "Excalibur" did, though not so much as
"Merlin" does.

Heh. I'll still try to give it a watch. Boorman's low budget, almost
home movie production at least made a valiant attempt at some epic feel.
"Merlin", if I remember, bordered on 'soap opera'.

Modern art forms seem to have trouble dealing with Morgan and Morgause.
The discovery of character by Shakespeare, Richardson, Austen, etc., is
no doubt a great boon to storytelling, but it makes many characters from
earlier eras fall badly out of focus. That's happened before, of course;
the new notion of heroism introduced in the Arthurian corpus makes such
characters as Theseus and Herakles look like random thugs.

Interesting thought. Am I right in assuming you're speaking not of the
more original oral or semi oral versions (like what are thought to
appear in the Mabinogion for instance), but of the Chretien and
afterwards literary panoply/pantheon?

"Avalon High". Didn't catch it.

Right - "Avalon High" - sorry. A cutely done Disney production with re
incarnations of the Round Table crew placed in the present. With Arthur
as a beautiful young girl. Hey, why not, eh?

Post by Bert Olton
<grin>...that film certainly took huge departures from the sources
they claimed to use, to say nothing of the history that is actually
known of the era. But, Keira made a lovely little Amazon - uh, Woad.

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

You know who I'd like to see take on the Arthurian legends for a film?
M. Night Shyamalan. I know he touched on it lightly in "The Sixth
Sense", but I'd really love to see his direct treatment of the tradition.

Bert

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton

It jumbles things around, just as "Excalibur" did, though not so much as
"Merlin" does.

Heh. I'll still try to give it a watch. Boorman's low budget, almost
home movie production at least made a valiant attempt at some epic
feel. "Merlin", if I remember, bordered on 'soap opera'.

Modern art forms seem to have trouble dealing with Morgan and Morgause.
The discovery of character by Shakespeare, Richardson, Austen, etc., is
no doubt a great boon to storytelling, but it makes many characters from
earlier eras fall badly out of focus. That's happened before, of course;
the new notion of heroism introduced in the Arthurian corpus makes such
characters as Theseus and Herakles look like random thugs.

Interesting thought. Am I right in assuming you're speaking not of the
more original oral or semi oral versions (like what are thought to
appear in the Mabinogion for instance), but of the Chretien and
afterwards literary panoply/pantheon?

Yes, I'm talking about the massive cultural shift in Europe that
happened around Chrêtien's time, and that wrapped itself around and
redefined the Matière de Bretagne.

Post by Bert Olton

"Avalon High". Didn't catch it.

Right - "Avalon High" - sorry. A cutely done Disney production with re
incarnations of the Round Table crew placed in the present. With
Arthur as a beautiful young girl. Hey, why not, eh?

Post by Bert Olton
<grin>...that film certainly took huge departures from the sources
they claimed to use, to say nothing of the history that is actually
known of the era. But, Keira made a lovely little Amazon - uh, Woad.

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

You know who I'd like to see take on the Arthurian legends for a film?
M. Night Shyamalan. I know he touched on it lightly in "The Sixth
Sense", but I'd really love to see his direct treatment of the
tradition.
Bert

[Bert Olton]

On 07/06/2011 09:06 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:

[clippage]

Post by John W Kennedy
Yes, I'm talking about the massive cultural shift in Europe that
happened around Chrêtien's time, and that wrapped itself around and
redefined the Matière de Bretagne.

First apology - for my delayed response.

Second apology - for my rustiness with the subject matter.

It's been nearly 10 years since I've actually entered into a serious
conversation with anyone on the Matter of Britain and the same amount of
time since I've done any reading or studying.

So, I've given myself a crash refresher course on the earliest texts:

Saint Gildas (c. 546) mentions Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelianus and Bath
Hill.

Bede (c. 730) pretty much follows suit with mentions of Vortigern,
Ambrosius Aurelianus but now, Badon Hill.

Nennius (c. 810) speaks of Vortigern and Ambrosius, but introduces
Ambrose (a Merlin figure) and for the first time, Arthur and 12 battles.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, variously in two texts (1136 and 1148) writes of
Vortigern, Merlin, and now a triumvirate of Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther
and Constans as brothers and gives a full tilt boogie Arthur story
including Mordred and others.

Robert Wace (c. 1155) is the first to write of the Knights of the Round
Table.

And finally Chretien, between 1140 and 1200, writes the first
"Romances", bringing Arthur into the whole scenario of Courtly Love and
so on.

The earliest of those of course comes 100 years or so after Arthur's
presumed activities. And none of them seem to claim any influence from
original Celtic legends, which we *think* we glean mostly or at least
significantly from the Mabinogion - a combining of two separate Medieval
era texts (the White Book of Rhydderch and Red Book of Hergest),
elements of which may or may not contain accurate documentation of those
early stories...

ach...I'm rambling.


Modern film and television series or t.v. series episodes seem to take
most of their material from Mallory, who was directly influenced by
Chretien and at least one step of literary/cultural influence in
between, i.e. Wolfram, with his introduction (around 1210) of Parzival.
But Mallory and Chretien seem to be the main culprits in the, how
shall I say, 'sissification' of the Arthur stories?

Oh boy, I know that's going to raise some hackles.

Not sure if I'm answering a question here John, or asking a whole bunch
of them. I think it's more likely the latter.

Bert

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton
[clippage]

Post by John W Kennedy
Yes, I'm talking about the massive cultural shift in Europe that
happened around Chrêtien's time, and that wrapped itself around and
redefined the Matière de Bretagne.

First apology - for my delayed response.
Second apology - for my rustiness with the subject matter.
It's been nearly 10 years since I've actually entered into a serious
conversation with anyone on the Matter of Britain and the same amount
of time since I've done any reading or studying.
Saint Gildas (c. 546) mentions Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelianus and Bath Hill.
Bede (c. 730) pretty much follows suit with mentions of Vortigern,
Ambrosius Aurelianus but now, Badon Hill.
Nennius (c. 810) speaks of Vortigern and Ambrosius, but introduces
Ambrose (a Merlin figure) and for the first time, Arthur and 12 battles.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, variously in two texts (1136 and 1148) writes of
Vortigern, Merlin, and now a triumvirate of Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther
and Constans as brothers and gives a full tilt boogie Arthur story
including Mordred and others.
Robert Wace (c. 1155) is the first to write of the Knights of the Round Table.
And finally Chretien, between 1140 and 1200, writes the first
"Romances", bringing Arthur into the whole scenario of Courtly Love and
so on.
The earliest of those of course comes 100 years or so after Arthur's
presumed activities. And none of them seem to claim any influence from
original Celtic legends, which we *think* we glean mostly or at least
significantly from the Mabinogion - a combining of two separate
Medieval era texts (the White Book of Rhydderch and Red Book of
Hergest), elements of which may or may not contain accurate
documentation of those early stories...
ach...I'm rambling.
Modern film and television series or t.v. series episodes seem to take
most of their material from Mallory, who was directly influenced by
Chretien and at least one step of literary/cultural influence in
between, i.e. Wolfram, with his introduction (around 1210) of Parzival.
But Mallory and Chretien seem to be the main culprits in the, how
shall I say, 'sissification' of the Arthur stories?

I'd have to say that the main influences on present-day Arthurs are T.
H. White (and Lerner and Lowe) and either John Boorman or Marion Zimmer
Bradley. But Malory was not influenced directly by Chrétien; Robert de
Boron and the anonymous authors of the Vulgate (aka "Lancelot-Grail",
aka "pseudo-Map cycle") and the Post-Vulgate (aka "pseudo-De-Boron
cycle") were the chief architects of what Malory received.

Post by Bert Olton
Oh boy, I know that's going to raise some hackles.
Not sure if I'm answering a question here John, or asking a whole bunch
of them. I think it's more likely the latter.
Bert

[Bert Olton]

Post by John W Kennedy
I'd have to say that the main influences on present-day Arthurs are T.
H. White (and Lerner and Lowe) and either John Boorman or Marion Zimmer
Bradley.

Excellent point.



But Malory was not influenced directly by Chrétien; Robert de

Post by John W Kennedy
Boron and the anonymous authors of the Vulgate (aka "Lancelot-Grail",
aka "pseudo-Map cycle") and the Post-Vulgate (aka "pseudo-De-Boron
cycle") were the chief architects of what Malory received.

Obviously my refresher course was a bit superficial and based on my own
poor education - or lack there of. But wasn't it Chretien who kind of
invented Lancelot? Wait a minute, that was first chronological
appearance, wasn't it? Zatzikhoven's writings showed that Chretien
hadn't invented the character. Oh boy. Guess I'd better cool it until
I've shaken out the cob webs.

Bert

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton

Post by John W Kennedy
I'd have to say that the main influences on present-day Arthurs are T.
H. White (and Lerner and Lowe) and either John Boorman or Marion Zimmer
Bradley.

Excellent point.
But Malory was not influenced directly by Chrétien; Robert de

Post by John W Kennedy
Boron and the anonymous authors of the Vulgate (aka "Lancelot-Grail",
aka "pseudo-Map cycle") and the Post-Vulgate (aka "pseudo-De-Boron
cycle") were the chief architects of what Malory received.

Obviously my refresher course was a bit superficial and based on my own
poor education - or lack there of. But wasn't it Chretien who kind of
invented Lancelot? Wait a minute, that was first chronological
appearance, wasn't it? Zatzikhoven's writings showed that Chretien
hadn't invented the character. Oh boy. Guess I'd better cool it until
I've shaken out the cob webs.

Chrétien introduced Lancelot to the main stream, at any rate, and he
separately introduced the Grail and Percival. But it was De Boron and
the Vulgate who defined the Grail as the Cup of the Last Supper and
introduced Joseph of Arimathea into the story, and who united the Grail
story with the Lancelot story by creating Galahad; then the
Post-Vulgate defined the sin of Arthur, his incest and adultery with
his half-sister, as the ultimate cause of the failure of Camelot.
Malory took all this, plus Tristan material from another source, to
make his book.

[Ken Arromdee]

Post by Bert Olton

Post by John W Kennedy
"Avalon High". Didn't catch it.

Right - "Avalon High" - sorry. A cutely done Disney production with re
incarnations of the Round Table crew placed in the present. With Arthur
as a beautiful young girl. Hey, why not, eh?

It was based on a book, and they changed the characters' identities--
everyone who was a red herring in the movie was the character they seemed to
be in the book (the main girl was the Lady of the Lake, not Arthur).

Incidentally, I suspected the girl could be Arthur almost instantly, and
knew it when I heard her name, though having played Fate/Stay Night less
than a year before that also helped.

[Bert Olton]

Post by Ken Arromdee
It was based on a book, and they changed the characters' identities--
everyone who was a red herring in the movie was the character they seemed to
be in the book (the main girl was the Lady of the Lake, not Arthur).

Ah. No surprise that Disney Studios re wrote things to suite the
current politically correct atmosphere.

Post by Ken Arromdee
Incidentally, I suspected the girl could be Arthur almost instantly, and
knew it when I heard her name, though having played Fate/Stay Night less
than a year before that also helped.

...lol...me too, but by the end of the film I was yelling, "NO!!!!"....

To put a more rational reaction to it, I really believe that the female
roles in any of the *very* early versions of the Arthurian stories are
not just adequate, but crucial and vibrant. Women in the stories don't
need to be transmuted into male characters to be relevant, important,
and good. The misogynistic overlays of Medieval writings are a shame.

Bert

[Bert Olton]

Post by Ken Arromdee

Post by Bert Olton

Post by John W Kennedy
"Avalon High". Didn't catch it.

Right - "Avalon High" - sorry. A cutely done Disney production with re
incarnations of the Round Table crew placed in the present. With Arthur
as a beautiful young girl. Hey, why not, eh?

It was based on a book, and they changed the characters' identities--
everyone who was a red herring in the movie was the character they seemed to
be in the book (the main girl was the Lady of the Lake, not Arthur).
Incidentally, I suspected the girl could be Arthur almost instantly, and
knew it when I heard her name, though having played Fate/Stay Night less
than a year before that also helped.

Have not seen Fate/Stay Night... I'll look it up.

Bert

[Ken Arromdee]

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Ken Arromdee
Incidentally, I suspected the girl could be Arthur almost instantly, and
knew it when I heard her name, though having played Fate/Stay Night less
than a year before that also helped.

Have not seen Fate/Stay Night... I'll look it up.

Fate/Stay Night is unrelated. But it does have a teenage girl as King
Arthur (in this case so she can be a love interest). The series is not
mainly about Arthurian mythos, however.

Fate/Stay Night is mostly known as a video game (which you can't get in
the West), though there is an animated series.

[Penner Theologius Pott]

It jumbles things around, just as "Excalibur" did, though not so much as
"Merlin" does.

Heh.  I'll still try to give it a watch.  Boorman's low budget, almost
home movie production at least made a valiant attempt at some epic feel.
  "Merlin", if I remember, bordered on 'soap opera'.

That was my take, as well. I actually just sat on a panel discussion
of the show at CONvergence (Minneapolis' big sci-fi convention) that I
found sort of fascinating, since there's a clear divide in the fanbase
between those who love the stories and are interested in how they're
being retold, and those who are just kind of squeeing over how cute
the boys are.

I actually find it agonizing to watch, in that it's *so damn close* to
being a really good show. I think the casting is brilliant, and that
the most inspired decision they made was turning Arthur into kind of a
douchebag. That said, yeah, soapy as hell. (In fairness, the original
romances are fairly soapy, as well...)

...my biggest beef isn't that they change stuff (the tradition, after
all, *is* one of continual re-invention) -- it's more that they tend
to take elements that were really interesting and complex, and
reintroduce in them in the form of fairly bland, generic-fantasy kind
of tropes. Nimue's a classic example: there's a *ton* of fascinating
stuff they could have done with that character and her relationship to
Merlin, and instead they turned her into a cackling supervillain.
Morgan le Fay started out with incredible promise and they pushed her
down pretty much the same road. I'm aware that there's a variety of
roles for Mordred in the original texts, but I'm very much in the camp
that he's more interesting with some kind of personal connection to
Arthur. Etc., etc....

-pabl

[Bert Olton]

Post by Penner Theologius Pott
That was my take, as well. I actually just sat on a panel discussion
of the show at CONvergence (Minneapolis' big sci-fi convention) that I
found sort of fascinating, since there's a clear divide in the fanbase
between those who love the stories and are interested in how they're
being retold, and those who are just kind of squeeing over how cute
the boys are.
I actually find it agonizing to watch, in that it's *so damn close* to
being a really good show. I think the casting is brilliant, and that
the most inspired decision they made was turning Arthur into kind of a
douchebag. That said, yeah, soapy as hell. (In fairness, the original
romances are fairly soapy, as well...)
...my biggest beef isn't that they change stuff (the tradition, after
all, *is* one of continual re-invention) -- it's more that they tend
to take elements that were really interesting and complex, and
reintroduce in them in the form of fairly bland, generic-fantasy kind
of tropes. Nimue's a classic example: there's a *ton* of fascinating
stuff they could have done with that character and her relationship to
Merlin, and instead they turned her into a cackling supervillain.
Morgan le Fay started out with incredible promise and they pushed her
down pretty much the same road. I'm aware that there's a variety of
roles for Mordred in the original texts, but I'm very much in the camp
that he's more interesting with some kind of personal connection to
Arthur. Etc., etc....
-pabl

Good analysis. I mentioned it to someone else here, but I'd really like
to see M. Night Shyamalan take on King Arthur.

Bert

[caspar milquetoast]

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

And by "true story" you mean...?

[John W Kennedy]

Post by caspar milquetoast

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

And by "true story" you mean...?

Exactly what I said. What it was that actually passed in the era
between the withdrawal of the Legions and the fall of Logres. We know
almost nothing for certain, but, for all its many faults, the Keira
Knightley movie comes closer than any other movie I know of to what is
likely to have happened.

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by caspar milquetoast

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

And by "true story" you mean...?

Exactly what I said. What it was that actually passed in the era between
the withdrawal of the Legions and the fall of Logres. We know almost
nothing for certain, but, for all its many faults, the Keira Knightley
movie comes closer than any other movie I know of to what is likely to
have happened.

Sorry, the word "story" confused me. You mean historical accuracy.

I'd agree with you as far as it bearing more of a resemblance to
sub-Roman Britain is concerned, although the whole connection with
Arthur is ridiculously tenuous.

Lucius Artorius Castus was a 2nd or early 3rd century Roman, when
Britannia was a settled Roman province, and not the 5th or 6th centuries
that Arthur is traditionally associated with.

Personally, I would like to see a movie about Ambrosius Aurelianus and
the real Ruin of Britain, with no mention of Arthur whatsoever.

[Penner Theologius Pott]

I can accept the idea of "closest", if only because its setting is sub-
Roman Britain -- though I've always found the Sarmatian knights
hypothesis to be dubious (most of the common elements they point to in
the stories don't show up in the texts until much, much later). I'll
confess that, while I've always found the problem of a historical
Arthur to be an intriguing historical mystery, ultimately I don't
really see the point creatively -- I'm in the camp that feels a
telling without elements like Lancelot and the Grail is missing
something.

-pabl

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by caspar milquetoast

And yet, out of all the films Hollywood has ever made on the subject, it
probably came closest to the true story. Sad, sad, sad.

And by "true story" you mean...?

Exactly what I said. What it was that actually passed in the era
between the withdrawal of the Legions and the fall of Logres. We know
almost nothing for certain, but, for all its many faults, the Keira
Knightley movie comes closer than any other movie I know of to what is
likely to have happened.
--
John W Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
  -- G. K. Chesterton

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Penner Theologius Pott
I can accept the idea of "closest", if only because its setting is sub-
Roman Britain -- though I've always found the Sarmatian knights
hypothesis to be dubious (most of the common elements they point to in
the stories don't show up in the texts until much, much later). I'll
confess that, while I've always found the problem of a historical
Arthur to be an intriguing historical mystery, ultimately I don't
really see the point creatively -- I'm in the camp that feels a
telling without elements like Lancelot and the Grail is missing
something.

I agree that the Vulgate-PostVulgate-Malory line is the mainstream, but
we're not going to see an intelligent treatment of that mainstream
Grail in the mass media as long as we're living in a world dominated by
atheists, Protestants, and people who think they're Roman Catholic
because their grandfathers were Irish. Look at Tennysson, or White.
Even when the Code was in place, and Roman Catholicism could tell
Hollywood what /not/ to do, all it could accomplish on the affirmative
side was a couple of movies starring Bing Crosby.

At this point, I would dearly love to insert a Grail-oriented parody of
"Swing on a Star", but, next weekend, King Arthur is facing the Emperor
Lucius at the Village Renaissance Faire (http://www.villagefaire.org)
in Wrightstown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and preparations are coming
down to the wire, so I'll have to forgo that, and just ask you to
imagine that I've written it. Something along the lines of:

Would you like achieving the Grail?
And carry Christ back home in a pail?
In your coat of virginal mail?
Or would you rather be a Turk?
etc., etc., etc..