Hollywood's King Arthur

The Arthurian legends have always pulled me. I have invested quite a bit of time exploring the Middle-Ages (man, do people butcher the history of the Crusades or what?) and it's impossible to not cross hairs with King Arthur.

Aside from the literature, Malory's La Morte d'Arthur and the epic Sir Gawain and the Green Knight were the first book and poem respectively I read on the subject, the greatest film I've seen to date about King Arthur was the British film Excalibur (1981). I haven't seen one that's come close since. Although I'm not sure if the French, who basically invented the Arthurian romances thanks to one Chretien de Troyes (who I am actually starting to read tonight), have tackled Arthur at the movies.

So, with much tepid exhuberance, I sat to watch the stoically titled King Arthur (2004) starring Clive Owen.

Let me start by saying it wasn't that bad. But it wasn't great either. It lacked the romantic and grand spirit of the Arthurian myth.

In other words, they didn't work what makes King Arthur legends the story - Excalibur, Merlin (who came off more as a political than wizard), the Round Table, the Arthur-Lancelot-Guinevere love triangle, Camelot, the Holy Grail, and Lady of the Lake were all kept to a distant if mentioned at all. To say nothing of no mention of Sir Percival.  Remove all this and you're left with just another "freedom and axes" movie. Indeed, I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't watching Braveheart.

I guess one can interpret the film as the Star Wars prequels in that it establishes the King Arthur fable. I understand they chose to take another route. It took a modern approach while casting aside the traditional story lines. It was an interesting twist to take, that is Arthur (who is the son of a Roman officer and Celtic mother in the film though the accepted belief is he is the son of Pendragon King of Britain) and his Knights seeking their freedom from Rome in the 5th century and battling the Saxons to protect their homeland, but it wasn't convincing to the extent of how we view the mystical Arthur.

Last I checked, the universal themes of love, loyalty and betrayal were the essence of the Arthurian legends, not freedom. The knights came off as Montana libertarians more than anything.

Certain things can't be messed around with. Just like you can't mess with a song's melody, the same can be said with a movie. If you do, you'd better make it memorable and I'm not sure it succeeded.


One thing I didn't like was the treatment of Guinevere. Enough already with the post-modern take on the Middle-Ages. Seeing her in battle among the Woads (in the film she's a Woad - used to describe Picts; a point of contention for historians - but in early accounts she is of Roman heritage) was a bit much. No evidence whatsoever suggests she ever picked up a sword. I wasn't a fan of the reworking of Bors turning him into a, well, a boorish whore. He was nothing of the sort.

As for Lancelot, you couldn't get more pedastrian for what is perhaps the most legendary of all the Knights of the Round Table.

I suppose, like all Hollywood films, the use of historical facts, religion and military weapons were also used liberally but not the point of this post.

Bottom line is if you're not invested in the historical value of King Arthur and could care less that Merlin and Lancelot actually made their respective entrances in the Arthurian legends later on, then this is a decent, entertaining movie. If you're a stickler for traditionalism and accuracate facts. Move along. It's not for you.