King Arthur (The Movie)
Discussion
I have just watched King Arthur it was a good idea for a Movie, ie to try and peel back the Arthurian myth and present a far more historically real depiction of what may have happened, however it is let down by massive historical inaccuracies and a political message it tries to force down our throats.
First of all is the treatment of the Saxons, it seems that Hollywood’s depiction of the English as evil needs to extend back to the dawn of our history. Thus, despite the film being based around Hadrian’s wall the enemy are Saxons.
Cerdic and Cynric, the leaders depicted, actually ruled the West Saxons that settled what became known as Wessex in southern England.
The north of Britain was actually the last area to see the Anglo-Saxons gain considerable influence.
In the film the Saxons are depicted as murdering all the Britons (this is Hollywood after all), the Saxon invasion was not a time of joy and laughter but they did not tend to slaughter all the original inhabitants, and would certainly have intermarried with native women, and it is worth noting that, Cerdic is a CELTIC name. He may well have been a Briton leader who intermarried with the West Saxons, invited them to Britain as allies, and led them against fellow Britons (the Gewisse theory). Ironically, in the movie Cerdic has a line about not mixing with the Britons and diluting their good Saxon blood.
The movie was quite anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. Not surprising, this is Hollywood after all, but having every clerical person or devout Christian being either a raving lunatic or power hungry Papal pawn?
The most blatant error is that the Pope was presented as having real political influence, which was true in the medieval period NOT in the Dark Ages. The bishops of Gaul (France) would have had some interaction with Britain. Actually, most Christians in Britain were Celtic Catholics, not Roman Catholics, and the Pope would have had limited influence in the Islands. It took a few centuries to bring these Celtic Catholics over to Roman adherence.
I could go on about the historical inaccuracies, the fact that the Saxons were using crossbows, that the Britons seemed to be using Trebuchets (WTF?), but I will stop there and move on to the political message rammed down our throat.
That blah blah organised religion is evil, everyone should be equal, Rome is evil etc. I found it particularly ironic that the Sarmatians knights, who spent most of the movie raving about freedom, if they had returned home would have joined their people as subjects of the Goths or the Huns.
Beyond this the movie itself was a bit plodding and not particularly inspiring.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 29th September 11:13
First of all is the treatment of the Saxons, it seems that Hollywood’s depiction of the English as evil needs to extend back to the dawn of our history. Thus, despite the film being based around Hadrian’s wall the enemy are Saxons.
Cerdic and Cynric, the leaders depicted, actually ruled the West Saxons that settled what became known as Wessex in southern England.
The north of Britain was actually the last area to see the Anglo-Saxons gain considerable influence.
In the film the Saxons are depicted as murdering all the Britons (this is Hollywood after all), the Saxon invasion was not a time of joy and laughter but they did not tend to slaughter all the original inhabitants, and would certainly have intermarried with native women, and it is worth noting that, Cerdic is a CELTIC name. He may well have been a Briton leader who intermarried with the West Saxons, invited them to Britain as allies, and led them against fellow Britons (the Gewisse theory). Ironically, in the movie Cerdic has a line about not mixing with the Britons and diluting their good Saxon blood.
The movie was quite anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. Not surprising, this is Hollywood after all, but having every clerical person or devout Christian being either a raving lunatic or power hungry Papal pawn?
The most blatant error is that the Pope was presented as having real political influence, which was true in the medieval period NOT in the Dark Ages. The bishops of Gaul (France) would have had some interaction with Britain. Actually, most Christians in Britain were Celtic Catholics, not Roman Catholics, and the Pope would have had limited influence in the Islands. It took a few centuries to bring these Celtic Catholics over to Roman adherence.
I could go on about the historical inaccuracies, the fact that the Saxons were using crossbows, that the Britons seemed to be using Trebuchets (WTF?), but I will stop there and move on to the political message rammed down our throat.
That blah blah organised religion is evil, everyone should be equal, Rome is evil etc. I found it particularly ironic that the Sarmatians knights, who spent most of the movie raving about freedom, if they had returned home would have joined their people as subjects of the Goths or the Huns.
Beyond this the movie itself was a bit plodding and not particularly inspiring.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 29th September 11:13
AlexH said:
Do yourself a favour and get hold of Excalibur instead. About as historically accurate as a Hollywood treatment of a British wartime success, but a cracking film...one of my all time favourites.
I've seen it once, doesn't it have a scene where a knight makes love to a woman while wearing full armour.
silversun said:
I liked it. I know it's not historically accurate but seeing as we have very little primary or even secondary evidence of what actually happened, and the fact that it's a film made to entertain I think a little artistic licence is allowed!
We do have a fair amount of records from the time, and if I have to sit through a film thinking well that's boll*x every 5 minutes I don't enjoy it.
JagLover said:
I liked it. I know it's not historically accurate but seeing as we have very little primary or even secondary evidence of what actually happened, and the fact that it's a film made to entertain I think a little artistic licence is allowed!
We do have a fair amount of records from the time, and if I have to sit through a film thinking well that's boll*x every 5 minutes I don't enjoy it.
Well, don't watch it then! Christ on a bike, does it really matter that much??
I was, similarly, unhappy with the historical accuracy of the film (King Arthur), but one thing I DID like is at least they got the armour correct. No shiny full body tin suits, etc.
Excaliber was a really good interpretation of the legend.
Somebody in Hollywood, however, needs to do a movie based on the Mary Stewart books The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, and The Last Enchantment. Done correctly, that would be worth going to the theater to see (maybe even as a LOTR style trilogy).
ErnestM
Excaliber was a really good interpretation of the legend.
Somebody in Hollywood, however, needs to do a movie based on the Mary Stewart books The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, and The Last Enchantment. Done correctly, that would be worth going to the theater to see (maybe even as a LOTR style trilogy).
ErnestM
I'm actually looking forward to the Chronicles of Narnia! 
JagLover said:
Do yourself a favour and get hold of Excalibur instead. About as historically accurate as a Hollywood treatment of a British wartime success, but a cracking film...one of my all time favourites.
I've seen it once, doesn't it have a scene where a knight makes love to a woman while wearing full armour.
Thats Uther Pendragon conceiving Arthur with Igraine, completely necessary to plot and the
aren't gratuitous at all!JagLover said:
I liked it. I know it's not historically accurate but seeing as we have very little primary or even secondary evidence of what actually happened, and the fact that it's a film made to entertain I think a little artistic licence is allowed!
We do have a fair amount of records from the time, and if I have to sit through a film thinking well that's boll*x every 5 minutes I don't enjoy it.
Avoid as many hollywood movies as possible then, I do, my blood pressure has gone right down
ErnestM said:
I was, similarly, unhappy with the historical accuracy of the film (King Arthur), but one thing I DID like is at least they got the armour correct. No shiny full body tin suits, etc.
Excaliber was a really good interpretation of the legend.
Somebody in Hollywood, however, needs to do a movie based on the Mary Stewart books The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, and The Last Enchantment. Done correctly, that would be worth going to the theater to see (maybe even as a LOTR style trilogy).
ErnestM
In a similar vien I always thought 'Legend' by David Gemmel would make a great movie.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff