Excalibur

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

We shouldn't confuse the legendary Arthur with the possibility of a real-life Arthur. In 2004 we saw the mixed results of a Hollywood studio trying to base a movie on bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence regarding a real-life basis for the myth. It pays to go with tradition and the customary King Arthur of lore. It makes for a lot more fun. As does this new, high-definition HD-DVD transfer of one of the very best movie versions of the Arthur legend ever, John Boorman's 1981 production, "Excalibur." No, "Excalibur" is not the story of a former bullet. It's the name of Arthur's sword. The movie is often visually stunning, and the soundtrack music, based largely on snippets of Richard Wagner and Carl Orff, is a joy.

For nearly fifteen hundred years the tales of Arthur have kept people enthralled, their appeal diminishing only in the latter part of the twentieth century when superheroes with trench coats full of gadgetry replaced knights in shining armor. But director Boorman ("Point Blank," "Deliverance") revived the folklore, the pageantry, the derring-do, and the magic that had worked so well for ages, and he couldn't have done it better. "Excalibur" is romantic and brutal, lyrically beautiful yet grittily realistic.

No one is sure if Arthur actually existed as mythology portrays him, but it's pretty clear somebody existed. Arthurian scholar Geoffrey Ashe argues convincingly that the fifth-century British king Riothamus was the prototype for the character. Whatever, for the next five hundred years the oral tradition celebrated Arthur's deeds. Then by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries came the histories of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the poetry of Chretien de Troyes, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and others that really got the ball rolling. By the late fifteenth century Sir Thomas Mallory collected and wrote up the most famous narrative of Arthur's exploits, "Le Morte D'Arthur," 1485, and director Boorman based his film upon this account.

It is remarkable that Boorman and writer Rospo Pallenberg were able so successfully to condense most of the familiar stories into a mere two hours and twenty minutes of screen time. While the great love triangle of Tristan, Isolde, and King Mark is noticeably absent, along with Sir Gareth and Sir Galahad, almost everything else is properly in its place.

The picture begins with Arthur's birth at Tintagel on the coast of Cornwall, continues with his rearing by the necromancer Merlin, and relates his ascension to the throne by the pulling out of the sword Excalibur from the stone. Next, we see him uniting the various divided British kingdoms under one rule, then his marriage to Guinevere, and the subsequent betrayal of his wife and his best friend, Lancelot. Finally, in the second half of the film comes the Grail Quest, the collapse of the Round Table, the treachery of Morgana and Mordred, and the final battle and death of Arthur.

Any one of these episodes could be, and has been, the subject of an individual film. To have covered them all is quite an accomplishment. Boorman even manages to resolve some internal discrepancies among the many conflicting versions of the legend. Like where did Arthur really obtain the sword Excalibur? Was it the blade he drew from the stone, as some tales imply, or was it the gift he received from one of the Ladies of the Lake, as other accounts would have it? The movie cleverly has it both ways.

If there is any serious controversy about the movie, it's Boorman decision to clothe almost all the knights in full body armor, even though neither a real-life nor mythical Arthur would have worn such gear. And not only does the director have his actors fight in full armor, he has them wearing metal suits almost throughout the film. At one point, a character makes love wearing his armor, which must have been painful to both participants. Still, it is knights in shining armor that people expect, so it is knights in shining armor that Boorman provides. I have to admit, historically correct or not, seeing Sir Lancelot sheathed head-to-toe in gleaming silver plate is an rousing sight.

Among the many elements that make the movie work is its cast. Nigel Terry plays Arthur from youth through older adulthood. While he is slightly more convincing as the naive youngster than as the world-weary old king, his performance is steady. Cherie Lunghi as Guinevere is beautiful and effective in her youthful buoyancy and her later maturity. Nicholas Clay as Lancelot takes on a part that calls upon him to do little more than look appropriately handsome and heroic. He succeeds. The real scene stealers, however, are Nicol Williamson as the canny Merlin and Helen Mirren as his nemesis, Morgana (also known in the myths as Morgan Le Fay). John Boorman tells us in his narration that the two actors did not like each other at the time of the filming, in fact, didn't even want to appear together but Boorman thought the friction might actually intensify their roles. It seems to have worked.

The supporting ensemble is no less effective and features some prominent names: Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon, Liam Neeson as Sir Gawain, Patrick Stewart as Leondegrance, Paul Geoffrey as Percival, and Clive Swift as Sir Ector. Boorman filmed the movie entirely in the Republic of Ireland, and the location shooting is green and lush and luxuriant. Adding to the grandness of the action are musical excerpts from Orff's "Carmina Burana" and Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde," "Parsifal," and "Gotterdammerung."

Video:

---

---