In seeking to demythify the Arthur legends, the filmmakers wind up creating a new mythology, one that is probably just as fanciful as those it attempts to replace.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
"After the death of Uther Pendragon, his son Arthur reigned, who had great war in his days to get all England into his hand...."
--Sir Thomas Malory, "Le Morte Darthur"
The problem with basing any motion picture on the life and times of King Arthur is deciding if the story should be about the legendary king of song and story or the possibly real-life king. Touchstone Picture's 2004 production of "King Arthur" takes the latter ground, in the process destroying the myth and possibly compromising the reality.
Before getting to the movie, however, a few words are in order about both the legend and the real man upon whom the legend may have been based. For those who just want to get on with the film review, you may safely skip the next few paragraphs.
The Arthur of Legend:
According to folklore, Arthur was a leader of the Britons in the fifth or sixth century, A.D., shortly after the departure of the Romans from England, a chieftain who helped unite the various other chieftains of the land in their fight against principally Saxon invaders. The trouble was, none of the stories about Arthur, if he did exist, were written down until hundreds of years after his death. When they were finally put to paper, the tales were expanded and embroidered at great length to the point where any possible veracity was inextricably woven into fiction. Writers like Gildas, Bede, Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Marie de France, Chretien de Troyes, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Sir Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Howard Pyle, T.H. White, Hal Foster, even John Steinbeck, to name but a few over the centuries, gave us their own views on the celebrated warrior king. Each time the tales were retold, they picked up new characters, new champions, new villains, new romances, new ladies in distress, new escapades, and new accomplishments. Which to believe? Probably none, but they're certainly entertaining.
Malory's "Le Mort Darthur," completed around 1470, was the first book to bring most of the known legends together into one compact volume, and it has been the definitive source of mythic Arthurian affairs ever since. In Malory's work we learn that Arthur was born at Tintagel Castle on the coast of Cornwall, the result of a union made possible through the magical intervention of Merlin the magician, who subsequently raised the boy. At an early age Arthur proved his worth by pulling a sword from a stone (or from an anvil, take your choice), thereby fulfilling a prophesy that such a one would become King of all the Britons (or King of England, although it wasn't as yet called England).
Arthur's first task was to bring together under one banner all the other kings of the island, which he did in a succession of bloody battles. Once banding all the other leaders together under one common rule, with Arthur at the head, the new king built a fabulous castle, Camelot, and gathered around him all the bravest knights of the country and beyond. To ensure that there would be no jealousy among them, a "Round Table" was built (or given to Arthur as a gift) that would seat all of them equally at council.
Next came years of great prosperity, where knights entertained themselves with chivalrous deeds, mighty quests (the Grail Quest being the most important of all), and tournaments. Subplots developed involving other personalities like Lancelot, Gawain, Tristan (or Tristram), Galahad, and the rest, plus the fair Queen Guinevere, the Lady of the Lake, and the lovely Isolde (or Iseult). In legend, Arthur finally met his end when at the battle of Camlan he killed and was himself killed by his illegitimate son (or nephew or whatever), Mordred. Thereupon, Arthur was taken away to the enchanted isle of Avalon, where some say he still lives. Or he is buried somewhere under a hill in a cave, sleeping until he is needed again. Or he was buried at Glastonbury Abbey. Again, pick your legend.
The Arthur of History:
There is no doubt that Arthur is England's greatest hero, a legend that will undoubtedly never die. But could there have been a real person on whom the legends are based? Probably. Although there isn't a shred of verifiable proof of Arthur's existence, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence indicating that at least somebody fitting Arthur's description lived at about the time the legends say he did.
For instance, there is archaeological evidence of a large building, probably a royal palace, at Tintagel dating from the time of Arthur's birth. There is further archaeological evidence of a large fortification on a hilltop at Cadbury, long thought to be the original location of Camelot. This fortification also dates from the time of Arthur and is the largest such fortification from that date ever found in England. Obviously, from its size, whoever lived there was among the most powerful chieftains or kings of the country at that time.
More important, actual records show that at about the time of Arthur's death, a real historical personage named Riathamus, a king or chieftain, led an army of 5,000 men to war in France, where he was mortally wounded, taken to the nearby town of Avallon, and died. The chieftain is never named as Arthur, but the title "Riathamus" means "King," and it can be surmised that Arthur may have been so well known at the time that records needed only to refer to him as "Riathamus," or "King." Geoffrey Ashe, historian and chairman of Debrett's Arthurian Committee, argues persuasively for Riathamus as Arthur (see his book "The Discovery of King Arthur" in the selected reading list at the end of this article). Furthermore, a "sword in a stone" might easily have referred to the stone molds that were used in medieval sword making; and there is even indication that an unusual number of children were christened "Arthur" in the century following the legendary Arthur's death, indicating that somebody of renown with that name probably accounted for the many namings in his behalf.
My own pet theory about Arthur is much like Ashe's, that such a man as Arthur existed and that he was a real king; that he was born of royal parentage at Tintagel Castle; that he grew up to lead the island's feuding chieftains to band together and fight off invaders after the departure of the Romans; that he built a castle-fortress near today's Cadbury; that he went off to war in France, was wounded and taken to Avallon, where he died; and that his body was returned for a proper royal burial at Glastonbury Abbey. Most everything else was added years later by fanciful storytellers.
The Movie:
So, what do any of these tales, legends, and histories have to do with the 2004 movie, "King Arthur," here reviewed in its extended, unrated Director's Cut? Very little, I'm afraid. And what do the extra thirteen minutes add that wasn't in the regular, 126-minute theatrical release? I couldn't say because I never saw the film before now. I can only assume the "unrated" designation means it was not submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America's Ratings Board. Since the Director's Cut contains no chancy scenes of sex, nudity, or profanity, I would have to guess that maybe if it were submitted for a rating, it might get an R for having a bit more bloody violence than its PG-13 theatrical-release counterpart.
Anyway, almost all previous Arthur movies have set the story in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries because that's when most of the legends were written down. But this "King Arthur" prefers to be more historically accurate by setting the story in the fifth century, a period when a possibly real Arthur may have lived. The trouble is, in its attempt to be historically accurate, the movie leaves out Camelot, Merlin's magic, the love triangle, the Holy Grail, the quests, the chivalry, the tournaments, the glamor, and almost all of the mystery. And where's the fun in that?
Yet, at the same time, the filmmakers want to give us an action-adventure movie with a smattering of romance and political philosophy. As a matter of fact, the movie winds up doing little more than showing us two-plus hours' worth of Arthur fighting off invading Saxons, becoming involved with Guinevere, and doing one heck of a lot of speechmaking. It doesn't feel like two-plus hours well spent.
"King Arthur" is prefaced with a note saying that the film is based on recent archaeological evidence, but it never explains what this recent "evidence" is and makes but the hastiest of references in the closing credits and a bonus featurette to historical consultant John Matthews. (From his Web site, I learned that "Mr. Matthews and his wife Caitlin are co-founders of The Foundation of Inspirational and Oracular Studies. Together they have pioneered the shamanic use of the vatic and spiritual elements within ancestral and Celtic traditions.") The only facts I can see about this Arthur narrative is that it's based on a single archaeological theory--mostly conjecture, supposition, and guess work--and the vivid imaginations of screenwriter David Franzoni ("Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Amistad," "Gladiator"), producer Jerry Bruckheimer ("Pearl Harbor," "Armageddon," "Pirates of the Caribbean"), and director Antoine Fuqua ("Bait," "Training Day," "Lightning in a Bottle").
The movie tells us that Arthur (Clive Owen) was an ancestral chieftain of the Britons, having a mother who was a native Briton and a father who was a Roman. (Arthur's full name is given as Lucius Artorius Castus, and, in point of fact, such a person did exist; however, it was around 184 A.D., almost three hundred years earlier.) As the movie begins, in the late fifth century, the Romans are about to depart the country after occupying it for some four hundred years, but they continue to need Arthur's help. Arthur, you see, is the leader of a dedicated group of personal followers, expert horsemen whom the Romans captured in Sarmatia (in ancient times, a region in eastern Europe, north of the Black Sea) and placed in Arthur's service. Arthur and his "knights" (from an Old English word meaning a military follower) of the Round Table (yes, there is at least a Round Table in the movie, although it has no historical footing) have for some time been assisting the Roman Empire in defending the southern half of the island against rebels from the North, Picts they were called, although in the movie they are alluded to as "Woads," an obscure reference to the Picts coloring their bodies blue using dyes made from the woad plant. (The Romans did bring Sarmatian horsemen into England, but automatically assuming that they were the bases for the Round Table knights is stretching the point; and by the time the Romans left England, the Picts has ceased to be a problem.)
But now that the Romans are leaving, the Roman authorities want Arthur and his men to do them one last favor: The knights are asked to travel north across Hadron's Wall and escort a Roman family of nobility back to safer climes. (The Romans discontinued use of Hadrian's Wall in about 410 A.D., but close enough.) The dangers are not only from the Picts but, more significantly, from an invading Saxon army. If they help out, the knights will earn their freedom and be assured of returning safely to their homeland. The knights are not too keen on the idea of helping the Romans one last time, but they will do almost anything Arthur requests them to do, and Arthur persuades them it's in their best interests.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]13043[/release]