Arthurian Legends: Captured On Film


If the literature of the Arthurian Legends lingers long in the halls of academia, it’s only because there is some undeniable force driving the story through each generation.  In the age of popular media such as television, film, and the internet, King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table finally get faces beyond the ethereal beauty of romantic paintings and etchings.

They have voices and movement, physical expression and thus, an extra link between the abstraction of their existence as characters and the solidity of their humanness.  Fair haired Arthur, dark Lancelot, and beautiful Guinevere are rendered real; for just a little while the audience can believe in their performance and the fairy tale of their reality, but let’s face it: if these characters were ever real, what are the chances they were this physically attractive?

In Film

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

Disney is notorious for lifting stories from other people, sanitizing (or Disney-fying) them and paying a bunch of animation artists and other assorted important and vital folk to make a film out of it all.  As a kid, this was one of my absolutely favorites.  As an adult, I now realize T.H. White did it first, but come on.  Disney wasn’t all that bad.  In fact, this is one of the few Disney movies I can rewatch any time of the year because I love it so darn much. I can still recite lines, love the loony little songs, and think animals should be capable of human speech.

 

Monthy Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

It’s a rare individual who hasn’t seen this film.  Of those that have, many can recite lines verbatim.  Some even dress up in costume as King Arthur and his horseless Knights of the Round Table (trust me, I’ve seen it at WonderCon and really wish I had taken video—they had coconuts!).  The British have a knack for entertaining me well.  This version is probably one of those cult classic favorites that needs to be watched on principle (to say, “I’ve seen it!”), but really: it’s hilarious and goofy and I love it.

 

First Knight (1995)

Readers, I have this movie.  I was going to watch it again to write about it here, fresh from the DVD, but this version does so many melodramatic things that I couldn’t bring myself to do that.  Arthur has anger problems, Lancelot is Richard Gere—really, the list goes on.

 

King Arthur (2004)

I must look like a terrible fan, but I’ve never seen this version.  I’m always put off by the versions that want to be “dramatic” and “real” because they always turn out melodramatic and ridiculous.  I wasn’t enamored to see Keira Knightley as Guinevere, honestly.

 

Tristan + Isolde (2006)

Have I seen this? No.  Do I know the story? Mostly.  It’s another tragic Arthurian love story beyond Camelot with two star-crossed individuals who just can’t keep it in their pants/skirts.  Another version that threatens to take itself too seriously.

On Television

Merlin (1998)

In this made for television mini series, Sam Neill portrays the wizard Merlin as the protagonist in a larger story that seems to push Arthur and all the rest into the sidelines.  It’s one of the first times the legend is told through a perspective that isn’t Arthur’s or an omniscient narrator.  As a result, there is a lot of Sam Neill in this movie and not all of it is good (Sam Neill does not look good with long hair).  There’s something kitschy and entertaining about this low budget series.  At only three episodes, it still manages to drag on until the final half hour, but if a slower pace is favorable, this would be a good place to start.  Although as a warning: the main antagonist whispers throughout the entire movie.  And my favorite characters only became my favorite characters at the very end, when tragedy strikes.  Typical.

 

Merlin (BBC) (2008)

The BBC always manages to make some of my favorite productions and this is no different.  If television were books, this would be a YA one, but a really fantastic and addictingly good one.  An utterly un-putdownable one.  The kind of book I would thrust into my friends hands and say, “Read this, trust me.” (coincidentally, I have made many people watch this and they’ve liked it.)  I’ll gush about this more tomorrow, but honestly, what I love about this show is watching the characters grow into their destinies, which are so very large.  The special effects are hit and miss, but the music is fantastic (I bought one of the soundtracks), and the cinematography improves with each season, much like the plot.  And this plot evolves.  Unlike the Sam Neill adaptation, in which it seemed as if the producers merely wanted to get through as many Arthurian “things” as possible (Excalibur: check, Guinevere: check, Lancelot: check), this “Merlin” takes its time and weaves subplots together through different seasons.  Not only does the audience get to see the characters change, but the legend transforms itself on screen as it begins to reveal itself in a more or less seamless (almost effortless) presentation tied together with charm, humor, and the thing I love above all: the fact that it doesn’t take itself too seriously.  I honestly feel that alone is the major downfall of most versions of the legend, no matter the medium.  Also: this version has a dragon.

 

Camelot (2010)

This premieres in April on Starz (see the trailer here).  It has a big name cast (the bloke with the sword is Arthur) and, like every other rendition, attempts to do what others have not (although the Morgana/Arthur throne thing is dealt with in the BBC version).  Clearly, at this point, that means nothing; all versions are different—how well each executes their particular version of events is debatable.  I don’t get the Starz channel, nor do I have any real plans to watch this.  Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare!) is tempting, but when one of the leads refers to the series as “fleshy” I bow out gracefully.

What other Arthurian renditions in film or television are your favorites?

About these ads

11 thoughts on “Arthurian Legends: Captured On Film

  1. Doesn’t the myth of Tristan and Isolde predate the King Arthur myth? That’s what I always heard, that the love story of Tristan and Isolde was what likely influenced the romance King Arthur. Wikipedia appears to agree with me (not that it’s an expert, obviously): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_and_isolde

    Anyway, I liked the movie. I also liked King Arthur and enjoyed its take on Guinevere. Not saying you’ll like either film if you watch them, but I enjoyed them both, and the score for King Arthur was particularly enjoyable! :)

    But you left off the The Mists of Avalon mini-series! Of course, it’s not OMGAMAZING or anything, but it’s enjoyable, and it led me to wanting to read the book (that I’m still halfway through). Also, where’s Excaliber?

    • It largely depends on what version of the myth you choose to believe (here is a great site for Arthurian references, but this page in particular, Tristan and Isolde: http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/n&q/tristan.htm ). Some have Tristan as one of Arthur’s knights when Everything Happens, some have Tristan left after Arthur’s death, etc… The movie may have taken a prequel route.

      At some point, I think I’ll try the Kiera Knightley version. I haven’t been too taken with her performances on film, so we’ll see how it goes.

      Ah! I barely knew about the Avalon mini series! I’m not familiar with “Excalibur.” Although, there is a movie I’ve been trying to name for several months and this may very well be it…

      • With these types of legends, it’s easy how things can blur. So I can see how in some cases, the myth is concurrent with Arthur, but I’ve seen other cases (and not just this movie) that indicate the myth predates Arthur, so who knows? It’s like Robin Hood, in many ways: a legend that’s adapted for its times, probably based on a real person or a group of real people, but the legend is far more important than the fact.

        • That sums up how I largely feel about these things. I have run into some fans who believe whichever version predates another is more “right,” even though that discredits the vast amount of re-imagining and re-working done from far more previous versions floating around to make that one…

          Part of the reason why I adore “Merlin” so much is it’s ability to take itself lightly and recognize that the show might as well be fun since there is no absolute inarguable truth that the legend is anything more than based very loosely on facts far too old for us to have discovered any firm basis in reality.

          I agree whole-heartedly: the legend is more important than the fact at this point. I don’t mean to do a disservice to the academic study of it, of course…

  2. You have inspired me to check out some Arthur movie versions…have not thought of that…hmm…
    Anyway, I have seen Tristan and Isolde…I liked the movie, and I honestly did not see a Arthur connection. Although, I do not have all my Arthur facts.
    By the way, I too, am not a fan of Keira Knightley, but I am thinking of viewing King Arthur just because I am curious.

    • Usually if you are unaware the Tristan and Isolde story is part of the Arthurian Legend, then it’s not easy to figure out, if at all, on viewing/reading.

      I’ve wanted to watch this movie, even if I did poke fun at the idea that this one looks very dramatic! :)

  3. Hi Erika, sorry, I’m late to this discussion.

    I came across this essay, and thought you’d be interested in it:
    The Malorian Enigma: Starz’s Camelot and the Misguided Adaptation. It’s a thoughtful analysis about what’s important in the Malory work, and how adaptations fail to grasp what’s truly interesting and compelling in it.

    Not on your film list, but should be:
    John Boormin’s Excalibur. Juicy! Slightly dated, but still big, ambitious and effective. Oscar nominations.

    Robert Bresson’s Lancelot du Lac. Minimalist, challenging, deep, rewarding to the patient and adventurous viewer. Bresson is an unusual film maker, worth reading about and watching some of his films.

    I have to admit, I watched the first episode of Merlin based on your enthusiasm, but it’s not my cup of tea. Too cute by far, and too much “for TV” in the script. But I’m a curmudgeon, that’s what they pay me for. (…no, not really.)

    • Thank you for the link to the essay. I don’t have high hopes for “Camelot,” even not having read Le Morte D’Arthur in its entirety (I have, however, enjoyed comparing excerpts from several different versions I own). It screams too much of easy entertainment (sex, war, melodrama), very reminiscent of Showtime’s “The Tudors.” Although I’m not so attached to the history of Henry VIII to be overly sensitive about the popcorn-munching enthusiasm of that show. :)

      Someone else pointed out “Excalibur” and I have to admit: I swear this is a version I’ve watched but just don’t remember it! The other I have not heard of, but that’s why I made these posts! I’ve been very impressed with other people’s recommendations. :)

      You know, I realize “Merlin” is not a show for everyone, but I really do appreciate you taking the time to try watching the first episode (which toys with ideas never really pursued past this one: Arthur and Morgana as a love interest, Merlin and Gwen as a love interest; the first episode seemed to push the lusty youthfulness a far more than the rest of the series). That was very kind of you! The show has gotten considerably darker and a bit more on the serious side for the third season, but retains a nice balance between light-heartedness and drama that I can’t get enough of. But I’ve raved enough about it already! Thank you for trying it out, Opally. :)

  4. I’ll throw in a third for John Boorman’s “Excalibur” (and it’s been around long enough that it very well might be the film you’ve seen but can’t remember). It takes itself & the welter of Arthurian history seriously, if in a Big-Budget Hollywood sort of way. Mostly well-cast, definitely dark, shows its prejudices in terms of satisfying Big-Budget Hollywood expectations of violence & sexiness, though certainly unlikely to be as “fleshy” as the Starz version (which I have had no exposure to).

    And how could you possibly forget the musical “Camelot?” IMDb not readily accessible to tell me precisely, but old enough (50s? 60s?) that a youthful Richard Burton is one of the leads. Somewhat dated, but total campy fun, with an excellent score (if you like musicals). My personal favorite song is “Seven Deadly Sins.” It’s now likely to have audience appeal similar to “Sword in the Stone.”

    • oh yes, mectech, Camelot! Vanessa Redgrave as Guinevere. Richard Harris plays the lead (not Burton). Lovely Lerner & Loewe musical, one of the last. Based on The Once and Future King which was popular in the 60′s. Rather dated I’d imagine, but lovely.

    • You’ll have to forgive any ignorance on my part: I don’t believe I was even aware there was a musical! It sounds like I might have to track it down and watch one of these days. ;)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s