King Arthur

King Arthur

I just saw King Arthur this weekend. He's doing all right, just got a haircut, thinking about buying a car, told me to tell you guys "Hi."

The movie was okay, but not great. I found Arthur's character kind of boring and flat. His "knights" were more interesting characters. The History Channel has been airing a show called "The Quest For King Arthur" or something like that (http://www.historychannel.com/kingarthur/), which delves into the story of the "real" Arthur upon whom the stories are based. According to the History Channel, there was no specific Arthur. There were a handful of individuals in the 5th and 6th centuries whose exploits may have been the bases of various elements of the Arthur tales, but no "Arthur" came into being until a 15th century priest decided to write a comprehensive history of the kings of Britain. It was apparently he who first detailed the exploits of Arthur, based on various tales and legends passed down through the centuries. He even added one bit about Stonehenge being a memorial of a summit meeting that became a massacre.

Interestingly, there were no rulers of that period who were known as Arthur or any derivation of that name. However, the word root "art" means "bear" in some language, I think it might have been the Celtic tongue. So it might have been an individual whose standard featured a bear. King Arthur was a heroic figure who led the Britons in their battle against the invading Angles and Saxons. Of course, eventually the invaders won and became dominant in England, and the Britons became the Welsh. The story of Arthur was popular among those who opposed the Anglo-Saxons, such as the Normans and, more recently, the French. The French had their popular novels about Arthur, and it was from the French that such elements as Lancelot and the name "Camelot" came.

The movie King Arthur is a very different take on the well-known characters. The advertising claims that this is the true story of King Arthur, and the movie opens with the claim that this is the story of the historical Arthur on whom the legends are based. In fact, the movie appears to be based on one of the many individuals who inspired the Arthur tales.

Artorius Castor is a Roman officer, one of the last remaining Romans as the empire pulls out of Britain. In the movie he battles Saxons, led by Stellan Skarsgaard who sounds like he came from Alabama while all his men are from London, and the Woads, the forest-dwelling Britons who paint themselves pale blue for battle. The Woads are led by the wise hippie Merlin.

There is no magic in the movie, though there are numerous references to the better-known legends of King Arthur, as well as many anachronistic elements. For example, the small band of elite, horse-riding warriors that Artorius leads are constantly referred to as "knights" even though knights per se were not to exist until centuries later. Several of his knights have familiar names: Gawain, Galahad, Tristan, and Artorius' sidekick, Lancelot, who makes numerous jokes about being a womanizer who would be happy to seduce his friends' wives at the first opportunity. Artorius also has a round table and an obsession with equality which are also later additions to the Arthurian legend. There's even a scene in which the young Artorius yanks a sword out of his father's burial mound, clearly intended to evoke the legendary Arthur pulling the sword from the stone.

The end result is a story that, in a way, has no relation to the King Arthur we know and love, but has Arthurian "brand names" applied to it. It makes me wonder if it would have been any different if the movie had been advertised as "the true story of Luke Skywalker" and named Clive Owen's character "Lucius Skywold" and Ioan Gruffodd "Hans Solo." Featuring Kiera Knightley as "Leigheia, princess of the Woad."