I saw King Arthur a couple of days ago. I found three things interesting:
You may rip me to shreds now.
What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? I bet they didn’t have an answer to that one.
I have checked out many reviews for Arthur, I may go see it still because I like the epic babaric battle scenes, but most of the reviewers have said that they cannot get the movies studios to say what evidence they have for their prologue. Most feel it is just a ploy to get people to watch. It seems much like Hidalgo, which was touted as a true story, but many of the articles on it could not find any evidence of the race or the man portrayed in the film.
Don’t get me started on this film. I haven’t seen it, and there is good reason why. My main reason is that they portray Gwenwhyfar (Guenivere, or however the hell else it is spelt) as some tough chick who could hold her own with any man in battle. 
I’m sorry, but no. She was raised in a convent. She probably would piss herself if she even had to touch a bow and arrow.
When they say Arthur’s father was a Roman, did they mean that he was actually from Rome? Or could he have been some guy who was enamored with Rome and followed their customs, etc.?
My favorite interpretation of the story is Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. It tells the story from the point of view of Morgan La Fey and is very well done. If you havent read it, I suggest it. Mind you, it is a long book and can be a bit slow moving, but it is fairly realistic, I feel. Don’t watch the movie, though, since it differs a lot from the book.
I’m not watching King Arthur simply because Jerry Bruckheimer, the master of “let’s blow up random shit every 30 seconds” filmmaking is involved. And because it looks like shit.
I’ll see it when it comes out on DVD, but only because its got that small-titted girl dressed up in fetish gear.
Then I’ll read The Once and Future King.
Small titted? Looking at the trailers it looks like they went out of their way to make it look like she’s got no tits at all. Which is a crying shame.
The ‘real’ King Arthur is an amalgam of at least two historical figures from the 5th and 6th centuries for whom little information survives, spiced up with elements from British Celtic mythology that predate this era.
To say that there is new evidence that Arthur was Roman not Celtic is just silly. You could say there was someone called Artorius of whom stories contributed to the myth of King Arthur. There’s a big difference.
A lot of more recent, semi-historic Arthurian stories portray Arthur as a Romanised Celt or belonging to such a family after the Romans had left. I like this interpretation.
‘Mists of Avalon’, that someone mentioned is a good Arthurian story, but I prefer Mary Stewart’s trilogy ‘The Crystal Cave’, ‘The Hollow Hill’ and one I forget the name of, which tell the story of Merlin, and a sequel which follows Mordred. But the best modern Arthurian story, must be TH White’s Once and Future King. Another favourite of mine is the Arthurian detective novel ‘Idylls of the Queen’ which draws on a superb knowledge of Malory.
I used to be a huge fan of Arthurian myth and literature. I really should go and see the movie.
Brian
Actually it looks like that’s all the more reason not to go see it.
Just like Troy should be renamed “3 hotties and a really big horse”, King Arthur should be renamed “7 hunky blokes and a babe in warpaint”. The movie will be seen not for the story but for the eye candy.
Keira is actually a good little actress though…loved her in Bend it like Beckham (she doesn’t have tits in there either). And I loved Clive Owen in those BMW films.
“Arthur” may or may not have existed as a historical figure. A lot of it depends on what sort of person would have had to have existed for us to consider him to be Arthur.
It’s a bit like saying that Santa Claus–his contemporary, I suppose–existed, but as a bishop who lived in Smyrna / Myra rather than the North Pole.
I don’t know where they’re pulling this Roman stuff from, unless just to illustrate the general tenor of the times. Arthur’s myth does owe something to the image of the Roman Empire, but any historical person would surely just be a native “dux bellorum” (war-chieftain, roughly) who seems to have venerated the Virgin Mary, and had a son and a dog who later received cultic veneration.
One of the worst movies ever made. And I’m not being melodramatic. I read “Le Morte d’Artur”, “Once and future King”, and “The mists of Avalon” so I love the tale. Waste of $$$ and time.
They distorted the already fictitious story so badly, they should have gone the whole way and had Arthur die a slow and painful death and Guenivere take his place. At least she’s prettier, and that’s all the film was good for: looks. I had some time to kill and just wanted something to look at when I saw it, so I was not “disappointed” to see the film. But money would have been better spent on a book.
There is talk of the mythical blade, Excalibur, being the same sword that Caesar took into battle (which in legend was also magical).
In the movie Troy, there was a scene in which several characters (Hector and Paris I believe) talk about a sword sacred or important to the City itself. It was not taken into battle for fear of its loss and I wonder if Aeneas took that sword with him when he fled to Italy?
The Sword of Troy=Caesar’s= Excalibur? Who knows, but it is fun to speculate.
For those of you interested in the Trojan War, I would also thoroughly recommend “The Firebrand” by Marion Zimmer Bradley. It looks at the Trojan War through the eyes of Cassandra – one of the Trojan priestesses. Read it when I was 14, but I can still remember enjoying it immensely.
A far better film interpretation of the Arthurian legend is John Boorman’s “Excalibur” (1981). Of course, it doesn’t make any historical claims, it’s fully mythical, and has a very rich, romantic feel to it. Has a great theme of linking excalibur/magic/the king to the land… awesome movie, one of my favourite films ever. Far better than this crap.