# Film: King Arthur (2004)



## Anthony G Williams (Oct 2, 2011)

This one falls loosely into the "fantasy" category. It is a very different take on the Arthurian legend, and is claimed to be far more realistic than the usual medieval mythology. The hero, Artorius Castus (Clive Owen), is depicted as a commander of the Sarmatian cavalry, an auxiliary force to the Roman Army, based in Britain by Hadrian’s Wall at the time of the Roman departure in the fifth century AD. He and his men have to cope with a Saxon invasion as well as incursions by the savage "Woads" (Picts, who allegedly adorned themselves with woad – blue dye – when preparing for battle).

Artorius's "knights" are a rough and shaggy lot of pagans (light years from the usual virginal Christian knights in shining armour) who have earned their impressive reputation the hard way, in savage hand-to-hand fighting. There's quite a lot of that in the film. They have come to the end of their fifteen-year contracts of service with Rome and are looking forward to returning home to the Middle East when they are ordered on one last, seemingly suicidal mission, over the wall and into Woad territory, right in the path of the invading Saxons. The end result is the climactic battle of Mount Badon.

About the only relationship to the traditional Arthurian characters is the names: not just Artorious/Arthur but Lancelot, Galahad, Bors, Tristan and Gawain all feature. Merlin is the leader of the Woads (with no suggestion of magical powers) and there's also Guinevere (Keira Knightley), a feisty Woad warrior whom the Sarmatians pick up on the way. A round table is slipped in (in a different context) but there's no mention of Camelot or the Holy Grail.

Is it realistic? Well, the setting is historically not far out; the first and only credible mention of Arthur (written centuries after he is believed to have lived) places him in approximately that time and place, although the timing is compressed somewhat - the Romans were long gone by the the late fifth/early sixth century, when he is historically supposed to have lived. The Battle of Mount Badon is believed to have some basis in fact, although no-one knows where it actually happened. And in the first tales he was no king, but a noted warrior who fought alongside the British kings. All of the medieval twaddle which has since accrued around the Arthurian myth was entirely invented from the twelfth century onwards.

Clive Owen makes a good fist of the Arthur role, and on the whole I enjoyed the film. For me, the least realistic element was Guinevere - or rather, Keira Knightley. She is a photogenic and popular young actress who is often cast for that reason - and quite frequently miscast, as in this film. My suspension of disbelief slipped badly the moment I heard her cut-glass voice emerged from a supposedly savage Woad. While she does a reasonably good bloodthirsty impression, I couldn't see the skinny arms of her size zero body pulling a war bow or wielding a sword in battle. And where did she get lipstick from? Oh well, I suppose that some cinematic conventions must be determinedly protected against the onset of too much reality.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Abernovo (Oct 2, 2011)

I liked this movie. Okay, you're right it had a few 'Hollywood moments', but that's the film industry and as to Ms Knightley's accent, unless we go down the Mel Gibson route and have the original languages with everything subtitled for those who don't speak Latin/Pictish/Proto-Germanic, we're always going to have that issue.

Maybe not loved by some of those raised on the mediaeval-style Arthur stories, but I liked it.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Oct 2, 2011)

Abernovo said:


> I liked this movie. Okay, you're right it had a few 'Hollywood moments', but that's the film industry and as to Ms Knightley's accent, unless we go down the Mel Gibson route and have the original languages with everything subtitled for those who don't speak Latin/Pictish/Proto-Germanic, we're always going to have that issue.


It wasn't the lack of genuine languages or accents which bothered me (I didn't notice any problem with the other actors) but the fact that she has a precise, rather upper-class accent as spoken by well-educated young ladies. If she'd been playing the part of a wealthy, high-status Roman miss it would have been appropriate, but coming from the mouth of a savage Woad it seemed jarringly incongruous.


----------



## Abernovo (Oct 2, 2011)

I know what you're saying. It's a common issue in films, but I let it slide, for the most part, to allow myself to enjoy the movie.

Maybe she's supposed to be a high status Pict but they just couldn't teach her a Morningside (Edinburgh) accent.


----------



## Moony (Oct 22, 2011)

This is one of my favourite movies.I have never been a fan of traditional Arthur movies.They just never felt right to me.I fell inlove with this one when I saw it.Although I didn't watch until it came out on dvd.I just had a feeling I should watch it and was glad I did.Other than a few things I do feel like it is a more accurate story and definitely a more enjoyable one.


----------



## Forgotten Realms (Dec 3, 2011)

I also was very surprised when having seen this film. Before seeing this film, I always thought Arthur to be "English", but not "Roman". But considering that it was the time of Roman invasion, the film makes the legend more credible. So, it really could have been and why not?


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 4, 2011)

Because the original reference to Arthur (and the only one which historians take at all seriously) places him 100 years after the Romans have left.


----------



## Snowdog (Dec 5, 2011)

Another film I really didn't like. I thought it was an interesting take on the Arthur legend, and a couple of the action sequences were excellent. Ioan Gruffud was the standout actor. Keira Knightly was lightweight as usual (sorry, I just think she's tremendously over-rated). But apart from the anachronisms and some rather ridiculous posturing by Arthur, the main problem for me was Clive Owen. He has no charisma whatever. How he keeps getting leading roles is a mystery to me.

This was one of those films that could have been really good, with a bit better writing and characterisation, and better lead actors.

As for who Arthur was (if anyone) he was most probably a Romano-Briton, a Romanized British noble. So, not English (Anglo-Saxon), or Roman, but a Celt. The chances he was some Eastern European mercenary imported by the Romans are extremely low.


----------



## williamjm (Dec 6, 2011)

Snowdog said:


> As for who Arthur was (if anyone) he was most probably a Romano-Briton, a Romanized British noble. So, not English (Anglo-Saxon), or Roman, but a Celt. The chances he was some Eastern European mercenary imported by the Romans are extremely low.



To be fair, he isn't an imported mercenary in the film. His 'knights' are Eastern European imports, but Arthur himself was born in Britain and has a Roman father and a Celtic mother. 

I think the film was one that felt like it should have been a lot better than it actually was. I liked the casting for most of the Knights, particularly Tristan and Dagonet, I thought Clive Owen was unexceptional but adequate in the main role. The supporting characters tended to be a bit weak though, particularly Guinevere and Merlin who don't have enough to do in the film. The story had potential, but it wasn't all that compelling, I liked some scenes such as the battle on the frozen lake but much of the film was quite forgettable.

ETA - another thing I thought was that the film might have been better if it had just been a story about a Roman commander around the time of the Romans leaving Britain. I'm not sure trying to tie it in to Arthurian legend added anything to the film.


----------



## Snowdog (Dec 6, 2011)

williamjm said:


> To be fair, he isn't an imported mercenary in the film. His 'knights' are Eastern European imports, but Arthur himself was born in Britain and has a Roman father and a Celtic mother.
> 
> I think the film was one that felt like it should have been a lot better than it actually was. I liked the casting for most of the Knights, particularly Tristan and Dagonet, I thought Clive Owen was unexceptional but adequate in the main role. The supporting characters tended to be a bit weak though, particularly Guinevere and Merlin who don't have enough to do in the film. The story had potential, but it wasn't all that compelling, I liked some scenes such as the battle on the frozen lake but much of the film was quite forgettable.
> 
> ETA - another thing I thought was that the film might have been better if it had just been a story about a Roman commander around the time of the Romans leaving Britain. I'm not sure trying to tie it in to Arthurian legend added anything to the film.



Sorry about that, it's been a while since I saw the film so I forgot Arthur's supposed origins, or perhaps never picked up on it because I wasn't fully engaged. The battle on the ice was the stand-out scene, very well done.

There are some great books about the events surrounding Rome's withdrawal from Britain. Wallace Breem's Eagle in the Snow comes to mind, but it's a time few know anything about and without the Arthur legend firing peoples' imaginations it's unlikely Hollywood would tackle it.


----------



## Forgotten Realms (Dec 6, 2011)

Snowdog said:


> As for who Arthur was (if anyone) he was most probably a Romano-Briton, a Romanized British noble. So, not English (Anglo-Saxon), or Roman, but a Celt. The chances he was some Eastern European mercenary imported by the Romans are extremely low.


 
Thanks, Snowdog, for the info as there are so many speculations around about who Arthur was.


----------



## williamjm (Dec 7, 2011)

Snowdog said:


> Sorry about that, it's been a while since I saw the film so I forgot Arthur's supposed origins, or perhaps never picked up on it because I wasn't fully engaged.



I think it took me a while to figure out that Arthur wasn't from the same place as his men, especially since I'd heard comments beforehand about the film showing Arthur as being a mercenary. There is a flashback scene which shows Merlin leading an attack on Arthur's home in which Arthur's mother is killed, which does make it clear he's a native of Britain. 



> There are some great books about the events surrounding Rome's withdrawal from Britain. Wallace Breem's Eagle in the Snow comes to mind, but it's a time few know anything about and without the Arthur legend firing peoples' imaginations it's unlikely Hollywood would tackle it.



There have been a couple of other films in the same time period recently, such as _The Eagle_ earlier this year (which also tells of a Roman officer heading north of Hadrian's Wall, although for different reasons). I think there was another one called _The Last Legion_ recently as well, although I haven't seen that.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 7, 2011)

After reading some of the posts here I decided to see if I could find it on youtube, and I did. 
As a story about warriors adopting a land that they fought for so long to protect out of compulsion I thought it was nice enough. Other then names and a bit of furniture I didnt see much connection to the legend I know, until right at the endish bit where Arther mets the Saxon leader out by the tree. Nice line something about "nether you nor Rome understands what i'm fighting for" followed by "finally someone worth killing"

nice free way to spend my afternoon, but not one i think i'll buy.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 7, 2011)

I enjoyed the movie as I am a lover of all things Arthurian. The movie did take great liberties with history. Bishop Germanicus did visit Britain, but not in the way as it what was told in the movie and much earlier than the date in film. Arthur's character is based on an actual Roman commander called Lucius Artorius Castus, but that person lived a good 180 years before the story of the movie. Cerdic, the Saxon leader is also a real character, but again he lived about 50 years after the events in the movie.

It is a Hollywood movie and for what it attempted to do I applaud it. Better writing and a bigger budget would have made for a stronger movie. Excalibur is still the stand out Arthurian movie for me.


----------



## Snowdog (Dec 8, 2011)

williamjm said:


> There have been a couple of other films in the same time period recently, such as _The Eagle_ earlier this year (which also tells of a Roman officer heading north of Hadrian's Wall, although for different reasons). I think there was another one called _The Last Legion_ recently as well, although I haven't seen that.



I had a look at the blurbs for those films at IMDb. They may be good films or not, but they're not in any way historical. There are so many good stories waiting to be made into film that they don't really need to invent stuff.


----------



## River Boy (Dec 8, 2011)

Despite having an actor perfect for playing King Arthur, this is an amazingly bad attempt.


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 2, 2012)

Running across this thread and and old DVD in the same week, with the supposedly more realistic Narts of the RoundTable version, did the traditional French names strike anyone else as horribly incongruous?


----------



## Snowdog (Jan 3, 2012)

Wiglaf said:


> Running across this thread and and old DVD in the same week, with the supposedly more realistic Narts of the RoundTable version, did the traditional French names strike anyone else as horribly incongruous?



Good point. The French names only make sense in their traditional setting, and make zero sense in 5th century Roman Britain. But I suppose the makers thought that dropping them would confuse people who were only watching in the first place because of the Arthur legend.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 5, 2012)

Snowdog said:


> I had a look at the blurbs for those films at IMDb. They may be good films or not, but they're not in any way historical. There are so many good stories waiting to be made into film that they don't really need to invent stuff.



The Eagle is an adaption of the classic Rosemary Sutcliffe kids book Eagle of the Ninth. Apart from a great opening, which would fit in with a Scarrow depiction of the legions, the remainder of the movie is rubbish. Unlike the book if my memory serves me correctly.

The Last Legion is based on a risible novel by the Italian author Valerio Manfredi(sp). The movie is even worse(which is an achievment in itself).


----------

