King Arthur: Reviewed!

Two words: splitting headache. That's what I'm having now. There's an ache that starts at the base of the neck, slithering over my skull to and then crossing over the right temple to finally hit with a boom! boom! boom! worthy of any Elizabethan 21 gun salute.

Oh good God. This had better go away by tomorrow. Still, I promised a review of Jerry Bruckheimer's latest, and I shall not fail.

Like many others (I think) my first experience with Arthurian legend very likely came from a version of Sir Thomas Malory's La Morte de Arthur, with all its romantic and dramatic trappings: the Lady of the Lake, Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin and Mordred and finally Arthur's death. I read this when I was six. Then there was the Disney-ised Sword in The Stone, which while nowhere near historically accurate was still entertaining. Throughout the years there have been many retellings of the legend (including an attempt at modernism via First Knight), but none as brutally un-mythic as 2004's King Arthur.

Jerry Bruckheimer bandied the fact that his version would be the most historically accurate for months before the movie's release. Personally, I think it's highly doubtful especially when considering the various researches on Arthuriana out there. Still, the film does have its odd moments of charm which works to its advantage.

What struck me the most was how the legend was stripped to its bare essence: a brave idealistic knight and his comrades doing the right thing, rather like the Seven Samurai. Sure, there is the odd historical reference here and there, but nothing I would personally call research-based. We meet Lancelot in the beginning, and before long we get to know the rest of the troop: Arthur, Gawain, Galahad, Bors, Dagonet and Tristram (spelled Tristan here). These are powerful fighters taken from their homeland to fight for the Romans against their will. But as the Romans withdraw from Britain in anticipation of the imminent Saxon invasion will Arthur and his knights leave? Or will they stay and fight for the only land they know?

In a sentence: perfect material for a Braveheart wannabe flick.

Despite supposedly being directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) it doesn't show. What does show are Bruckheimer's trademark scenes: babies crying, battle cries, sweeping overhead vistas. It's as if Fuqua could have been supplanted by any other director and the results would have been the same. Quite a shame, but nothing too damaging. In crafting KA, Bruckheimer essentially stripped away all of the mythic veneer we've come to get used to through the ages until he portrays Arthur as his research shows he was: an honest, true figure. There is no magic at work here, no flirtation between Lancelot and Guinevere (and in an interesting twist there is a new take on the whole sword-in-the-stone bit) no Morgan Le Fay and certainly no mysterious Lady of The Lake.

The heroes are just that, heroes. They fight, bluster, crack jokes, bleed and also die, like in any other epic these days. They are suitably larger than life in their battle prowess and loyalty to their commander and in a sense perhaps Bruckheimer was trying to craft a new legend out of the ashes of the old, a grittier, more realistic Arthur he felt modern audiences could respond to.

When it's all said and done, King Arthur isn't really a bad film. Its worst fault lies in the pretentiousness of the whole thing: their insistence that the film is based on fact just gives the film a blast of hot air that is for the main part unnecessary. Taken as a summer popcorn flick, it's great. But a scholarly tribute to this mysterious Briton king? Definitely not.

Will you enjoy King Arthur? Perhaps, especially with Keira Knightley in Wode battle armour (although I've read somewhere that the Wodes rode into battle naked) and the gloriously epic battle scenes. But as mentioned above, take it as it is, and maybe your mental picture of Arthur and his knights of the Round Table will survive.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT:
I found the omission of Perceval rather surprising, although perhaps not so much in light of Dagonet's untimely death. Someone has to find the Grail...but that's another story.

Favourite line from the movie:
"A round table? What manner of evil is this?"
-Bishop Germanius, upon entering the Chamber of the Table.

Related Link:
This source has loads of content on Arthur and his history/legends.

The Ox gives King Arthur a 3 out of 5.