Friday, July 23, 2004
Today I believe I shall take a short break from politics and discuss the movie "King Arthur" released a couple of weeks ago. It has sparked controversy of course--what movie doesn't these days? Here are my thoughts on the matter.
While the movie does tend to take a more historical approach to Arthur than is traditional (no pulling a sword out of a stone, for example), some have complained that it continues to refer to Arthur's henchmen as knights although there was no such thing in the 5th century. This is a small point though since they don't act like knights anyway. It's just a use of terminology.
Conservative Christians complain that Guinivere fights with a man and is sassy to Arthur and his men. This is true but it hardly rates her being called a "proto feminist". It may be a useful term but early Britain historically had many warrior queens. At least she didn't spend the whole movie harping about equality, she simply took up her weapons and fought. There may be an ironic lesson in this for female soldiers but maybe we can get into that another time. The love scene with her and Arthur was unnecessary in my opinion but not as horrid as some movies and at least there was only one.
The major complaint orthodox Christians will and do have with this movie is that Arthur is a follower of the heretical monk Pelagius and orthodox Christians are not cast into fine a light. This charge has some merit. I simply choose to overlook this for two reasons. The first is that nothing Pelagius wrote has survived, except what his enemies wrote that he taught. The charges made against him are the same charges made against Arminians by Calvinists all the time. But the second and most major reason is that even if he was indeed a heretic, "King Arthur" is attempting, if not always succeeding, in being historically accurate. And at this time in British history, I imagine most Britons were Pelagian. We may not like the idea of a heretic-hero but that's probably how it was considering Pelagius was a British monk and an important figure in a pre-Roman Catholic British Church made up mostly of former druids and their followers. While there may be a subtle attack on orthodox Christianity here, I prefer to just go along and assume the movie is attempting to paint a picture of the times.
Besides this, the acting was fantastic! (Keira Knightly finally found a man who could act alongsider her and complement her and, surprise! It was neither Johnny Depp nor Orlando Bloom from that absolutely waste of a movie "Pirates of the Caribbean.") Arthur certainly came off well and the battle scenes were very well done. I always love to see a fight against the odds and to see Arthur, six knights, and Guinivere lined up against a host of several hundred Saxons stirred my blood like nothing since Aragorn's solo charge in "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." When Lancelot taunted Guinivere that "there are a lot of lonely men over there," she calmly replied, "I won't let them rape you." The end is a little hashed with Arthur going from grieving over his fallen knights and bitter towards God to reconciled and accepting his kingly responsibility in one scene change but that's a small point. I found the movie highly enjoyable and recommend it to anyone who loves Arthurian legend and wondered about the real men behind it. (You can tell I'm one of them--look at what I called my blog.)
While the movie does tend to take a more historical approach to Arthur than is traditional (no pulling a sword out of a stone, for example), some have complained that it continues to refer to Arthur's henchmen as knights although there was no such thing in the 5th century. This is a small point though since they don't act like knights anyway. It's just a use of terminology.
Conservative Christians complain that Guinivere fights with a man and is sassy to Arthur and his men. This is true but it hardly rates her being called a "proto feminist". It may be a useful term but early Britain historically had many warrior queens. At least she didn't spend the whole movie harping about equality, she simply took up her weapons and fought. There may be an ironic lesson in this for female soldiers but maybe we can get into that another time. The love scene with her and Arthur was unnecessary in my opinion but not as horrid as some movies and at least there was only one.
The major complaint orthodox Christians will and do have with this movie is that Arthur is a follower of the heretical monk Pelagius and orthodox Christians are not cast into fine a light. This charge has some merit. I simply choose to overlook this for two reasons. The first is that nothing Pelagius wrote has survived, except what his enemies wrote that he taught. The charges made against him are the same charges made against Arminians by Calvinists all the time. But the second and most major reason is that even if he was indeed a heretic, "King Arthur" is attempting, if not always succeeding, in being historically accurate. And at this time in British history, I imagine most Britons were Pelagian. We may not like the idea of a heretic-hero but that's probably how it was considering Pelagius was a British monk and an important figure in a pre-Roman Catholic British Church made up mostly of former druids and their followers. While there may be a subtle attack on orthodox Christianity here, I prefer to just go along and assume the movie is attempting to paint a picture of the times.
Besides this, the acting was fantastic! (Keira Knightly finally found a man who could act alongsider her and complement her and, surprise! It was neither Johnny Depp nor Orlando Bloom from that absolutely waste of a movie "Pirates of the Caribbean.") Arthur certainly came off well and the battle scenes were very well done. I always love to see a fight against the odds and to see Arthur, six knights, and Guinivere lined up against a host of several hundred Saxons stirred my blood like nothing since Aragorn's solo charge in "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." When Lancelot taunted Guinivere that "there are a lot of lonely men over there," she calmly replied, "I won't let them rape you." The end is a little hashed with Arthur going from grieving over his fallen knights and bitter towards God to reconciled and accepting his kingly responsibility in one scene change but that's a small point. I found the movie highly enjoyable and recommend it to anyone who loves Arthurian legend and wondered about the real men behind it. (You can tell I'm one of them--look at what I called my blog.)
// posted by The Pendragon @ 5:02 PM 
