Medieval Jousting With A Soundtrack From The 70's

  The film, A Knights Tale, which came out in 2001, was surprisingly unpopular with many. The film is said to be based off of the book, "The Knight's Tale," written by Chaucer in the late 1300's. Many argued that the immense amount of anachronism's used in the film overpowered the historical context that is actually there.           

Examples of Anachronism's used in A Knight's Tale
The crowd chanting the song, "We Will Rock You" by queen, at a few jousting events.
Face paint, colorful hair dye, and odd hairstyles worn by characters, especially Joselyn.

The question is than, was A Knight's Tale produced for entertainment or for historical accuracy?

The answer would be, 60/40, or somewhere in that area. There are many aspects of the film that are historically correct, but the film is occupied more with Hollywood additives and storylines in order to increase entertainment.

A Knight's Tale tells the story of William Thatcher, who was sold to a man of nobility by his father at a young age, so that William could have a better chance at "changing his stars." William worked for Sir Ector for many years, until he was killed in a jousting tournament. William, and two other men who worked for Sir Ector, Roland and Wat, relied on the money that Sir Ector won at his tournaments to feed themselves or visit home. William comes up with the idea to pretend to be Sir Ector and participate in the last jousting match.
After winning said match, William wants to continue jousting, but only nobility are allowed to take part. While on the road the three men meet a writer who says he can fake nobility papers if they feed him and clothe him. With nobility papers now in hand, and the new name, Sir Ulrich Von Liechtenstein for William, the four men begin their brigade of jousting tournaments.

There were many historically factual aspects when it came to the tournaments that William took part in. When participants first arrived they had their nobility papers checked, and then chose from a variety of categories in which they wished to partake. The categories included: axe fight, sword fight, club fight, jousting, and long spear. William chooses jousting and sword fight, and in both cases, the armor he wears is very different from that of the armor of a military man. The armor William wears is much thicker, heavier, and covers more area than the armor that military man wear. That is because it is harder to move around in the thicker armor and the weight of it would slow soldiers down.


Of course, needed in any good modern reminition of a knightly tale, romance is needed. Which actually isn't far off entirely, because in many of the writings from the late 11th and 12th century, romance is included. In the film, William falls for a girl named Joselyn. The intensity and publicity of the romance itself though was indeed amplified to increase entertainment and add to the storyline. The clothing and hairstyles of Joselyne were also one of the biggest anachronism's in the whole film. She often wore medieval style clothing with a modern day twist, and many times her hair was dyed colorfully and in and odd array.

Eventually it is found out that William lied about his nobility, and he is arrested. William is put in the stocks before the publice to be ridiculed. It is important to note, that earlier in the movie, William faced an opponent who turned out to be Prince Edward. Usually when participants find out they are about to joust Prince Edward, they automatically forfeit out of respect and fear. William however still jousted, even with knowing he was facing Prince Edward. He allowed Prince Edward to be able to do what he continuously failed to be able to, joust.
It is now, when William is in the stock, that Prince Edward comes to return the favor. Prince Edward frees William and before all the witnesses, makes him a knight, contesting that "This is my word, and as such, is beyond contestation." Which during the Medieval Ages, a Prince would have such power, and because most of the citizens present in the scene were commoners, there was a hundred percent guarantee that his word would not be contested.

So is A Knights Tale historically accurate? In some aspects the answer is yes. But with the additives of modern day songs, the overplay of the romance between Joselyn and William, and a crafted storyline focused more towards entertainment, the historical representation gets slightly lost.

If the question being asked was, is the movie worth watching, than the answer is undoubtedly yes. From an entertainment point of view, the movie constructs a unique twist between the medieval ages and modern day. This creates an interesting storyline filled with romance, action, comedy, friendship and chivalry.

"A Knight's Tale: Hoxtonista hairdos, Freddie Mercury and the Mexican Wave." The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/05/heath-ledger-a-knights-tale

"A Knights Tale." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2001/sep/02/philipfrench

Paul B. Newman. "Daily Life in the Middle Ages." McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. North Carolina. 2001.

"Tournament: Medieval Military Games." The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/sports/tournament-medieval-military-games

Film Review: Robin Hood: Men In Tights

Quirky, humorous, and featuring a dashing Robin Hood that represents true chivalry yet also contradicts its foundations.  Considering Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a satirical comedy, a mix of accuracies and inaccuracies are to be expected with a film that is more concerned with poking fun than historical accuracy.  Since chivalry was an important part of society in the century Robin Hood: Men in Tights is set in--the twelfth century--this review will focus specifically on how well the main character embodies the principal.  Especially since at the end of the movie, Robin Hood is knighted by King Richard the Lionheart.

When it comes to being chivalric in regards to king, country, and conflict, Robin seems to be, for the most part, in the right.  He is loyal to King Richard and takes a bold stand against John's seizing of power in Richard's absence.  Part of his motivations are clearly personal due to the affect John's actions have made on his life, but there are also elements of doing so for the people of England and out of loyalty to the king.  He is even tempered throughout the film, clearly courageous as he goes up against the Sherriff of Rottingham and his forces without hesitation, and when compared to the Sherriff he is the one who fights fairly while the Sherriff results to treachery and tricks.  When Robin's fighting Little John over the bridge, they both get rid of one of the halves of their staffs when they break so both Little John and Robin are fighting on even grounds.

On the other hand, Robin does have his own share of unchivalrous acts on a smaller scale.  During the scene where the Sherriff of Rottingham challenges Robin to a duel (pictured above), the Sherriff smacks Robin in the face with a leather glove, which Robin mirrors with a metal gauntlet. Firstly, there was no smacking each other with gloves to announce a duel, though gloves were proffered for the challenge.  Secondly, considering chivalry is largely concerned with being on equal ground with your opponent and fairness, with underhand acts being considered unchivalrous, Robin returning the slap with a metal gauntlet was not a chivalrous action.  In fact, his entire first interaction with the Sherriff could be considered unchivalrous.  He causes the Sherriff to end up stuck under his horse after the Sherriff tries to draw his sword (which comes apart as he tries to draw it) and sends the horse racing with the Sherriff still stuck underneath it.

When it comes to courtly love and chivalry, Robin's discrepancies are clearer than the standards he adheres to.  The clearest point of idealized courtly love between Robin and Maid Marian is the fact that she is difficult to attain due to all the obstacles that they keep finding between them.  With the Sherriff of Rottingham also pursuing Maid Marian, Broomhilde's watchful eye, Prince John wanting Robin dead, and the incorporation of the mythical chastity belt, Robin winning Maid Marian is the attainment of a great prize in the eyes of chivalric love.  But even at the end of the movie Robin is unable to unlock Marian's chastity belt, so in a way Robin still is unable to fully obtain the love of Maid Marian--within what we see of the story, at least.

Regarding the other parts of chivalric, courtly love, Robin has one scene in particular that sticks out as going against the basic rules.  When Maid Marian goes to see Robin about the archery contest and makes him promise not to go, Robin is evasive and later goes to the archery contest anyway despite Marian's pleas.  One of the rules of courtly love involves doing what would make their loved one happy, and not denying them, which Robin does the opposite of in the case of the archery contest.  He even hushes Achoo when Achoo is about to point out Robin's trickery.  It could also be argued that Robin also doesn't fit into the description of a man who constantly thinks of his loved one and whose every action is accompanied by thoughts of the woman he loved.  Even after meeting Maid Marian, his every waking moment is not filled with thoughts of Maid Marian as the rules of courtly love say he should be.

Despite being the clear hero of this satirical take on a classic tale, Robin is too much of a fox to be considered chivalrous.  Considering how important chivalry was at the time, it is a serious fault that he seems to pick and choose what parts of chivalry he wants to pay attention to.  As much of a charming rogue this portrayal of Robin Hood is in today's time, he doesn't quite measure up to the standard of a medieval knight in shining armor.

Sources

Brooks, Mel, Director.  Robin Hood: Men in Tights.  Brooksfilms, 1993.

Capellanus, Andreas.  The Rules of Courtly Love.  Twelfth Century.

De Gamez, Diaz.  The Chivalric Ideal.  Twelfth Century.

Harrison, Robert.  The Song of Roland.  Penguin Group, 1970.

Film Review: Kingdom of Heaven

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Balian is a French farrier who lives alone without a family because his wife has committed suicide after the death of their young son. However, he receives a visit from Godfrey of Ibelin. Godfrey is a noble crusader, who says he is Balian’s father and wants to take Balian to the Holy Land. Balian accepts the offer and embarks on a journey to Jerusalem with his father and a company of knights.  Godfrey was mortally wounded in battle, and at this point Balian had to face the difficult life of  defending himself on the road to the Holy City traversed by pilgrims of all faiths. At King Baldwin’s court, the Frenchman meets important characters and figures from Jerusalem. Following a conspiracy hatched by the city’s high dignitaries, Balian will have to face the Saracen army led by Saladin, to avoid the conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims.

            The period taken in consideration is the period of peace between the second and third crusades. Period set precisely under the sign of Baldwin, on the one hand, and Saladin on the other. I believe that this movie correctly represents the middle ages, in particular the period of the crusades (12/13th century) and can be helpful to understand the historical context and what being a defender of Christianity means.

At first, I would say that this movie provides a non-offensive, but rather complex and conciliatory image of an Islamic leader, Sultan Saladin. This way of presenting Saladin in a good way may differ from the documents of the past or even previous movies describing this period. For example, Saladin shows mercy when tells Balian that he only wants Jerusalem, he doesn’t want the life of the people that live inside. Balian is surprised. Indeed, when the Templars took Jerusalem they

slaughtered all the Muslims inside the city. Saladin then says, “I’m not a man of that kind”. In this case Saladin is described as merciful and without the desire for revenge. Balian then says, “If God cares so much about this city, he will know how to deal with it” and leaves the city to the King. Here someone could question the way in which Balian decides to leave the city to the Muslims, but the reality is that a Christian hero is willing to abandon Jerusalem to save the lives of thousands of innocent people. The other side represents a Muslim hero that attacks Christians only when it is provoked by the senseless cruelty.

Obviously, Christianity in this movie is one of the central themes, and we can see it when Balian is besieged by a coward bishop. At some point Balian, during the conflict says, “repent to Islam, then Repent!” and again “not for these walls but for the people inside”. Again, in another scene of the movie he says “we do not fight for the tombs, for the mosques, for the crosses, for anyone in the past who has made this city a symbol; we fight for the people, for the women, for the old, for the children; we fight for our life. This exaltation of Christianity perfectly represents the values and the ferocity combined with just war theory of the defender of the Christianity.

Finally, I believe the message is that faith is also in the most humble minds, or in those who believed they had lost it permanently. Sometimes it just lacks in those who should be their spokespersons (for example the figure of the bishop who thinks only about his own salvation).

Sources: 

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History 11^th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Newman, Paul B. Daily Life in the Middle Ages. McFarland & Co., 2001.

Kingdom of heaven. Directed by Ridley Scott, 20th Century Fox, Scott Free Productions, Studio Babelsberg, 2005.