King Arthur: The Good and the Bad

Beginning with an epic battle scene and ending, spoiler alert, with the good guys winning (cue the faux surprise), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is an interesting take on the renowned story of King Arthur and his trusty sidekick, Excalibur. The battle at the beginning of the film takes place at Camelot between Arthur's father, King Uther Pendragon of the Britons, and Mordred, a cruel warlock. After making fairly quick work of killing Mordred and saving his kingdom, King Uther ends up in trouble again as his brother, Vortigern, betrays and kills him. While most of the royal family is killed, Arthur, as a young boy, escapes on a boat and floats into the city of Londinium. He is found and raised by women of a brothel, and throughout his adolescence, Arthur trains to become a skilled fighter and pickpocket. When Vikings gets into it with one of the prostitutes, Arthur and a few of his buddies confront them and force them to pay the woman in return for their abuse. It's not until after this that Arthur learns the Vikings are under the king's protection, so he tries to flee the city but is stopped by some knights who put him on a ship to Camelot. There, Arthur is in a long line of other men who have to try pulling a sword out of stone near the castle, and he accomplishes this task because he is the "born king." Handling the sword and the magical powers is too much for the man, and he passes out, only to be imprisoned by Vortigern. An execution is planned for Arthur, but a powerful being called The Mage helps him to escape and join a rebellion against the evil king. After a couple more battle sequences and the deaths of a few comrades, Arthur finally rises victorious over his uncle and is crowned King Arthur of Camelot.

Knights fighting for King Uther in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

The film, directed by Guy Ritchie, did use some historically accurate aspects while still telling the fantastic legend, though most critics found fault in the lack of certain characters and the different timeline from the original tale. Touching on the factual aspects first, probably most well done were the battle scenes. Knights are adorned with casques and hauberks, and the sword was wielded by many of the knights on both sides of the fight. The sword was a common weapon, and according to Paul Newman, author of Daily Life in the Middle Ages, "the sword was the best close quarter weapon of its day" (221). This was evident in the recurrence of the weapon being used by majority of the knights throughout King Arthur. To add to accuracies was Ritchie's use of a  diverse cast. According to Danielle Trynoski, "Medieval Britain, no matter what century we're looking at, was a diverse place." Some of the characters in the movie were African and Asian, which added some variety to the primarily Caucasian streets of the British city. Moreover, the honor bestowed upon knights was visible in the movie as well as history. In one of the final scenes, Arthur is seen knighting his closest comrades. This process consisted of the men kneeling before him while the king used his sword to touch either side of their shoulders. In history (and even today--looking at you, Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Paul McCartney), this same method was used to bring respect to the most noble of knights.

On the flip side, there are several errors in historical correctness. Among these mistakes is a major debate among historians: was Arthur even a real person? The thing is, there's not any for-sure evidence that this legendary figure did exist. He was essentially a symbol for the Britons strength that they needed to fight against the Saxons in 5th and 6th centuries (HistoryvsHollywood). Furthermore, during the time that Arthur was potentially king, castles were not an idea in the minds of architects in Britain. It was about 500 more years before the first castles even appeared in the country, yet the film showed castles and even included the construction of one in a minor plot point. Additionally, the great kingdom of Camelot was a mythical city created for the legend of King Arthur. All stories of Arthur and his companions are based in Camelot, yet the city was created for the mere purpose of being the home of the king. The movie takes place in both Londinium and Camelot, but only Londinium was a real city.

Overall, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was a new way to tell the story of the great King Arthur, but not the most historically accurate. Along with actualities, the film had its fair share of falsities. I think the movie was filled with more medievalism mixed with fantasy rather than the true representation of the Middle Ages. It could be considered as a good historical movie, but that would depend on the watcher keeping an open mind that some things are exaggerated or misused compared to what actually happened in history. That being said, classrooms would probably not benefit from watching this adaptation of the Arthurian legend, mainly due to the heavy use of fantasy over reality. While an enjoyable movie on its own, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is not a movie to be watched to learn anything historically relevant.


Sources:
HistoryvsHollywood. "Is King Arthur: Legend of the Sword a True Story." www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/king-arthur/.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Directed by Guy Ritchie, performances by Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, and Djimon Hounsou, Warner Brothers, 2017.

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

Trynoski, Danielle. "Medievalists at the Movies: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword." Medievalists.net, May 2017. https://www.medievalists.net/2017/07/king-arthur-man-candy-alert/.

"Robin Hood Where is Your King! Do You Mean Larry King?"

            "Sadly, this will not go down as one of Brooks' classics," is movie reviewer Angie Errigo's opinion on Mel Brooks' 1993 film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Twelve-year-old me would be yelling from the roof-tops that Angie Errigo was a huge liar and that this spoof movie is a classic that could only potential eclipsed by the greatness that is Scary Movie 3. Looking back on the movie as a twenty-one-year-old, my opinion hasn't changed much. The movie is a classic that holds so many great memories of watching this film secretly with my cousins, but admittedly at my current age I do tend to laugh a little less at the Latrine's name originally being "Shithouse". I guess I've grown out of bathroom-related humor. I haven't rewatched this movie in years, but after doing so there are unfortunately bits of this movie that as a college student with a minor in history I tend to roll my eyes more than I laugh at the joke. 

            It's not a stretch to see that there are very little historical accuracies portrayed in the film. But in all fairness accuracy is not something that Mel Brooks really tried to do in many of his films. Robin Hood: Men in Tights was truly created to ride on the coat-tails of a successful movie that had been released only two years previous, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. From saving Achoo, the son of Asneeze, and his pair of rad Jordans to falling in love with Marian and unlocking the secret to true love, as well as her chastity belt, this movie truly is only meant for comedy. There is no historical truth to be seen. 
           The movie begins with Robin freeing himself from a dungeon after being captured while on crusade, aided by Asneeze, Robin promises to find his son Achoo and take him under his wing. But once back in England, Robin finds the whole country in disrepair due to the misconduct of Prince John, who was left in control while King Richard the Lionheart was on crusade. This is where the age-old story of Robin Hood comes into play, Robin makes it his duty to save his country from the clutches of Prince John, who is being controlled by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin recruits s band of merry men to help him in his journey. This includes Blinkin, his blind longtime servant, Little John, who thinks that being called Little is only coincidental to the fact of him being this giant man, and Will Scarlet O'Hara, a master with daggers. It is while on this journey that Robin meets Marian and falls in love, only to find out that the Sheriff of Nottingham also has his eye on her. The rest of the film follows Robin and his merry band of men on their quest to save England and get the girl. *Spoiler* He saves England and gets the girl! Only for the key he thought went to Marian's chastity belt to not work. 
         In the end, this movie could only potentially be used in a history class as an example of what not to believe. This movie is a comedy that just happens to be about Robin Hood and is based in the Middle Ages. As we have covered in class, this movie is full of falsehoods about Medieval Times, things such as chastity belts or a bland clothing palette. It's a fun movie, one that I'm sure most people aren't learning any historical knowledge from, so while I would recommend this film as something everyone should see at least once, I don't think it has any place in our class a discussion piece, outside of making fun at how absurd it is. 

Works Cited
Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History 11^th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2011. Print.

Errigo, Angie. “Robin Hood: Men In Tights.” Empire, Bauer Media, 1 Jan. 2000, www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/robin-hood-men-tights-review/.

McGlynn, Sean. “The Enduring Legend of Robin Hood.” History Today, vol. 69, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 12–15. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=135190578&site=ehost-live

Arn: Tempelriddaren

     The Swedish film, Arn: Tempelriddaren, known in English as, Arn: The Knight Templar, is a condensed version of three novels written by Jan Guilou which chronicles the tales of the Swedish folk hero, Arn Magnusson.  It takes place in the late twelfth century in modern day Sweden, Israel, and Syria. The film’s dialogue is split between five languages: Swedish, English, French, Latin, and Arabic. 

     The story follows Arn Magnusson, the son of a low ranking lord of House Folkung in the Kingdom of Sweden. As a child, Arn is raised in a monastery where he is taught how to fight. After returning to his home, he falls in love with Cecilia, the daughter of a wealthy landowner. Cecilia becomes pregnant and is sent away to a convent while Arn is given the choice of excommunication or paying penance by serving in the Crusades.  While in the Holy Land, Arn makes a name for himself as a skilled warrior. He rescues what he thinks is a group of Kurdish merchants from bandits. It turns out, they are not a group of merchants but instead it is Saladin, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, and his escorts. Through their conversations, Arn and Saladin develop a sense of mutual respect. Upon his return to Jerusalem, Arn tells the Knights Templar the direction in which Saladin is moving. From this information, the Crusaders are able to form a plan of attack. Arn leads the forces to trap Saladin’s army within the narrow mountain range where they are forced to retreat. The Battle of Montgisard is a victory for the Crusaders. Years later, Arn is given an honorable discharge by the Lord Commander of the Knights Templar.  However, the Lord Commander dies and his replacement, Gerard de Ridefort, refuses to honor this request. Ridefort then sends a large swath of the Crusaders to retake Gaza. It is there, at the Battle of Hattin, that most of the Crusaders are killed or taken captive. Saladin spares Arn’s life and allows him to return home. Upon his return, Arn is reunited with Cecilia, and he meets his son, Magnus for the first time. As they begin to build a life together in Sweden, the Swedish Civil War breaks out. Both Arn and Magnus join the fight. Arn contracts as a General to fight against the forces of Sverker Karlsson and his Danish supporters. After a series of victories and repelling the Danish from Sweden, Arn is wounded on the battlefield. He is taken back to his hometown where he dies in the arms of his one true love, Cecilia.  

This film does a wonderful job portraying medieval life, culture, faith, and warfare. It is the most expensive film in Scandinavian history and this is due, in part, to the great detail the directors and producers imbue within the picture. Everything from clothing, to the languages, to the locations are well executed. Great effort is put in place to ensure that all the details are period accurate. The fact that when in Sweden that characters speak Swedish, the majority of the Knights Templar speak French, and Saladin and his men speak Arabic is for me, one of the most impactful and interesting aspects of the film. Even the strategies they use in battle are historically accurate. The hauberks and lances look like they could be models for the Bayeux Tapestry we have studied in class.  The overall feel of the film set by the religious devotion of the characters creates an atmosphere that is reminiscent of the faith-based lifestyle of the Middle Ages that we discuss in class. Most of Cecilia’s arc is spent working in the monastery and the film paints a clear picture of what life was like for some people during this time. Arn and the crusaders are on a mission from God and this is evident throughout the film.  

While the picture does a great job telling about life in the Middle Ages, there are several historical inaccuracies. First, Arn Magnusson was most likely not a real person. His character originated as a Swedish folk hero who is still well known throughout the Scandinavian countries.  It is believed that Arn is responsible for the defeat of Sverker Karlsson and it is widely accepted that he is the founding father of modern Sweden. However, accounts vary on his feats, as well as, his actual existence. One thing is for certain though, if he was a real person, he most likely did not participate in the Crusades, and he certainly did not play as big a role as he does in the film.  The Battle of Montgisard is lead by Baldwin IV, the king of Jerusalem, not by Arn Magnysson. We also know that Saladin mets with a crusader named Al Gouti while on his travels. The film directly states that Arn is called Al Gouti by the Arabs. However, we know that in the historical accounts of the actual meeting, the real Al Gouti is not released to go home but instead is decapitated. Another way the film is misrepresentative is in the portrayal of the Knights Templar.  This group is a monastic order, not a standing army. Once someone joins the order, unlike in the film, there is no discharge. This oath is taken for life.  

Overall, Arn: The Knight Templar is a fantastic historical fiction film.  The characters are likeable, the production is authentic, the writing is well done, and in the end, the stakes feel genuine.  In spite of some historical inaccuracies, the film does a wonderful job representing the Crusades and faith in the Middle Ages.  This movie could easily be used within a classroom setting to enhance the learning experience.   

Works Cited

Benham, Jenny. “Welcome to the Institute of Historical Research.” Institute of Historical 

Research, 1 Oct. 1970, http://www.history.ac.uk/.

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History, Eleventh Edition. 11th ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. Print.

Flinth, Peter, director. Arn: The Knight Templar. Eagle, 2010, 

https://www.amazon.com/Arn-Knight-Templar-Joakim-Nätterqvist/dp/B078ZM7789/ref

=sr_1_1?crid=35S2UK7G6BS0A&keywords=arn the knight 

templar&qid=1570068477&s=instant-video&sprefix=arn ,instant-video,165&sr=1-1.

Film Review: A Knight’s Tale … or A Knight’s Fact?

“We will, we will rock you,” is an interesting way for a film centered around a Medieval knight to begin, but that is exactly what A Knight’s Tale does. A Knight’s Tale is a 2001 film that stars William (Heath Ledger), who is a servant to a knight. At the beginning of the film, William’s knight dies. William and his other servants came up with a plan to put William in the knight’s armor, train him to joust, and enter him into jousting tournaments. William competes under the name “Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein” so he is seen as noble and will be allowed in the tournaments. As it turns out, William is a natural at jousting, and quickly places second place at a huge jousting tournament. William also falls for the ruler’s daughter, Lady Jocelyn. Later in the movie, William’s true identity is revealed before the jousting World Championship. William was arrested and banned from competing, until King Edward pronounced him “Sir William” and allowed him to compete. William ends up winning the World Championship while winning Jocelyn as well. This story is recorded by Geoffrey Chaucer, one of William’s friends along the way, who ends up becoming a popular writer. While the film takes its title and is loosely inspired by the first tale in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales”, the plot is not similar, except for the inclusion of Chaucer in the film. 

A Knight’s Tale has some aspects that are historical, but many aspects that are not historical. For example, the soundtrack of the movie is very modern, and one of the first scenes in the film has all the Medieval people singing “We Will Rock You.” There were also inaccuracies in the clothing and dancing of the characters in the movie. The clothing, especially the outfits worn by Jocelyn, were very outrageous and modern. Also, Jocelyn’s wild hair style is not backed by any evidence of Medieval women that we have reviewed in class. Jocelyn and William end up dancing at a party to modern music while using modern dance moves as well. While this may help more people be interested in the events of the movie, scenes like these do not help the historical accuracy of the film. The battle scenes also have some inaccuracies, which are mainly uncovered in the “How to Joust Like a Medieval Knight” video on Moodle. The running of the horses before the two people would strike each other was more of a five second run according to the video. In the film, these knights would ride for about 30 seconds before striking one another, adding extra drama and violence to the scene. Once again, this attempt to engage the audience in the film hurt the historical accuracy of the film. 

While there were many inaccuracies in A Knight’s Tale, there were also some aspects of the film that were very accurate. To begin with, the names of both Geoffrey Chaucer and Ulrich von Liechtenstein were both names of actual people from the Middle Ages. Chaucer and Liechtenstein were both real authors in the Middle Ages, and the movie even depicts Chaucer as an up-and-coming author. Another important thing that the film got correct, for the most part, was the armor of the knights. While the armor used in the film may have come from different historical eras than the era of the actual movie, the armor was close in style to a lot of the armor we have studied in class. Finally, the film did a good job of depicting the jousting scenes in the tournaments. The Moodle video explains how Medieval knights would ride towards each other on a horse, and shows the wood breaking whenever they would strike one another. The video also talks about how a judge would determine who won the joust (Garden). The film is very accurate in this respect. While the film does dramatize how long the knights actually rode towards one another, the actual joust is very accurate and similar to the Moodle video. This is important to the movie because jousting is the most important part of this film. 

Overall, A Knight’s Tale is very entertaining and a fun film to watch from a personal point of view. From a historian’s point of view, this movie has many inaccuracies that are exposed. However, the overall accuracy of the armor and jousting scenes, which are a main part of the film, dramatically help the film from a historical point of view. The opening scene where the Medieval people sing “We Will Rock You” and the number of modern concepts included in the film are probably too much to overcome to call this a “historical film.” This movie is more of a medievalism than Medieval. The film takes some Medieval ideas and revises them, making thing more modern and dramatic. The movie is very popular in the United States and the director knew how to modernize the film to make things more interesting for the audience. As a future history teacher, I would probably not include this entire film in my class, unless I told my students about the inaccuracies beforehand. However, I could use this film to give my students a chance to critique something historical while also having fun in the process. A Knight’s Tale is an entertaining film that I will continue to think more about as I move through my studies of the Middle Ages and my time as a high school history teacher.

Works Cited 

Garden, Elizabeth. YouTube, English Heritage, 18 June 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ovVbk4hP0. 

Helgeland, Brian, director. A Knights Tale. Columbia Pictures, 2001. 

An Uncover Squire-A Knight's Tale

A Knight's Tale

In this 2001 modern interpretation of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, there is sword fighting, jousting, romance, and let’s not forget Count Adhemar, the villain.  The story begins with a squire named William Thatcher. William wants to be a knight, but is not of noble blood to able to compete. When his knight dies before a jousting tournament, He decides to go undercover as a knight to ensure that he and his friends will not starve. After their first victory, they decide to continue their rebellious strike for gold, glory, and to get the girl. Along the way making friends with Prince Edward (who makes him a knight at the end)  and making an enemy of Count Adhemar.         

Overall, A Knight’s Tale had many elements that represented the Middle Ages. For example, there were many different types of competitions in a tournament that could be competed in. This was seen in the film with William competing in the sword and jousting aspects of a tournament. Another example of accuracy in the film was their clothing appeared to be made of wool which was commonly worn in the Medieval Europe. According to Paul Newman “Thus, the peasant wore coarse but sturdy linen and woolen fabrics, merchants and craftsmen wore clothing made of better grades of wool and linen, and the nobility, though they did wear silken clothes if they could afford it…” (Newman 93). The clothing in the movie were modernized at bit which is too be expected. They did also include a falcon which belonged Count Adhemar. This aspect of the film is accurate for in the middle ages, falconry was a common past time for nobility. According to Newman, “…hunting with trained birds of prey, was a popular for ruling classes.” (Newman 174). The film also did a great good at showing the origins of surnames. For example, William’s last name is Thatcher, which ties with the occupation of thatching a roof. This can be seen when William visits his father and his father is in the process of thatching a roof. Another accurate part of the movie was Edward of Woodstock. However, he was call Edward, Black Prince in the film. Prince Edward was an actually person that was known for his military genius, so it would not be surprising if he engaged in jousting. However, according to BBC, “During his lifetime he was known as Edward of Woodstock. The title of Black Prince developed after his death and may refer to black armour that he wore.” (BBC). Although he was called the Black Prince in the film, he would have been called Edward of Woodstock at the time. 

A Knight’s Tale had many historical inaccuracies. One of the major inaccuracies is the adding of modern elements such as the modern music in the background, modern dancing, and gender roles. For example, the character Kate is a female blacksmith. In the middle ages a woman would have never been blacksmith. Another historical inaccuracy were the hats or rather the lack there of. According to Newman “…custom dictated that women wore hats or other head coverings that hid some or all of their hair. The only exceptions were for unmarried girls…” (Newman 119). Even though the main female characters were unmarried you would except to see hats in the background. Another major inaccuracy was the music and dancing. Although music and dancing were past times, the style of dancing and music were not from the middle ages. This inaccuracy was very obvious and was used to modernize the film.  Finally, another problem with the film was the timeline. Although they did not explicitly say what time the film was taking place, it would have to be taking place before 1376, the year that Prince Edward died. With that timeline, some events and inventions would not have been in the movie. An example of this is the tilt. According to Newman, “…in the early 15^th century, the introduction of a wooden fence called a barrier or tilt to keep jousters from running directly into each other.” (Newman 179). According to the timeline the tilt should not have been seen in the film, however it was.

Overall, A Knight’s Tale has many historical inaccuracies, but it does not take away an interesting storyline. This movie is good at exposing people to some aspect of medieval culture. Many the historical inaccuracies were a result of modernizing the film. This is to be expected as they were trying to made the film more relatable to modern society. In total, not everything in the film should be taken seriously, but it does make good for a fictional movie.

Work Cited

“History - Edward, the Black Prince.” BBC, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/black_prince.shtml.

Helgeland, Brain, director. A Knight's Tale. Columbia / Sony, 2001.

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

I am reviewing the movie “Kingdom of Heaven.” This movie is about a blacksmith in 1184, who is sought out by his estranged father a knight. Played by Liam Neeson. He is heading to the holy land in order to defend it. Along the way he becomes a knight himself, and a defender of Jerusalem. Played by Orlando Bloom.

            At first glance this movie appears to fit well in regard to the middle ages, and the time period. The knight's wore proper mail from head to toe. Their weapons were from the right time period. The scenery is nice and sparse in his village with a castle in the backdrop. The houses were round with pitched roofs. Throughout the entire movie it shows that there is always someone else above you in rank and stature. The movies central theme is about religion and loyalty.

            One way I am not in agreement with the movie is how they show Christians and Muslims seeming to get along with one another, even cordial. All of the character names were real people from that time period. The Muslim King Saladin was a real person in the 1100’s and was not as friendly as the movie makes him out to be. The end of the movie shows Saladin allowing the people of Jerusalem to go freely to the coast. In actuality he charged all the people by rank and age a set price in order to leave. If you could not pay, then you were executed. The capture of Jerusalem by Saladin is what started the second Crusade (Bennett, 138)

            In the beginning of the movie they show a black man whom looks to be dressed like a Muslim warrior riding along side the other knights. I don’t believe this would have happened in real life.  The hero in the beginning of this film killed a monk because he chopped his wife’s head off because she committed suicide. This way she could not enter heaven. I don’t believe the monks would have acted this way either.

This movie is full of heroism, duty, and honor. They were very chivalrous. This movie was accurate in showing arranged marriages. Not all people married for love. Some married for position. They showed the king of Jerusalem playing chess. I thought this was cool since we just studied about games in our history class.

            This movie skews the public idea that an ordinary man can somehow become a knight and then have the opportunity to become king. This of course is not true. I think a person could play this movie for a class and still have some teachable moments come out of it.

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History 11^th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2011. Print.

Bloom, Orlando, actor. Kingdom of Heaven. 2005.

History of Jerusalem: The Capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, edited by Joseph Stevenson, 1875, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-jerusalem-by-saladin.

"Kingdom of Jerusalem." New World Encyclopedia, . 23 Apr 2018, 22:56 UTC. 30 Sep 2019, 23:02 <//www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Jerusalem&oldid=1011016>.