The film King Arthur: Legend of
the Sword (2017) does not directly or appropriately illustrate the time
period at which it’s supposed to be set, as well as straying far from the
original tale of the elusive King Arthur. The film is inaccurate in a lot of
aspects including many parts of the original legend, and the timeline of his
supposed reign. However, the film does illustrate some of what we deem today as
medieval while containing an accurate depiction of knights and medieval attire.
The legend of King Arthur first appeared in the writings of a Welsh cleric by
the name Nennius in the 9th century, who listed battles that Arthur
had supposedly fought in the 5th and 6th century; a lot
of these battles had stemmed from writings of Welsh poetry. Now, the story of
King Arthur that we all know and love today was introduced by Geoffrey Monmouth
in his The History of the Kings of Britain in the early 12th
century. Geoffrey first illustrated the tale of Arthur as the chivalrous hero
with his knights of the round table, Merlin, and all the other characters that
the world is familiar with. However, contrary to some beliefs, Geoffrey’s
version is entirely fictional, not holding any historical bases on the real
life of Arthur. The debate of Arthur even having been a true person still has
historians scrambling for evidence of his existence, some being in the writings
of Nennius and elsewhere as well, but many historians will argue today that he
never truly existed. Even if we will never truly know for certain if he was a
real person, we do know that the tale of King Arthur, that many literature's and
movies illustrate-including this one, are entirely fictional. This film harbors
many inaccuracies regarding not only the legend, but the middle ages as well.
This film of King Arthur is centered around a
depiction of his life before being king and his journey in reaching that title.
This Guy Ritchie film is an action-packed fantasy that is portrayed through the
tale of Arthur; however, the film doesn’t illustrate the true legend written by
Geoffrey. The film begins with a large-scale battle scene between Arthur’s
father Uther Pendragon and the warlock Mordred. Then after the battle is won
Uther’s brother Vortigern establishes a coup and kills the entire royal family
besides Arthur, who escapes as a young boy in a boat. Vortigern is the king
of Camelot and in turn becomes the sole enemy of Arthur in the movie. While Vortigern
was rising to power and becoming a tyrant ruler, Arthur was raised in the lower
town of Londinium in a brothel. Once Arthur had become an adult, he got into a
scuffle with Vikings that were under protection of the king and in turn was
sent to try and lift the sword from the stone. Since Arthur is the sole heir to
the throne of Camelot, he was the only one able to wield and pull the sword
Excalibur from the stone. Once Arthur had done that the entire plot of the
movie was officially set into motion. Arthur met important allies such as
Percival, the Mage, Sir Bedivere, and Rubio. With the help of these new friends
and allies, Arthur was able to learn how to wield Excalibur properly, since
it’s a magical sword, and in the end battles Vortigern and takes his rightful
place as King of Camelot. Throughout the duration of the film the depiction of
Vortigern is as a tyrant king who rules by fear and his only goal is to gain
power and conquer all the lands. After this brief description of the plot and
what it entails, it is obvious that it deviates greatly from the original
Arthurian legend. The first of its inaccuracies include the characters,
specifically the exclusion of Guinevere, Lancelot, some of the Knights of the
Round Table, and the famous Merlin. The only characters that are present in
both the film and the legend include Percival, Mordred, Uther, Sir Bedivere and
very briefly Merlin. Some critics have highlighted that the film “excludes the
traditional female characters”, the only original female lead that is also
present in the film is Igraine; however there is one main female in the film
that goes by Mage, but the majority of the film is “male-centric” (Trynoski).
The character Vortigern that holds high importance in the film isn’t part of
Arthur’s original legend. Vortigern in the film, as mentioned before, is the
main villain that is seeking power, but in the history of Vortigern that is
very different. It is said that Vortigern is not a real name, instead it is a
title meaning “Great King” in Britannic. In history Vortigern was a 5th
century king and is known for inviting the Saxons to Britain, his only linkage
to the story of Arthur is his appearance in Geoffrey’s history of kings and his
connection with Merlin in that story. However, he has no influence or
connection to King Arthur, only of Arthur having to deal with the Saxons that
he had brought over. While the film may deviate from the legend in this aspect,
in terms of general plot and theme they are very similar. Both the story and the
film exhibit the renowned theme of a hero and his friends fighting along side
one another to defeat a great evil that is terrorizing the lands. In this case
Arthur and his entourage are having to defeat King Vortigern and in the legend
Arthur is having to defeat the Saxons and restore Britain.
Even though the film highlights the
basic parts of King Arthur’s legend, the setting of the movie being that of the
Middle Ages to historians displays the extreme inaccuracies. Generally,
historians have not directly reviewed this specific film, however some have
criticized movies that are supposedly telling the story of Arthur. Many of them
have mentioned that these movies are full of too much fantasy and not enough
history. According to historians, movies about King Arthur do not illustrate
the actual history of the real person. The question with that however is, did
King Arthur ever exist? Since the debate is very even on both sides, one cannot
directly say that the film completely deviates from the history of him, but we
can say that the movie does not follow the true Middle Ages. Some of the similarities
between the Middle Ages and the film include, attire, architecture, and armor.
During the battle scenes in the movie we can see the style of armor that was
used. Mail, helmets, swords, shields with family crests, and other parts of
medieval armor can be seen throughout the movie. We can also see similarities
in everyday attire with tunics and fur lined coats or capes. While these are
present in the film there are a lot of modern twists to the armor and dress of
the characters, especially with the incorporation of leather jackets and an odd
style of shoulder plates. Also, the architecture that is demonstrated in the
film exhibits what one may deem medieval, such as the castle of Camelot. The
castle includes large stone towers and broad archways that are greatly
associated with the middle ages. However, during Arthur’s supposed reign in the
5th century castles of this style were not present, they appeared around
the 11th century with the beginning of Romanesque architecture. As
we have discussed in class, the beginning to the Romanesque architecture
brought about the description of Gothic castles, being that as the main belief of
middle ages architecture it is no surprise seeing that style of castle in the
movie. Although the castle of Camelot is like what may have appeared in the
later middle ages, another piece of the film that also incorporates this semi-comparison
is that of the city Londinium. The city Londinium was built by the Romans on
the Thames river when they had invaded Britain in 47 C.E. However, at the time
of King Arthur’s supposed reign in the 5th century the city was
largely uninhabited.
While the film may harbor some physical
similarities to the middle ages, it is largely inaccurate in being considered a
film of the middle ages. The film mainly fuses medievalism and fantasy into the
history that it’s trying to display which in turn skews the publics ideas of
the middle ages. In doing this the is more centered around being cinematic aesthetic more than historically accurate through the excessive use of battle scenes,
interesting plot line revolving the hero, along with magic and otherworldly ideas.
It integrates all these features into what people typically believe the Middle
Ages were like, that being barbaric lifestyles, all about violence, and people
being uncivilized. With the story of Vortigern and Arthur being predominately
surrounded by influences of magic and false characteristics it furthers the
misconceptions that people hold, not only of the legend of King Arthur, but also
of the middle ages as well. The 2017 adaptation of King Arthur: Legend of the
Sword is a fun movie to watch on the weekend at home, but not one to watch in
terms of learning history.
References:
Bennett, Judith. Medieval Europe: A Short History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Griffith, Gareth. "Fiction piled on fiction: The uses and abuses of King Arthur". 2019, https://www.medievalists.net/2019/02/uses-abuses-king-arthur/
Tyronoski, Danielle. "Medievalists at the Movies: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword". May 2017, https://www.medievalists.net/2017/07/king-arthur-man-candy-alert/
HistoryvsHollywood. "Is King Arthur: Legend of the Sword a true story"
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/king-arthur/
Mark, Joshua. "Vortigern", Ancient History encyclopedia, May 23, 2017, https://www.ancient.eu/Vortigern/
I have loved this story since i was a little boy. Every time i think of the medieval era i think of King Arthur. I will always prefer to think of this story as being real.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's not too surprising that the legend of King Arthur would be re-imagined in the movie, that's interesting that the movie would remove several of the characters (Like Merlin or Guinevere) associated with King Arthur. Even if he is only a myth, the story and characters do provide an insight into the Middle Ages, such as concepts of chivalry or being a good king. All of that seems to be thrown out the door in favor of simply supporting modern ideas of the middle ages. Interesting movie review!
ReplyDelete