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/.