 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / March 2004_King Arthur_ -- The Film
Hmmmmmmm... Provocative.... Clive Owen as Arthur. http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/intheworks/king_arthur.shtml D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Britannicus Traductus Sum. It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/ The Wagner funeral march was perfectly matched to the story, and the blood 'n guts very well handled. But the very best part was the total LACK OF SOAP in the story. I'll bet this new one is riddled with soap about Guinevere & Lancelot. > Hmmmmmmm... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Britannicus Traductus Sum. Right! _Excalibur_ as mythic FILM IS remarkably good. Don't expect text-book History. The Wagnerian Ring score was superbly fitted. Making love in armour? Probably not ---- but it looks great on screen. What do you think of Clive Owen as Arthur? I was quite impressed with him in _Gosford Park_. A powerful and versatile actor. DSH | It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" movie, with a | crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. | http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/ | The Wagner funeral march was perfectly matched to the story, and the blood | 'n guts very well handled. | But the very best part was the total LACK OF SOAP in the story. | I'll bet this new one is riddled with soap about Guinevere & Lancelot. | > Hmmmmmmm... | > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | > | > Britannicus Traductus Sum. > Right! > > _Excalibur_ as mythic FILM IS remarkably good. Don't expect text-book > History. Oh dear. Arthur and the cycle of stories have never been presented as history.  SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c27qvl$ok0$1 @news.freedom2surf.net: >> Right! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Arthur and the cycle of stories have never been presented as history. Not until now, anyway. The new King Arthur movie is being advertised as the true history behind the legends. The filmmakers might just as well have painted a large red target on it and provided free longbow training to the reviewers. SignatureMark Steese Unscramble and underscore to email --- Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. -fametracker.com > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c27qvl$ok0$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have painted a large red target on it and provided free longbow training > to the reviewers. I think it's the "any publicity is good publicity, so let's get the historians to publicise our film" concept. Thur In alt.history.british Mark Steese <mere_skates@charter.net> wrote: >"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c27qvl$ok0$1 >@news.freedom2surf.net: >>> Right! >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >have painted a large red target on it and provided free longbow training >to the reviewers. Yup. Generally folks don't mutter much over movies clearly intended to be fictional. Whether the laws of physics would allow a "Return of the King"-sized elephant (or whatever they were) to even stand up is an example. Nobody cares. It is a great story. But if we are told that such animals really existed, then the big guns come out. Same with King Arthur. ---- Paul J. Gans > > Right! > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Arthur and the cycle of stories have never been presented as history. Geoffrey of Monmouth did. Benjo Maso > > > Right! > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Geoffrey of Monmouth did. The opinions of a chicken stealing jailbird are not usually considered serious. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > > > Right! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The opinions of a chicken stealing jailbird are not usually considered > serious. You're talking about magister Galfridus Monumotensis?!? Benjo Maso In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >> > Right! >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Arthur and the cycle of stories have never been presented as history. >Geoffrey of Monmouth did. Sure. But he had a different goal in mind. His point was to show that falling away from the Church inevitably led to God's punishing you. He makes that very explicit. But Geoffrey's version of Arthur is a pale shadow of what he became afterwards. No Lancelot, no Perceval, no Grail, no chivalry. Just a fascinating run-up to becoming king, a horrible end, and a few squishy details in the middle. As my favorite Arthurian scholar has pointed out, Geoffrey's Arthur provides a stage on which other Arthurs could tell their stories. There are so many vacant spaces in Geoffrey's tale that any number of other things could fit. And so they did. And we are still adding to the Arthurian canon. ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > show that falling away from the Church inevitably led to God's > punishing you. He makes that very explicit. > But Geoffrey's version of Arthur is a pale shadow of what > he became afterwards. No Lancelot, no Perceval, no Grail, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their stories. There are so many vacant spaces in Geoffrey's > tale that any number of other things could fit. Geoffrey of Monmouth is the first, but not the only 12th or 13th century author who claimed that the story of King Arthur was true. Chrétien does in indirectly in Cligès, the anonymous author of Perlesvaus did it (according to him the original story of the graal and the adventures of the knights who tried to find it, was dictated by an angel to to Flavius Josephus, the anonymous writer of the Roman de Jaufré did it and there must be more Benjo Maso In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >> In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> show that falling away from the Church inevitably led to God's >> punishing you. He makes that very explicit. >> But Geoffrey's version of Arthur is a pale shadow of what >> he became afterwards. No Lancelot, no Perceval, no Grail, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> their stories. There are so many vacant spaces in Geoffrey's >> tale that any number of other things could fit. >Geoffrey of Monmouth is the first, but not the only 12th or 13th century >author who claimed that the story of King Arthur was true. Chr?tien does in >indirectly in Clig?s, the anonymous author of Perlesvaus did it (according >to him the original story of the graal and the adventures of the knights who >tried to find it, was dictated by an angel to to Flavius Josephus, the >anonymous writer of the Roman de Jaufr? did it and there must be more Oh there are. And of course the stories are true. These were tales told to grown ups, many of whom owned their own suits of armor. Who would dare waste their time with pure invention? <grin> But more seriously, Geoffrey, whom I take as the wellspring for the French Arthurian canon, treated Arthur as historical. And indeed several others in his history are indeed historical (or at least their names occur in history.) Geoffrey was a learned man and who would dispute him? The stories told by Chretien and other authors nevertheless set their stories in what their listeners would recognize as a romanticized past when the only "knights" that mattered were the sons of royalty or at least major nobility. No jumped up fighters on horseback here. Of course, in Chretien's time there were jumped up fighters on horseback who were knighted. These were mainly sons of the lesser nobility who had not yet inherited anything and were not really recognized as anybody important in the 12th century. But these don't (often) appear in Chretien. It is amazing how almost all the knights of the round table are sons of kings or brothers of kings or at least major nobles. Except Kay, and that's by design. So one way to look at Chretien's stories is to take them as being like the American Western. A romanticization of a time gone by that never really existed. You know, the good old days. Knights never went on quests, never ranged the countryside looking for wrongs to right, never fought dragons, ogres, etc., etc. And nobody ever kidnapped the queen and held her while her husband, the famous Arthur, did nothing. To the knightly audience, these were like stories of the Lone Ranger and other heros of the West that never existed. They *loved* the stories so much that hundreds of them were written over the next couple of centuries. ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > of kings or brothers of kings or at least major nobles. > Except Kay, and that's by design.` And Perceval, the son of a mere prud'home. > So one way to look at Chretien's stories is to take them > as being like the American Western. A romanticization of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > looking for wrongs to right, never fought dragons, ogres, > etc., etc. They didn't fight dragons? C'me on! > And nobody ever kidnapped the queen and held > her while her husband, the famous Arthur, did nothing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > existed. They *loved* the stories so much that hundreds > of them were written over the next couple of centuries. OK, that's all true, but a very interesting point is that in the middle ages the boundaries between fact and fiction were much more blurred than nowadays, not only for a gullible audience but also for teh authors themselves. Historians didn't mind inserting fiction in their accounts as long as it was a "moral" truth (the way they saw it anyhow). For instance, Guibert of Nogent wrote that he knew that some stories about Mohamed he had written were actually fantasy, but said that every story that showed the wickedness of Mohamed was valid. The same way, I think that novelists could believe sincerely that a story could be "true", although they had invented it themselves. And of course, as soon as it was written by an authority like Chrétien there could hardly be any doubt. Benjo Maso In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >> In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> of kings or brothers of kings or at least major nobles. >> Except Kay, and that's by design.` >And Perceval, the son of a mere prud'home. If I recall correctly his father was left vague, but we are assured that he was of "good blood". >> So one way to look at Chretien's stories is to take them >> as being like the American Western. A romanticization of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> looking for wrongs to right, never fought dragons, ogres, >> etc., etc. >They didn't fight dragons? C'me on! I thought there was such an episode. Not in Chretien, but my memory might be playing tricks. >> And nobody ever kidnapped the queen and held >> her while her husband, the famous Arthur, did nothing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> existed. They *loved* the stories so much that hundreds >> of them were written over the next couple of centuries. >OK, that's all true, but a very interesting point is that in the middle ages >the boundaries between fact and fiction were much more blurred than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >it themselves. And of course, as soon as it was written by an authority like >Chr?tien there could hardly be any doubt. I agree. That's the problem with many monastic accounts of events. They were not actual records of the events, they were recordings of the working of God's will in everyday life. This characteristic carried over into tales written about a patron. And, as you note, even fiction had a point outside the story. The point of the Arthurian stories was mainly to teach knights how to behave in court and with women. Much of Chretien is just this. What we are seeing is the development of courtly chivalry right before our eyes. It is written for the new upstart knighthood. The older established aristocracy already (mostly) knew how to behave. So the stories are examples of how their betters (socially and in knightly prowess) behaved and how they were trained to behave. Guinevere trains Lancelot, Eric is trained by Ynid, etc. We can learn an enormous amount about the ideals of courtly life by reading these -- keeping in mind that the reality was not quite so perfect. >Benjo Maso ----- Paul J. Gans (snip) > The point of the Arthurian stories was mainly to teach knights > how to behave in court and with women. Much of Chretien is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and in knightly prowess) behaved and how they were trained > to behave. I'm not so sure. In the second half of the 12th century the idea of chivalry was something new for everybody (and still quite different from the actual practice). To a certain degree the same went for courtliness (in England and the North of France at least). The first to embrace the new codes of behaviour were not the members of the established aristocracy, but the clergymen trained at the cathedral schools for a function at the court. And don't forget the women. They were also an very important important part of the audience. > Guinevere trains Lancelot, Eric is trained by Ynid, etc. Yes, but in the first place it's the clergy (it's almost that Chrétien was trained at one of the cathedral schools to be a clergyman) instructing the laity, > We can learn an enormous amount about the ideals of > courtly life by reading these -- keeping in mind that the > reality was not quite so perfect. Absolutely. And if someone wants to make a true film about Arthur, it's not by reconstructing a fifth or sixth century reality which has never existed, but breathing new life in the spirit and the message which Geofffrey, Wace, Chrétien and their successors tried to put across. Benjo Maso _Excalibur_ certainly does not pretend to be textbook History ---- the film is quite clear on that. Methinks these rampant, mediocre, flummoxed academic pogues doth protest too much. DSH > _Excalibur_ certainly does not pretend to be textbook History ---- the > film is quite clear on that. > > Methinks these rampant, mediocre, flummoxed academic pogues doth protest > too much. Eh... perhaps you haven't noticed, but this thread is about the film King Arthur, not about Excalibur ... Benjo Maso In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: >(snip) >> The point of the Arthurian stories was mainly to teach knights >> how to behave in court and with women. Much of Chretien is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> and in knightly prowess) behaved and how they were trained >> to behave. >I'm not so sure. In the second half of the 12th century the idea of chivalry >was something new for everybody (and still quite different from the actual >practice). To a certain degree the same went for courtliness (in England and >the North of France at least). Yes. This is true. >The first to embrace the new codes of >behaviour were not the members of the established aristocracy, but the >clergymen trained at the cathedral schools for a function at the court. And >don't forget the women. They were also an very important important part of >the audience. I can't agree with this. There's no particular evidence for it. The spread of "courtliness seems to be associated with Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughters by the King of France. One of them was married to the Count of Champaigne She seems to have been Chretien's main benefactor. >> Guinevere trains Lancelot, Eric is trained by Ynid, etc. >Yes, but in the first place it's the clergy (it's almost that Chr?tien was >trained at one of the cathedral schools to be a clergyman) instructing the >laity, No. Nothing much is known about Chretien's life. You can find folks with every conceivable opinion about him, including the clerical theory. But again, there is no particular evidence for any of them. >> We can learn an enormous amount about the ideals of >> courtly life by reading these -- keeping in mind that the >> reality was not quite so perfect. >Absolutely. And if someone wants to make a true film about Arthur, it's not >by reconstructing a fifth or sixth century reality which has never existed, >but breathing new life in the spirit and the message which Geofffrey, Wace, >Chr?tien and their successors tried to put across. Yes. In fact one can determine a number of things about material life from them as well. Richard Kaeuper has done a book on it ("Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe") and others have done this as well. They make fascinating reading. >Benjo Maso ----- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I can't agree with this. There's no particular evidence for > it. Yes, there is. First of all the long list of patrons of poets and novelists: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marie de Champagne (patron of Chrétien), Ermengard of Narbonne, Marie de Ventadour, Garsenda of the Provence, Aélis of Blois, etc., etc. Then the many passages in novels that the authors are directly or indirectly adressing the women in the audience (of course poetry, novels and chansons de geste were usually recited instead of read). The spread of "courtliness seems to be associated with > Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughters by the King of France. > One of them was married to the Count of Champaigne She seems > to have been Chretien's main benefactor. I don't think courtliness can be exported. Perhaps certain outward appearances, but it needed a very fruitful soil to become a way a prevailing standard of behaviour. > >> Guinevere trains Lancelot, Eric is trained by Ynid, etc. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > clerical theory. But again, there is no particular evidence > for any of them. True, we know almost nothing of Chretien's life, but one of the few things we do know is that he traslated Ovid's Ars amandi in "roman" which is almost impossible if he hadn't been a clerk. > >> We can learn an enormous amount about the ideals of > >> courtly life by reading these -- keeping in mind that the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They make fascinating reading. I know! Benjo Maso - > The Wagnerian Ring score was superbly fitted. Wasn't a lot of that 'Tristan und Isolde?' Signature_____________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a____________ ;^{> Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu Yes, some of it was ---- _Liebestod_. King Arthur and Richard Wagner go quite well together. The Proto-Mythic & Heroic. I'd like to see Wagner used in this new film -- but it's probably unlikely. John Boorman is a much under-rated director. Watch _Hell In The Pacific_ with Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune. _Excalibur_ is a truly great film, of that genre. So is _Master And Commander, The Far Side Of The World_ ---- which contains lots of Good History, contrary to some of the ignorant chatter we are hearing from my pet goose -- who doesn't understand the film. DSH | In article <sLv1c.107$th4.5203@eagle.america.net>, | > The Wagnerian Ring score was superbly fitted. | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | _____________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a____________ ;^{> | Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu I must agree, about Excalibur that is, which for its time was possessed that "shock of the new", or "Blitzkunst" so rarely seen in movies. Of course Wagner wrote that score for Gotterdammerung, a Gothic horror story about the death of kings and Gods, and this must be the best match of classical music to a movie yet. Alas, there are a certain few in this NG who are tone deaf and who wouldn't even know a quaver from a crotchet, and for these we must make the usual allowances. Tsk Tsk. This movie was made in the early 80s and so cannot have the same impact today because the advances in technique and film stock leave it far behind. Yet for its time it made an impact. For example the scene where Igrayne, played by Katrine Boorman is portrayed as a nursing mother, all milk white with big pearly bouncing quivering thrusting breasts, splayed out on a luxurious bed festooned with fabrics, her long hair down to her ankles, vilely seized by that evil duke transmogrified as her husband, and then forced into metallic congress by him in full armour, all shiny mud-and-blood spattered, creaking 'n grinding 'n all. Christ, what a masterstroke, the very essence of Carravaggio, how artistic! Well, it was enough to give me arrhythmia, that's for sure. Of course there are those extant in this NG who do not and cannot appreciate these allegories, so brainwashed as they are with TV soaps and talking heads and lost causes - like CO2, and tall trees on small distant penal feral ephemeral southern islets on which morlocks live. Nigel Terry was excellent as Arthur showing him as the churl he must have been, slowly advancing up to kingship level, and Merlin played with appropriate ennui and cynicism by Nicol Williamson so perfectly offsetting the idealism of Arthur. And again those aforementioned flaky few boffins expect these parts to be played by Walt Disney type-characters such as regal-affecting incumbent born-to-the-purple individuals and wizards straight out that saccharin disaster "Harry Potter" with the hackneyed pointy hats. Tut tut! Now I come to Lancelot & Guinevere perfectly played by Clay and Lunghi, expressing the reality of love, which is to get the sex over with first and worry about the relationship later, thereby sparing the Gnostic moviegoer all that repetitious soapy crap upon which lesser directors have wasted light-years of film stock. Advanced for its day was the effect of the 'lady of the lake' and the sword trick where Excalibur was tossed over the lake spinning end over end, to be caught perfectly by an arm protruding from the water. I wonder how they did that without computers? I remember too the Morgana scenes played by a well cast Ms Mirren, and Robbert Addie as Mordred as a perfect snooty spoilt English public-schoolboy brat - the witch and the bitch! What a duo! Surely a medieval 'Batwoman and Robin'. It is scenes like this that we aficionados appreciate deeply because they parody things subtly. Sadly there are some here, still, who cannot appreciate subtleties, and who have to belted over the head with a rusty anvil to take notice, who need subtitles, endless dialogue, approval of their peers and flavour-of-the-month critics' jeers to form an opinion. Oh dear. The ending of the movie went down well with the audience I was with, especially the part where Arthur skewered himself on a lance to get to his wayward naughty-boy son and then kill him with relish resulting in the effusion of hogsheads of blood. Loud cheers from the audience! And then when Arthur, mortally wounded, is carried off to a funeral bark by a chorus of 'angels' and sails off to the horizon and sunset to the stirring sounds of the funeral march, it was noted that one of the ladies in the audience had burst into tears - as well she might. Indeed, there is one here who might shed a tear or two on learning that the planet Mars is surrounded, enveloped, steeped, subsumed, saturated and burdened with an atmosphere of CO2; yet is as cold as a witch's tit, and the sea levels there have not risen. In fact some academic persons here might choose to acquire a copy of that wonderful Handel aria "I Know That My Briny Seas Have Risen" usually belted out by a fat lady soprano - or a buxom castrato. > Yes, some of it was ---- _Liebestod_. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > | _____________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a____________ ;^{> > | Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu Yes... Siegfried's Funeral March... Prelude to Parsifal... Prelude to Tristan and Isolde... Are the Wagnerian bits. Plus Orff's Carmina Burana. _BLITZKUNST_ indeed. Well Said! Nigel Terry deserved to be the hero in this one -- after playing the filthy, slobbering, bad-postured John in _The Lion In Winter. DSH Vide infra.... | I must agree, about Excalibur that is, which for its time was possessed that | "shock of the new", or "Blitzkunst" so rarely seen in movies. Of course [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | deaf and who wouldn't even know a quaver from a crotchet, and for these we | must make the usual allowances. Tsk Tsk. Indeed. | This movie was made in the early 80s and so cannot have the same impact | today because the advances in technique and film stock leave it far behind. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | very essence of Carravaggio, how artistic! Well, it was enough to give me | arrhythmia, that's for sure. Aye, 1981. | Of course there are those extant in this NG | who do not and cannot appreciate these allegories, so brainwashed as they | are with TV soaps and talking heads and lost causes - like CO2, and tall | trees on small distant penal feral ephemeral southern islets on which | morlocks live. Marvelous Image! H. G. Wells would have appreciated that. | Nigel Terry was excellent as Arthur showing him as the | churl he must have been, slowly advancing up to kingship level, and Merlin | played with appropriate ennui and cynicism by Nicol Williamson so perfectly | offsetting the idealism of Arthur. Right! | And again those aforementioned flaky few | boffins expect these parts to be played by Walt Disney type-characters such [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | tossed over the lake spinning end over end, to be caught perfectly by an arm | protruding from the water. Capital! Pogue Gans is incapable of appreciating a martial image of that sort. | I wonder how they did that without computers? I | remember too the Morgana scenes played by a well cast Ms Mirren, and Robbert | Addie as Mordred as a perfect snooty spoilt English public-schoolboy brat - | the witch and the bitch! What a duo! Surely a medieval 'Batwoman and Robin'. Yes.... | It is scenes like this that we aficionados appreciate deeply because they | parody things subtly. Sadly there are some here, still, who cannot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | wayward naughty-boy son and then kill him with relish resulting in the | effusion of hogsheads of blood. Loud cheers from the audience! Quite Proper.... | And then when Arthur, mortally wounded, is carried off to a funeral bark by | a chorus of 'angels' and sails off to the horizon and sunset to the stirring [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | a copy of that wonderful Handel aria "I Know That My Briny Seas Have Risen" | usually belted out by a fat lady soprano - or a buxom castrato. Oh the academic castrati would appreciate it -- no doubt of that. DSH | > Yes, some of it was ---- _Liebestod_. | > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | > | _____________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a____________ ;^{> | > | Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu In alt.history.british Peter Jason <paul@colonel.com.au> wrote: >It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a >crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But the very best part was the total LACK OF SOAP in the story. >I'll bet this new one is riddled with soap about Guinevere & Lancelot. But the Arthurian legend is all soap. ---- Paul J. Gans > It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a > crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. > http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/ > The Wagner funeral march was perfectly matched to the story, and the blood > 'n guts very well handled. I'm still mystified as to why "Excalibur" is held up by many as a great movie. I loved it when I first saw it (age 12). Years later I saw it again and could barely believe it was the same movie. Arthur talks like an Irish yokel (until he becomes king and fades from the story), Merlin is played by a weird hissing little chap who occasionally lapses into a Fozzy Bear muppet voice for no readily apparent reason, everyone wears armour *all* the time - including while having sex - and the farcical final battle (to the strains of Orff's "Carmina Burana") is best described as 'Arthur and a Cast of Dozens'. The whole thing looks like a bad 80s video for a one hit New Romantic band. Some people seem to drool over Mirren as Morgana. True, her acting (despite the cludgy dialogue) wasn't as bad as most of the rest of the wooden cast, but I'm afraid I can't get too excited about pinch-mouthed, pointy-faced women. The director's determination to keep any Christian elements of the legends at bay reduce the jerky and pointless "Grail Quest" sequence to complete meaninglessness. Its flaccid climax consists of someone (Launcelot IIRC) seeing a glowing grail-shaped thing which bears a remarkable resemblance to Bad Bad Wicked Zoot's Grail-shaped Lamp in Monty Python's Holy Grail. It glows and a voice says some New Age things and then ... that's it. Stupid, crappy, badly written, over-acted and over-rated crap. The new Arthur movie - peddling the Arthur was a Sarmatian Warrior nonsense which is becoming the new internet fuelled pseudo-theory about Arthur despite it's glaring flaws - looks even worse. But it does have Keira Knightly in it. Give me her over Helen "Pointy Nose" Mirren any day. Cheers, Tim O'Neill In alt.history.british Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote: >> It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a >> crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. >> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/ >> The Wagner funeral march was perfectly matched to the story, and the blood >> 'n guts very well handled. >I'm still mystified as to why "Excalibur" is held up by many as a >great movie. I loved it when I first saw it (age 12). Years later I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Dozens'. The whole thing looks like a bad 80s video for a one hit New >Romantic band. >Some people seem to drool over Mirren as Morgana. True, her acting >(despite the cludgy dialogue) wasn't as bad as most of the rest of the >wooden cast, but I'm afraid I can't get too excited about >pinch-mouthed, pointy-faced women. >The director's determination to keep any Christian elements of the >legends at bay reduce the jerky and pointless "Grail Quest" sequence [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Monty Python's Holy Grail. It glows and a voice says some New Age >things and then ... that's it. >Stupid, crappy, badly written, over-acted and over-rated crap. >The new Arthur movie - peddling the Arthur was a Sarmatian Warrior >nonsense which is becoming the new internet fuelled pseudo-theory >about Arthur despite it's glaring flaws - looks even worse. >But it does have Keira Knightly in it. Give me her over Helen "Pointy >Nose" Mirren any day. >Cheers, >Tim O'Neill Agreed. All the way. It would seem that the projected movie is yet another attempt to push some sort of historical roots for the King Arthur we know. And that is pure nonsense. If folks will think about it for a moment it does not matter if there was a British king or warlord in the 6th century (or whenever) who was named Arthur. It just does not matter. The Arthurian tales are NOT about that person. They are clearly set in the 11th-12th century milieu and involve issues, relationships, problems, etc., that are typical of *that* time and not the 6th century. We know when most of the Arthurian stories were written. We know when Lancelot was invented. We know when Galahad was invented. We know when Percival was invented. Any movie attempting to link the Arthur of the stories to some "real" person is just wishful thinking. There is no real link. ----- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message [.] > Any movie attempting to link the Arthur of the stories to some > "real" person is just wishful thinking. There is no real link. We already know that, Paul. It doesn't have to be real, only appear real. That is what story tellers do, bind an old Welsh spell. -the Troll > "Paul J Gans" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We already know that, Paul. It doesn't have to be real, only appear real. > That is what story tellers do, bind an old Welsh spell. -the Troll BUT ... a decent film genuinely set in 6th. century garb etc. and historically reasonable COULD make a great film, couldn't it! Surreyman > BUT ... a decent film genuinely set in 6th. century garb etc. and > historically reasonable COULD make a great film, couldn't it! Lice, fleas, running sores, slavery, torture, killing surrendering enemies. And that's the good guys... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >> BUT ... a decent film genuinely set in 6th. century garb etc. and >> historically reasonable COULD make a great film, couldn't it! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And that's the good guys... Think how it would have been if the other centuries had been remotely like that Cheers Soren Larsen "William Black" wrote in message > "a.spencer3" wrote in message > > BUT ... a decent film genuinely set in 6th. century garb etc. and > > historically reasonable COULD make a great film, couldn't it! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And that's the good guys... Everybody got to do it. You'd get your chance too. -the Troll "a.spencer3" wrote in message > hippo wrote in message > > "Paul J Gans" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BUT ... a decent film genuinely set in 6th. century garb etc. and > historically reasonable COULD make a great film, couldn't it! You betcha and I can't wait. I do maybe one film a year. This will be the one. -the Troll In alt.history.british hippo <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote: >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >[.] >> Any movie attempting to link the Arthur of the stories to some >> "real" person is just wishful thinking. There is no real link. >We already know that, Paul. It doesn't have to be real, only appear real. >That is what story tellers do, bind an old Welsh spell. -the Troll "We" may know it, but some folks often confuse what they see in a movie with reality. I can offer "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" as examples. Sorry that they are both Gibson, but then, he's a major offender, but certainly not the only one. The problem is not invention in a movie. The problem comes when producers, in an effort to gain sales, bill the movie as "The true story". ----- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british hippo <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > producers, in an effort to gain sales, bill the movie as "The > true story". I know. The kids actually believe it. I spend hours explaining to them they shouldn't. I already told you how my History Prof. put it. -the Troll > In alt.history.british Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > if there was a British king or warlord in the 6th century > (or whenever) who was named Arthur. It just does not matter. Well it would be nice to know more about what did occur in Britain at that time. > The Arthurian tales are NOT about that person. They are clearly > set in the 11th-12th century milieu and involve issues, relationships, > problems, etc., that are typical of *that* time and not the 6th > century. This is a problem of many figures in legends and stories. There maybe an actual character that the writers originally loosely modeled their heros on but its almost impossible to determine what did actually occur. Still the story of Arthur maybe able to tell us what the hopes and feelings were of people at the time. > We know when most of the Arthurian stories were written. We know > when Lancelot was invented. We know when Galahad was invented. > We know when Percival was invented. > > Any movie attempting to link the Arthur of the stories to some > "real" person is just wishful thinking. There is no real link. Its pure Hollywood then the Arthur story as in Hollywood many of there films are based on true events...... > ----- Paul J. Gans SignatureThe government runs its intelligence agencies to the same standard as the public transport system. Observations of Bernard - No 51 > This is a problem of many figures in legends and stories. There maybe an > actual character that the writers originally loosely modeled their heros > on but its almost impossible to determine what did actually occur. Still > the story of Arthur maybe able to tell us what the hopes and feelings > were of people at the time. But *not* at the time the myths are set. Arthur tells us about the 12th century and the 19th century. Its relevance to the 5th & 6th centuries is so limited and hidden that the public *will* miss it - but misunderstand all the later 'context' as being relevant. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines In alt.history.british John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> This is a problem of many figures in legends and stories. There maybe an >> actual character that the writers originally loosely modeled their heros >> on but its almost impossible to determine what did actually occur. Still >> the story of Arthur maybe able to tell us what the hopes and feelings >> were of people at the time. >But *not* at the time the myths are set. Arthur tells us about the 12th >century and the 19th century. Its relevance to the 5th & 6th centuries is >so limited and hidden that the public *will* miss it - but misunderstand >all the later 'context' as being relevant. Yup. The Arthurian legends are about knighthood, chivalry, and a nobleman's relationships with women. The first two were unknown in the 5th and 6th centuries and the latter would have seemed very strange to folks in the 5th and 6th. There is a very similar thing in the Roland epic. This too was composed in the 11th or 12th century (I forget which) and relates events that were *supposed* to have taken place in Charlemagne's time (8th century mainly). It too is a tale of knighthood and chivalry and presents attitudes absolutely unknown in Charlmagne's time. And yes, there really was a Charlemagne. What might be an interesting approach is to open a film with a scene in a 13th century Great Hall. It is after the main meal and the tables have been cleared of food, but not drink. A teller of tales rises and speaks: "I shall tell you a tale of days long gone when King Arthur ruled with Queen Guinevere at his side and there was peace in the land. It was at Pentecost when a knight arrived, dirty and mud-spattered from his ride. He knelt before the King and when he rose he began to tell his tale..." and as these words are spoken the scene fades to a similar Great Hall, but this one dominated by the presence of King Arthur. The movie proper now begins. But what we have done is put things in their proper setting. You can now tell whatever tale you want but everyone *knows* it is a tale. And everyone knows that in spite of the "tale of days long gone" the adventure is set in a period contemporaneous with that of the teller of tales. ---- Paul J. Gans In alt.history.british Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@removehotmail.com> wrote: >> In alt.history.british Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote: [big snip] >> Agreed. All the way. It would seem that the projected movie >> is yet another attempt to push some sort of historical roots [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> if there was a British king or warlord in the 6th century >> (or whenever) who was named Arthur. It just does not matter. >Well it would be nice to know more about what did occur in Britain at >that time. Yes it would. But we don't. Clearly Celtic society at the time was both fragmented and under pressure. Often things don't survive from such a situation. >> The Arthurian tales are NOT about that person. They are clearly >> set in the 11th-12th century milieu and involve issues, relationships, >> problems, etc., that are typical of *that* time and not the 6th >> century. >This is a problem of many figures in legends and stories. There maybe an >actual character that the writers originally loosely modeled their heros >on but its almost impossible to determine what did actually occur. Still >the story of Arthur maybe able to tell us what the hopes and feelings >were of people at the time. Sure, but this is a more blatant example. Folks really want King Arthur to have been real. There is always a shortage of heros. And perhaps there was a Celtic war leader back then who was able to stem the Saxon advance, at least for a little while. The evidence is that there was a temporary turn-around. But it has nothing to do with the King Arthur we know. >> We know when most of the Arthurian stories were written. We know >> when Lancelot was invented. We know when Galahad was invented. >> We know when Percival was invented. >> >> Any movie attempting to link the Arthur of the stories to some >> "real" person is just wishful thinking. There is no real link. >Its pure Hollywood then the Arthur story as in Hollywood many of there >films are based on true events...... In Hollywood "based on true events" often means that there was a Second World War or there was a William Wallace. The rest is made up. Nothing wrong with that. But note what happened. The first post I saw on the projected movie speculated that it would go back to the "real" story. My point is: what real story? ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@removehotmail.com> wrote: > >> In alt.history.british Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans¨ Maybe someone's got a time machine? `:) In alt.history.british Margot <margot.lendi@postkasse.com> wrote: >> In alt.history.british Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@removehotmail.com> wrote: >> >> In alt.history.british Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans? >Maybe someone's got a time machine? `:) I have one. Unfortunately it only runs forward... ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@removehotmail.com> wrote: > In Hollywood "based on true events" often means that there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My point is: what real story? Braveheart is a funny one though. When folk moan about it not being true then what exactly are they meaning? The film is not based on real life but on the novel, but differs in various aspects from it. The novelist based the book on the Hamilton version of Blind Harry's original epic but supposedly intertwined it with elements of the Jesus story. The novel doesn't claim to be absolutely historically accurate, and of course we know the poem wasn't. So the film is an adventure yarn with a tartaned up Scotland, mostly based on existing works of historical fiction which were themselves based around the gist of the Wallace story. Nothing wrong with that in itself.........though I agree it's wrong for folk to claim it as history. Allan >Braveheart is a funny one though. When folk moan about it not being true >then what exactly are they meaning? The film is not based on real life but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that in itself.........though I agree it's wrong for folk to claim it as >history. The difficulty, as others (including you :) ) have said, is that none of this was made clear to the moviegoing public - if anything, the reverse. It was marketed as history - not the adaptation of the adaptation of the biased epic, but 'this is what occurred'. Not only that, but it fails utterly to portray the culture of the time accurately at all - neither the Scots _nor_ the English. Sharon Krossa rather brutally dissected the first 2 1/2 minutes of the film for us a while ago - see http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml I would not have a single objection to the film were it marketed as fantasy, or very clearly 'inspired by' or any of the usual Hollywood formulations that indicate they took something and heavily fictionalized it. Instead, it was put forward as Gospel truth. Ych. Cheers, Chris ------------------ Christopher Candy Department of History University of Durham 43 North Bailey Durham DH1 3EX United Kingdom +44 191 334 1045 C.A.Candy@durham.ac.uk > >Braveheart is a funny one though. When folk moan about it not being true > >then what exactly are they meaning? The film is not based on real life but [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > formulations that indicate they took something and heavily fictionalized > it. Instead, it was put forward as Gospel truth. Ych. True like I said someone claiming it as the truth would be fooling themsleves but that leaves them open to ridicule, rather than the film itself. When many of the folk criticise the film they pick on certain things which are attested in the poems etc. Hence the blue face is ridiculed yet Harry has Wallace's face crossed with a saltire. The liason with Edward's daughter in law is ridiculed yet it's based on an event in Harry again, though in the poem it's with Edward's own wife. The film is bashed for being anti-English yet it's actually toned down quite a bit compared with the poem. The main point I was making was what do folk mean when they say it's innacurate? Some of the things are widely condemened when they are accurate or approaching accurate as far as the literature goes. Of course it can be pulled to bits in a historical context but it is after all just a ripping yarn based mostly on an epic poem. Really as far as Sharon's observations go, does it really matter where the panoramic shots were taken or what kind of hairstyle the actors have? Despite everything, and the Highlandism of the film, the basic story is still there. Young guy wronged during English occupation, leads a revolt, defeats English at Stirling Bridge, becomes Guardian despite hostility of certain nobles, is defeated at Falkirk, later betrayed and taken to London to be executed. Weave a story round rough plan using material in poem and a wee bit initiative. My main gripe about the film is it's too bloody long and boring in bits. cheers Allan <snip on Braveheart> >> I would not have a single objection to the film were it marketed as >> fantasy, or very clearly 'inspired by' or any of the usual Hollywood [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >themsleves but that leaves them open to ridicule, rather than the film >itself. I don't think most people have problems with the film having been made, per se... I don't mind it, in a pulp sort of way. It is its use as a historical primer that drives me bats. >When many of the folk criticise the film they pick on certain >things which are attested in the poems etc. Hence the blue face is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >when they are accurate or approaching accurate as far as the literature >goes. Yes... but the poem's major role in guiding the story was not what was emphasized in the advertising, and the vast majority of people have no inkling of the poem's existence, let alone its importance in creating the script. If the film is claimed to be history without any such caveats, as it was, then it is fully open for such criticisms. >Of course it can be pulled to bits in a historical context but it is >after all just a ripping yarn based mostly on an epic poem. Really as far >as Sharon's observations go, does it really matter where the panoramic shots >were taken or what kind of hairstyle the actors have? When the overall effect is to portray a world that never was, and then have it advertised as the truth? Again, it is not the story itself I have problems with - it was in how it was portrayed, with all the problems that portraying falsehoods as truth causes. I have spent far too much of my life in the classroom trying to correct crazy notions of what 13th-14th century Britain was like due to that film to feel overly charitable towards it. Especially when those notions play into modern political feelings. Cheers, Chris ------------------ Christopher Candy Department of History University of Durham 43 North Bailey Durham DH1 3EX United Kingdom +44 191 334 1045 C.A.Candy@durham.ac.uk > <snip on Braveheart> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > script. If the film is claimed to be history without any such caveats, as > it was, then it is fully open for such criticisms. That is true and I agree with you if it was claimed down to the details as accurate historical reality. Certainly though it's based on Randall Wallace's novel and he doesn't claim it as such. "I had already found a shape for my story [the William Wallace of Braveheart follows the patterns of Jesus of Nazereth as told in the gospels] but finding Blind Harry gave me new material and isnsight, such as the incident with the Princess, though I changed her age, and made her the wife of Edward II, while Harry made her the wife of Longshanks............Randall Wallace quoted from the introduction to the Luath Press edition of Hamilton's Wallace." If the film makers themselves claim the film as completely accurate in every detail then yes, they leave themselves open to derision, but if they say "look this is based on a guy who really lived and came to power like that, then defeated the English occupying forces before being betrayed and sent off to London for execution" then they are of course justified in what they say. There is though an element of po-faced historians who would criticise anything they can. For instance Sharon's comments on where the shots were taken [and let's face it much of it is shot outwith Scotland itself] and what folks hairstyles are like are hardly important to the cinema going public. Likewise here is part of a review of the film by Julie Cross [a reviewer rather than a historian of course] "Braveheart attempts to persuade the viewers that William Wallace, a medieval fighter from Scotland, was really an attractive student of languages who has sex with the Princess of Wales and fathers her child. This idealistic silliness is not founded in real history, and destroys what might have been an intriguing and rewarding movie" Laying aside her apparent dismissal of Wallace as a linguist as it's another thread - but tradition has it that he was educated and why Cross finds it beyond the realms of possibility that minor Scottish nobility could speak French defeats me. Anyway this film reviewer dismisses the film's credibility because of the episode with the Princess. Yet again as we have seen this episode is based on existing literature. It wasn't simply made up by Hollywood. So all I'm saying is yes, if film makers state their works are absolutely authentic then they are wrong - but at the same time historians should take things a bit lighter after all I'm sure they'd themselves make less than riveting films. > >Of course it can be pulled to bits in a historical context but it is > >after all just a ripping yarn based mostly on an epic poem. Really as far [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When the overall effect is to portray a world that never was, and then > have it advertised as the truth? I agree with that. What was advertised as the truth though? The main outline of the story was true after all, or did the film makes say "yes Wallace did bed the English princess, and the Scots did all wear kilts and have their faces painted blue"? There are some differences which are interesting though. For instance in the film the Irish army fighting for Edward turn face on the English and side with the Scots. Designed for American audiences with the sight of chirpy Celts together defying the nasty English? However in the poem when Wallace catches up with MacFadzean's army the Irish are butchered to a man as being foreign invaders. Meanwhile the Highland Scots or possibly Islanders among them down weapons and are accepted as brothers and incorporated into Wallace's force. cheers Allan This chatter constitutes just another red herring. The makers of _Braveheart_ and _Excalibur_ have not claimed their films represent "True History" -- so these pogues and poguettes who claim otherwise have not watched and listened to the opening voiceovers and titles of the two films. Academics often get the facts all wrong -- because they have so little respect for facts in the first place. No surprises here at all ---- flakey, mediocre academics with too little to do often start off from false premises and factual ignorance, quickly wind themselves up into a state of high dudgeon and then run off at the mouth. Par For The Course. Both films accomplish precisely what they intend to do ---- tell a damned interesting story and put butts in seats. DSH <more snip> >> Yes... but the poem's major role in guiding the story was not what was >> emphasized in the advertising, and the vast majority of people have no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >accurate historical reality. Certainly though it's based on Randall >Wallace's novel and he doesn't claim it as such. He may not... but the whole pattern and tone of its advertisement did. The impression I was given (and that many of my students seem to have had) was that the media blitz implied it as 'history' while Wallace's statements on his inspiration were lost in the noise. That way they can say 'see, we didn't do that!' - while the marketing department went to town. >If the film makers themselves claim the film as completely accurate in every >detail then yes, they leave themselves open to derision, but if they say >"look this is based on a guy who really lived and came to power like that, >then defeated the English occupying forces before being betrayed and sent >off to London for execution" then they are of course justified in what they >say. Wallace said that... I don't recall Gibson taking that standpoint, though I am unsure on that. >There is though an element of po-faced historians who would criticise >anything they can. For instance Sharon's comments on where the shots were >taken [and let's face it much of it is shot outwith Scotland itself] and >what folks hairstyles are like are hardly important to the cinema going >public. *shrug* I took Sharon's pointing that out as part of the style of argument - by showing how many inaccuracies, forgiveable or not were in the first few minutes, she was showing how poor the accuracy was in every particular for those unfamiliar with the time and the tale. <snip Cross's review> >Laying aside her apparent dismissal of Wallace as a linguist as it's another >thread - but tradition has it that he was educated and why Cross finds it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >seen this episode is based on existing literature. It wasn't simply made up >by Hollywood. Hey, even you pointed out Wallace changed who Wallace had sex with. And she would have been eight at the time. Eww. :) >So all I'm saying is yes, if film makers state their works are absolutely >authentic then they are wrong - but at the same time historians should take >things a bit lighter after all I'm sure they'd themselves make less than >riveting films. Perhaps. But then, I don't mind it... as a film. And just a film. >> When the overall effect is to portray a world that never was, and then >> have it advertised as the truth? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Wallace did bed the English princess, and the Scots did all wear kilts and >have their faces painted blue"? That's just it... it was advertised as truth - or more properly, the impression of such was given. Also, much of the outline is sufficiently distorted from what we know happened that it isn't truthful, but instead plays to a number of nationalistic myths in Scotland with modern repercussions. As I've said, those myths can interfere with students learning what actually did happen and the cultures in which it occurred, as they have to unlearn their prejudices beforehand. Hmm. Methinks we're both starting to repeat ourselves. :) I don't think we are in any real disagreement on this; it all depends on the particular exposure to the film's marketing and the effects we have dealt with. <snip> Cheers, Chris ------------------ Christopher Candy Department of History University of Durham 43 North Bailey Durham DH1 3EX United Kingdom +44 191 334 1045 C.A.Candy@durham.ac.uk We've seen a cluster of ignorant postings here that _Braveheart_ was somehow presented as unvarnished Historical Truth. Let's see some PROOF for that anserine assertion. Just because many none-too-smart college students BELIEVE _Braveheart_ represents unvarnished Historical Truth doesn't mean a damned thing. DSH > > <snip on Braveheart> > > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > Allan Aren't the kilts down to Sir Walter Scott, i.e. the Macgregors (Rob Roy) dressed in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry Normans rather than the Kilt?. Jamie > <snip on Braveheart> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > towards it. Especially when those notions play into modern political > feelings. Shades of Douglas Adams' "definitive inaccuracy" theory, perhaps? Real history is what people lived. Any review must miss all but five millionths of the "real story". I can read the history of Napoleon's life in three hours (five minutes if you take the Willans and Searle version), but he lived many "three hours" and so did the other actors in his life. I once saw a website about the real history of the US, debunking the main tenets of their history as mythology. The same might be applied to a lot of what we understand as our own history - unexpected similarities as well as terrible blunders of interpretation. Oral means of preserving history might have more going for them than we suspect, once you write something down you get a critic disagreeing with you. > I don't think most people have problems with the film having been made, > per se... I don't mind it, in a pulp sort of way. It is its use as a > historical primer that drives me bats. Braveheart was no less credible than Shakespeare's Henry V. In the Kenneth Branagh version, the Agincourt battle is staged as a farce. Unfortunately it's an unintended farce. This movie was not clearly marketed as fiction, but Branagh claimed that 10,000 French troops were killed against a mere 29 deaths on King Harry's side. : ) In fact there is no French record of their strength or losses at Agincourt, and this has paved the way for assorted hack writers like Shakespeare to cook up numbers that will appeal to generation after generation of drooling and naive British audiences. I'm looking forward to this film -- but don't have terribly high expectations. I watched _Excalibur_ again last night. It holds up. Helen Mirren is quite marvelous and I could care less that she is pointy-nosed. Further, she should have won the Best Actress awards for _Gosford Park_ ----- all of them. Many fine, sexy, talented, smart British actresses are pointy-nosed. I suppose it's that aristocratic good breeding they either have or seek to emulate ---- the better ones. Keep sending us your best British beauties and keep the homely ones at home, please. However, the South Africans have been doing a far better job of that in recent years. This Charlize Theron babe is supremely choice and deserves her Best Actress awards. Do send us more like her ---- ya'll hear? DSH > The main point I was making was what do folk mean when they say it's > innacurate? They say the film-maker told them that it was history and it isn't. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines In alt.history.british C A Candy <c.a.candy@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >>Braveheart is a funny one though. When folk moan about it not being true >>then what exactly are they meaning? The film is not based on real life but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>that in itself.........though I agree it's wrong for folk to claim it as >>history. >The difficulty, as others (including you :) ) have said, is that none of >this was made clear to the moviegoing public - if anything, the reverse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >first 2 1/2 minutes of the film for us a while ago - see >http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml >I would not have a single objection to the film were it marketed as >fantasy, or very clearly 'inspired by' or any of the usual Hollywood >formulations that indicate they took something and heavily fictionalized >it. Instead, it was put forward as Gospel truth. Ych. Compare to "Master and Commander". Nobody has ragged on that as ahistorical. It is clearly a fiction and a darned good one. ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british C A Candy <c.a.candy@durham.ac.uk> wrote: > >I would not have a single objection to the film were it marketed as > >fantasy, or very clearly 'inspired by' or any of the usual Hollywood [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that as ahistorical. It is clearly a fiction and a darned > good one. The claim to be "history" is the crime of the moviemakers in my estimation as well. I love good historical fiction. SignatureMary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar) ------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no such thing as too many books. Bookshelves, on the other hand . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo > Nothing wrong with that in itself.........though I agree it's wrong for > folk to claim it as history. It's bad if 'folk' claim it as history - but what do you say if Gibson claims it as history, as reported? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines In alt.history.british Allan Connochie <conno@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote: >> In alt.history.british Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@removehotmail.com> wrote: >> In Hollywood "based on true events" often means that there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> My point is: what real story? >Braveheart is a funny one though. When folk moan about it not being true >then what exactly are they meaning? The film is not based on real life but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that in itself.........though I agree it's wrong for folk to claim it as >history. That's the entire point. Had it not been presented as the true history of William Wallace nobody much would have cared. Certainly there are enough good movies around set in the past about which nobody has complained. Historians have an enormous problem. The average person has their head filled with all sorts of pseudohistory that they firmly believe -- often nationally determined. Historians worry about that because people make real decisions based on wrong information. ---- Paul J. Gans > Historians have an enormous problem. The average person > has their head filled with all sorts of pseudohistory that > they firmly believe -- often nationally determined. Historians > worry about that because people make real decisions based > on wrong information. Perhaps the recorded instance of Reagan confusing a film he once saw with reality. OK so film *was* reality for him - but he was also in a good position to see the join, unlike most world leaders. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > >> If folks will think about it for a moment it does not matter > >> if there was a British king or warlord in the 6th century [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > time was both fragmented and under pressure. Often things > don't survive from such a situation. Is English society in the 6th century considered to being Celtic? SignatureThe government runs its intelligence agencies to the same standard as the public transport system. Observations of Bernard - No 51 > > >> If folks will think about it for a moment it does not matter > > >> if there was a British king or warlord in the 6th century [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is English society in the 6th century considered to being Celtic? Arthur and his merry men are. Soren Larsen "King Arthur" and his men are sometimes billed as Celts. 1. These Celts supposedly came from Brittany to England? When? 2. Is Cornwall considered to be "more Celtic" today than, say Kent? DSH > "King Arthur" and his men are sometimes billed as Celts. > > 1. These Celts supposedly came from Brittany to England? When? Modern scholarship using DNA as its basis seems to indicate that Celtic culture was something like 'American culture' today, not found in any ethnic group but a nice way to live that was adopted by many groups. No big movements of population at all I'm afraid... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > Is English society in the 6th century considered to being Celtic? The English, well, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and what-have-you who would become the English, were the other side from "Arthur's" lot! More seriously, the exact nature of the migrations, settlement patterns, population exchange and merger etc are still matters of great scholarly controversy. Sophia >> It will have to be pretty good to beat the "Excalibur" move, with a >> crash-hot performance by Helen Mirren as the witch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm still mystified as to why "Excalibur" is held up by many as a > great movie. I loved it when I first saw it (age 12). I think you've just hit upon the key to the mystery. There are an astonishing number of people who still love everything they loved when they were twelve. > Years later I saw it again and could barely believe it was the same > movie. Arthur talks like an Irish yokel (until he becomes king and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Dozens'. The whole thing looks like a bad 80s video for a one hit New > Romantic band. Much like the classic skit on Not the Nine O'Clock News -- "Nice Video, Shame About the Song." > Some people seem to drool over Mirren as Morgana. True, her acting > (despite the cludgy dialogue) wasn't as bad as most of the rest of the > wooden cast, but I'm afraid I can't get too excited about > pinch-mouthed, pointy-faced women. Hey, you can rank on "Excalibur" all you want, but don't go dissing Helen Mirren! She's greatly improved over the years. On the other hand, "Excalibur" wasn't a very good showcase for anybody's talents -- it's difficult to believe that Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, and Gabriel Byrne were even in it. > The director's determination to keep any Christian elements of the > legends at bay reduce the jerky and pointless "Grail Quest" sequence [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Monty Python's Holy Grail. It glows and a voice says some New Age > things and then ... that's it. John Boorman has always been skittish about Christianity -- in his notorious sequel to "The Exorcist," he also jettisoned most of the Christian elements in the story in favor of New Age claptrap, though to be fair some of it, e.g., the Babylonian demon, was in the original movie. New Age pseudo-Celtic interpretations of Arthurian legend were hot stuff back when "Excalibur" was made - cf. "The Mists of Avalon." If filmmakers really wanted to do something different with the Arthur legend, they could go back to the early Welsh legends instead of reinterpreting late-medieval additions like Launcelot and the Holy Grail. That would have another advantage in that in wouldn't have to be compared unfavorably to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," which holds up remarkably well. > Stupid, crappy, badly written, over-acted and over-rated crap. "Excalibur" can be seen as the middle section of Boorman's Trilogy of New Age Crap, with the third section being "The Emerald Forest," a diatribe about how more spiritual it is to be an Indian in the Amazon rain forests. Interestingly, that movie was the last movie Boorman and scriptwriter Rospo Pallenberg collaborated on. Boorman's post-Rospo movies haven't been quite so bad -- some of them, e.g., "Hope and Glory" and "The General," are pretty good. Pallenberg, on the other hand, went on to write the screenplay for "Vercingétorix" (a/k/a "Druids"), a whoppingly ludicrous movie redeemed only by Max Von Sydow, the only actor I know of who combines unparalleled skill and utter shamelessness -- no matter how absurd or banal the material is, he provides something for the audience to enjoy. > The new Arthur movie - peddling the Arthur was a Sarmatian Warrior > nonsense which is becoming the new internet fuelled pseudo-theory > about Arthur despite it's glaring flaws - looks even worse. Indeed. Especially since Merlin, Guinevere, and Lancelot are characters in the movie. And apparently Merlin and Guinevere are members of the "Woad" tribe. Seriously. Somebody sat through "Braveheart" one too many times... > But it does have Keira Knightly in it. Give me her over Helen "Pointy > Nose" Mirren any day. Knightly's all right, but she's got a ways to go before she'll be as good as Mirren, who was superb in "Calendar Girls," and was robbed of the Oscar she deserved for her performance in "Gosford Park." SignatureMark Steese Unscramble and underscore to email --- Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. -fametracker.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message