I’m just hoping you won’t mind me suggesting a film, over Easter?
I’m going to to, either way …
I did clock that BBC 1 is showing “King Arthur”, tomorrow, which, whilst it possibly isn’t the best film on the subject ever made, is different.
From the little I’ve learnt over the years, most films that deal with King Arthur tend to use much more of a traditional, “La Morte D’Arthur”, chivalric slant; knights, castles, Holy Grail, and all. Much like the BBC’s recent — and recently re-commisioned — “Merlin”.
Not that that’s a bad thing. “Merlin” takes the traditional plot elements, and gives them new life by twisting them round.
After all, how many of us have anything more than a passing familiarity with the story? Or can say we’ve sat down and read Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Historia Regum Britanniae”, or Malory’s “La Morte D’Arthur”?
I know I haven’t, not speaking Latin, or medieval French.
At any rate using elements from from the usual sources is not what the Antoine Fuqua directed “King Arthur” is about.
Instead it uses some of the various historical research that suggests that Arthur, and the Round Table knights may have been a Roman garrison — abandoned in Britain when the Romans left Britain — as it’s basis, and moves from there*.
Which makes for interesting watching, I think.
It gives us Clive Owen as a commander of a garrison desperate to return home, after fighting for the Empire for 16 years, Keira Knightly as a native Celtic warrior princess, Ioan Griffudd as a deeply saturnine, and cynical, Sir Lancelot, and Ray Winston — everybodies favourite Working Class Hero — as an almost gangsterish Sir Bors.
Ray Winston did impress; he’s Sir Bors is one of the emotional centres of the film, speaking as the working soldier and family man that many would be, in the circumstances.
But, at any rate, here’s my point.
I think you should see “King Arthur”, tomorrow night, if you’ve nothing else on.
While it does seem confused, occasionally, as to whether it’s “Lord of the Rings” or a John Wayne film, it does try to be different from what’s gone before.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love it when someone comments. But, having had anonymous comments I feel may be libellous, actionable or just plain offensive, over the years?
I’d appreciate you* leaving your name — with a link to your website or social-media profile†, for preference — before you post a comment.
Should you choose to use a pseudonym/name, I’d appreciate it if that name were to be polite and inoffensive. I’d rather you kept it clean, and relatively grown up. Comments left with a pseudonym will be posted at my discretion: I really prefer a link.
Contentious, actionable or abusive posts left anonymously will not be posted. Nor will comments using offensive pseudonyms or language, or that are abusive of other commenters.
Thank you.
* I know many value their online privacy. I respect that. But hope you respect my wish to see who’s commenting on my blog: and my wish for you to introduce your self to me, and to your fellow commentors.
† Your Facebook, X/Twitter, Blogger, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn profile are acceptable. I also like seeing folks webpages.