This is, undoubtedly, Jerry Bruckheimer's finest work. King Arthur, the 2004 sub-Roman biopic, is a masterpiece in philosophical anachronism, seamlessly blending symbolism with action, exposing the parallels between the unlightened Dark Ages and our own hypermodern epoch with only a group of erudite egalitarian Knights between us and the barbaric Saxon hordes. Arthur, a twentieth-century Sartrean, fights side by side with Guinevere, a second-wave feminist, and Lancelot, a rational atheist and rabid skeptic, defending Truth and Meaning from the mindless Germanic masses…
Oh, wait, that's one hundred percent bullshit. This is just an action movie privileged with an awesome myth and burdened by very, very clumsy characterizations.
So...what the hell am I doing reviewing it? I'm not about to take a movie out of the vault to pummel it and tell you why it's not worth watching (except insofar as to emphasize, on a relative scale, just how badly you need to watch Kingdom of Heaven, because you do). So I'll say this much: Despite everything I say in the surrounding paragraphs, this is a movie worth watching. Stop here if you (a) don't want spoilers, trust my advice, and want to see it yourself or (b) you think Jerry Bruckheimer is actually really profound and I'm just missing the point.
First – let’s focus on something positive. This movie is about King Arthur. That’s enough to suck me in; if Hollywood churns out anything tangentially resembling medieval historical fiction (yes, even Timeline) I will probably see it. It’s enough to overcome my extreme dislike of Clive Owen (just as Timeline overcame my dislike of Paul Walker - barely). Sometimes thematic interest coincides with spot-on casting – Robert Downey Jr.’s turn as Sherlock Holmes this December being such an example – but the best King Arthur has to offer is Kiera Knightley and That Guy Who Played Animated Beowulf.
I’ll admit that was somewhat mixed praise. Actually, that was more of a dig than anything. Searching for something positive…
Alright, it’s an interesting take on the Arthur legend. While the movie doesn’t throw out everything (it’s still a round table, even if it has a hole in the middle), it takes a bold risk by recasting Arthur as a Roman officer and the Knights as indentured Sarmatian cavalry. The Arthur origin story is vastly underplayed in favor of jokes about Bors’ twelve bastard children. OK, this tactic actually works, to some degree or another – it gives the remaining knights some backstory and we feel at least somewhat personally attached in the heat of the (lengthy) battles.
A scene that works: The Bishop stops in to the Round Table Room, wonders why there are so few knights (cue a ‘fuck-you’ glare from Clive Owen, one thing he does exceptionally well), then shrugs and assigns them to a potentially fatal quest. We get a solid feel for Arthur’s connection to his men, and the heroes are forced into an uncompromising dilemma. Bravo.
A series of scenes that doesn’t work: Guinevere’s romance with Arthur. This one is puzzling for two reasons: One, it goes off without a hitch, and we get stood up waiting for Lancelot to ruin everything. Two, Lancelot connects better in his scenes with Guinevere (in the director’s cut, anyway) – why is she with Arthur in the first place? The Arthur-Guinevere interaction consists of Arthur fixing her knuckles and Guinevere making him philosophically uncomfortable. There’s nothing that can be called flirting, and then – wait, they’re having sex? What the fuck?
Speaking of which – Lancelot’s character gets the shaft. He’s vastly more intriguing than Arthur, overcomes the Gandalf Problem* with ease, goes back and forth with Guinevere, and still dies without much meaning or excitement beyond Clive Owen’s exasperated (and somewhat underwhelming) mourning. Come on, I want an affair (don’t take that out of context, future mudslingers)…the movie had a great external conflict but little infighting between the Knights.
Finally – the main issue. For a movie obsessed with historical accuracy, bragging about ‘recent archaeological evidence’ and ‘untold stories’ about the Super-Real Historically Indubitable Arthur, there was little to differentiate it from other Arthur stories outside of (a) the absence of Merlin’s wizardry and (b) the way the movie begs to be taken seriously by way of gritty violence and angsty philosophical clashes. I’ll leave the historical anachronisms to better researchers (TV tropes did a real number on it here). The dialogue, though, shouldn’t be excused. I’ve seen deeper discussions of ‘fate versus free will’ in high school literature classes; Arthur seems obsessed with the concept, almost peculiarly so. Nobody else really seems to give a shit, almost like they’re humoring his philosophical hobby, and Merlin only mentions it to grind his gears. It’s faintly absurd that Arthur is orating on the importance of seizing destiny and being free from the moment of birth; everybody around him isn’t so much opposed to the concept as completely befuddled. He frees the serfs at Marius’ estate, but they end up just being refugees and serving on somebody else’s estate until the Black Plague hits in another thousand years.
Lancelot is the only other character that betrays any abstract thought, but most of it is sadly undeveloped reactionary atheism. Guinevere doesn’t really chat about women’s rights, but nobody’s surprised (let alone protests) when she decides to fight. It seems like the three of them were dropped out of the twentieth century into fifth-century Roman England and have no idea how to blend in.
Some stabs at meaning are better than none, I suppose. At least Michael Bay didn't direct the defining Arthur movie of the decade, or we'd have Merlin blowing shit up with his staff and facing down a zombie Uther Pendragon for the fate of England.
--kd
(Maybe) Next Week’s Movie Review: Fifteen Charisma completes its Medieval Double Feature with the substantially more awesome Kingdom of Heaven.
*The Gandalf Problem: Best expounded upon by the Tolkien Sarcasm Page’s review of the original LOTR (a highly recommended and hilarious read, but drop down to number 6 if you’re in a hurry…which you’re obviously not if you’re reading this blog), this phenomenon occurs when one character narrates virtually all of the backstory or gets saddled with the key set-up monologue. It (unfortunately) results in a zero-sum tradeoff with their character development and leaves them with a sad shell of their potential personality.
No comments:
Post a Comment