tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/guy-ritchie-34032/articlesGuy Ritchie – The Conversation2019-02-11T06:03:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1102442019-02-11T06:03:09Z2019-02-11T06:03:09ZThe Kid Who Would Be King: why King Arthur films are the perfect antidote to epic Brexit posturing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257974/original/file-20190208-174880-1stig7u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>King Arthur <a href="https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-five-ancient-britons-who-make-up-the-myth-of-king-arthur-86874">probably never existed</a>, but from a cinematic point of view, he may as well have done. Few figures, mythical or historical, have reappeared as frequently on the big screen. This winter, less than two years after Guy Ritchie’s 2017 King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword, comes a new take on the tales: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwVD1xdAX4">The Kid Who Would Be King</a>. But what is the appeal of this particular tale? And above all, why now?</p>
<p>The Kid Who Would Be King, like Ritchie’s film, is another take on a familiar trope. Like any legend, the Arthur myth is a cinematic template on which storytellers can impose their own ideas – and these variations can tell us a lot about the times and places that produced them. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), for instance, with its medieval plagues and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng">Marxist peasants</a>, reflects parodically on the construction of national mythologies. Notably, this was at a time when Britain’s imperial and economic influence had dwindled.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DGXx56WqqJw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The contexts of Brexit, inevitably, provide a backdrop to the more recent films. The Legend of the Sword is a popular retelling in every sense. Ritchie transposes his familiar London “low-life” milieu to the world of the Round Table, with his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHD9P2Is0cc">muscular Arthur</a> a brothel-raised orphan, backed up by a multicultural array of petty thieves and streetfighters. The war here, with his usurping uncle, Vortigern, is more a people’s rebellion. Yet the film still ends with the newly crowned king demanding fealty from the Vikings, while rejecting their demands for British slaves.</p>
<p>Ritchie’s film was greeted in some quarters as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2017/mar/30/brexit-britain-needs-a-new-national-syory-step-forward-guy-ritchie">a film about Brexit</a>, but it could just as easily be an allegory about the Corbynite “revolution”, if you wanted it to. Yet it does draw on some of the Arthurian fables’ more nationalistic elements. The more dewy aspects of the legends – the Sword and the Stone, the Lady of the lake, Avalon – were recounted by Thomas Malory in 1485 and form the basis of all the most popular Arthurian retellings. Yet these largely obscure the King’s earlier, more militaristic depictions. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/19/death-king-arthur-simon-armitage-review">circa 1400 anonymous poem Morte Arthure</a>, for instance, focuses on Arthur’s resistance to paying Roman taxes and his campaign to reassert British dominion in Europe. The poem commemorates national Empire-building, as much as it mocks and scorns “continental” manners and morality. Transposed to our populist era of “hard men” politicians, Ritchie’s brawny Arthur comes with interesting connotations, inadvertently or otherwise.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jIM4-HLtUM0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>A very British epic</h2>
<p>More to the point, Arthurian films tell us about the <em>cinematic</em> contexts that produced them. Monty Python’s muddy take on the story may take its cues from realist European films such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdTmk9_mAHc">1973’s Lancelot du lac</a> – but its <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQCArh_R9dY">cut-price epic style</a> is born of the group having no money to spend: a common issue with British films of the impoverished 1970s. The Holy Grail’s contrast to Hollywood’s widescreen spectacles, such as Knights of the Round Table (1953) or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzaeisqxtvQ">Camelot (1967)</a>, is part of its comic point.</p>
<p>Similarly, The Legend of the Sword’s debt is less to contemporary politics and more to the recent traditions of epic film. The film inherits much of its style and narrative tropes from Ridley’s Scott’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do9zep1n8cU">Gladiator</a> (2000), the epic that revived the genre, and demonstrated the international appeal of ancient stories. </p>
<p>Made at huge expense by Warner Bros at its Leavesden studios – and with the creative input of Harry Potter producer Lionel Wigram – Ritchie’s movie was itself seen as another global franchise in the making – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/16/epic-fail-why-has-king-arthur-flopped-so-badly">until it flopped</a> at the box-office. Ironically, then, this fiercely British film is “British” only in a limited sense. Like the Harry Potter films, it exemplifies the globalised nature of cinema: a “local” story financed by multinational capital, shot in a Hollywood-owned British studio and made for worldwide distribution.</p>
<h2>Rejuvenating Arthur</h2>
<p>By contrast, The Kid Who Would Be King offers a twist to this model. Here, the global genre of the epic is localised and brought down to earth – in this case, by transferring the legend to a modern secondary school, with a cast barely into their teens.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n__1Y-N5tQk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Other recent films have trodden the same ground. Edgar Wright’s 2013 The World’s End (another Working Title production) was a <a href="http://collider.com/the-worlds-end-featurette-cornetto-trilogy/">jokey modern take on Arthurian myth</a>, its 12-pint pub crawl – led by fallen leader Gary King – its own legendary Grail quest. It’s also familiar territory for Kid Who Would Be King director Joe Cornish, whose 2011 debut, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0gm7dHKKc">Attack the Block</a>, banded inner-city youths against an alien invasion, as well as the Metropolitan Police.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-five-ancient-britons-who-make-up-the-myth-of-king-arthur-86874">Here are the five ancient Britons who make up the myth of King Arthur</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This focus on the young in The Kid Who Would Be King is both cinematically welcome and topical in light of the generational schisms and social divisions highlighted and brought about by Brexit – <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joe-cornish-kid-who-would-be-king-rejecting-major-franchises-1178767">a point highlighted by Cornish himself</a>. By putting Excalibur in the hands of a gawky schoolkid, Cornish’s film offers a lighter-hearted alternative both to epic cinematic follies and delusions of national grandeur. </p>
<p>Joking it may partly be, yet with its allegiances to Britain’s future generation, the film becomes another politically charged return to this most potent national myth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Archer receives funding from the British Academy. </span></em></p>The various readings of this national myth can tell us a lot about our cultural and political time and place.Neil Archer, Lecturer in Film Studies, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/753462017-05-24T09:09:14Z2017-05-24T09:09:14ZEach era gets the King Arthur it deserves – and we got Guy Ritchie’s<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170296/original/file-20170522-25076-1ys6pn2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Warner Bros.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With a certain comforting certainty, a new version of the Arthurian legend seems to hit cinemas about once a decade: think of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/01/camelot-reel-history">Camelot (1967)</a>, <a href="http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/excalibur/254302/john-boormans-excalibur-isnt-just-another-king-arthur-movie">Excalibur (1981)</a>, <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/first_knight/">First Knight (1995)</a> and <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/king-arthur-2004">King Arthur (2004)</a>. This is not to mention the numerous television versions that have appeared in between. Now we have director Guy Ritchie’s take on the subject, with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/21/king-arthur-legend-sword-review-guy-ritchie">King Arthur: Legend of the Sword</a>.</p>
<p>Each of the previous iterations had a very different focus – and like all good (vaguely) historical fiction, tell us more about the present than the past. This is particularly true for myths because they always have a “built-in ambiguity that makes them applicable to a variety of times and places”, as the US theologian S. Brent notes. </p>
<p>For example, while Excalibur was emphasising the magical elements of the myth with the wizard Merlin at its centre, both First Knight and King Arthur tried hard to “historicise” the legendary king. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170300/original/file-20170522-25076-c6xjns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1110&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sean Connery as Arthur and Richard Gere as love rival Lancelot in First Knight (1995).</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First Knight presents a traditional Arthur as a benign and ageing king (played by Sean Connery) ruling over Camelot as the most advanced and bustling metropolis of its time. In his old age, he marries the much younger Guinevere (Julia Ormond), who will ultimately betray him with the much younger Lancelot (played by Richard Gere at the height of his career). </p>
<p>It is a tale of a great nation being brought down by individual failure. Religion also plays an important role in the film as it is faith rather than magic from which Arthur draws strength, for example when he publicly prays: “May God grant us the wisdom to discover right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure.”</p>
<p>The 2004 version directed by Antoine Fuqua provides a stark contrast to this theme. Not only does it set the story about 1,000 years before the more common medieval period, it also boldly claims that the myth was “based on a real hero, who lived 1,600 years ago”. It promises its audience the “truth behind the myth” – by creating an entirely new version of it. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1116&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1116&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170302/original/file-20170522-25082-kt79xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1116&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">King Arthur (2004) attempted to ‘historicise’ the Arthur legend.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sitting neatly alongside other sword-and-sandal blockbusters of the same year, such as Troy and Alexander, King Arthur moves its subject to late Roman Britain. It presents Arthur (Clive Owen) as a Roman soldier, who is on a last mission to free the Pope’s godson from the savage tribes north of Hadrian’s Wall. </p>
<p>What he discovers, however, is the savagery of the Christian church, ultimately siding with the pagan tribes to free Britannia from Saxon invaders as well as from Roman deprivation. Magic is almost completely absent. Instead, it is Arthur’s skill as a seasoned soldier and clever strategist, rather than a magical sword, which makes him successful. </p>
<h2>Man, magic (and David Beckham)</h2>
<p>What then, can we learn from the most recent instalment of the myth, claimed to be the first in a series of six? First of all, Guy Ritchie’s version sets the story in a fantasy time that is somewhat hard to pin down. While the chainmail armour and lady’s dresses are loosely medieval, the settings of the Royal palace are hard to define, and the CGI skyline of Londinium (which features more prominently than Camelot) is scattered with Roman ruins, including an enormous Colosseum. </p>
<p>It also returns to a focus on the more magical elements of the story, stating in its opening line that “for centuries, man and magic lived in peace…” The first few minutes of the film establish its apparent attempt at offering a new Lord of the Rings, including giant elephants battling a hilltop city. We even get a close-up shot of a fiery magic eye that is reminiscent of Peter Jackson’s visual rendering of Sauron in Lord of the Rings. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170304/original/file-20170522-25068-vusdxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It wouldn’t be a Guy Ritchie movie without a bit of knuckle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Warner Bros.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What then about the myth? In this film, Arthur is a streetwise boy rather than a royal knight or an experienced soldier, a rags-to-riches story fit for a time in which class hierarchies are continuously challenged. He is a thief, driven more by personal revenge than the higher motive of freeing his nation. </p>
<p>Moreover, the film revives and expands the magical and fantastic elements of Excalibur to align itself much more closely with epics such as the already mentioned <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444320589.ch11/summary">Lord of the Rings (2001-3)</a>, <a href="http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)">The Hobbit (2012-14)</a> and the enormously popular television saga <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/apr/18/game-of-thrones-dont-believe-the-gripes">Game of Thrones</a>, rather than its immediate cinematic predecessors. This in itself is not a problem. </p>
<p>The problem is that Ritchie seems to misunderstand what makes those works successful as myths. Ritchie’s iconoclastic style may have worked well in small crime comedies such as <a href="https://reelrundown.com/movies/Snatch-2000-Movie-Review">Snatch (2000)</a> and maybe to some extent even in his take on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/dec/19/forensic-guy-ritchie-sherlock-holmes">Sherlock Holmes</a> (although I’m sceptical, but that’s another story). Here, it simply undermines the epic grandeur suggested by the visuals. </p>
<p>For example, as Robbie Collin <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/king-arthur-legend-sword-review-guy-ritchies-combat-heavy-camelot/">notes in the Telegraph</a>: “The sword-pulling scene … is sabotaged from within by a David Beckham cameo that goes on for line after forehead-slapping line, and saps the moment of its mythic excitement.” Whereas you could argue that myths have always been somewhat of a mash-up of various cultural influences, Ritchie’s film is so eclectic that it fails to develop any coherent mythical realm in which the audience can immerse itself. </p>
<p>Apart from the already mentioned cinematic elements, the film also features magical Egyptian pyramids, a powerful sea monster hiding in a cave reminiscent of <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/03/beow-m01.html">Beowulf (2008)</a> and a Kung Fu school – to name but a few. All this makes for an entertaining and visually stunning cinematic spectacle, but it fails to provide what myths can do best – namely offer a coherent and inspiring worldview and ethos. Sadly, it may be exactly this lack of this inspiring vision that makes this film so contemporary.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sylvie Magerstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Guy Ritchie’s blokey remake of the Arthur legend fails to establish any kind of coherent narrative.Sylvie Magerstaedt, Principal Lecturer in Media Cultures, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778342017-05-22T10:20:14Z2017-05-22T10:20:14ZArthur: Legend of the Sword – a film obsessed with effect rather than substance<p>Cinematic adaptations of the King Arthur story have frequently assigned a central place to the love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot – most famously in the saccharine Hollywood remake, <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/first-knight-1995">First Knight (1995)</a>. Not so in Guy Ritchie’s latest remake, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. The film lacks any romantic component and instead foregrounds questions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and authority, by focusing the narrative on Arthur’s ability to wield the magic sword Excalibur. </p>
<p>In doing so, Ritchie follows in the footsteps of a long-standing, distinctively British Arthurian tradition, where the interest focuses on military, strategic and political issues. The most influential medieval versions of the legend invariably concentrate on the problem of sovereignty and the establishment of “British” identity in a divided country threatened by foreign invasion. </p>
<p>Often such adaptations also functioned as commentaries on contemporary concerns. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s hugely influential 12th-century account of King Arthur’s rise and fall in the <em><a href="http://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/geoffrey-of-monmouth-arthurian-passages-from-the-history-of-the-kings-of-britain">Historia Regum Britanniae</a></em> (c. 1136), for instance, was written against the background of the recent Norman invasion and settlement in Britain. It also channelled a number of Welsh oral traditions concerning the prophesied “return” of King Arthur, a native British King destined to expel the invaders. </p>
<p>Thomas Malory’s <em><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1251/1251-h/1251-h.htm">Morte D'Arthur</a></em> (c. 1469) similarly gives us a King Arthur at pains to establish his sovereignty in a kingdom torn apart by rival factions, in ways that are clearly reminiscent of the contemporary civil unrest bred by the Wars of the Roses.</p>
<h2>Arthur’s motley crew</h2>
<p>Regardless of its debatable artistic merits, Ritchie’s adaptation also gives us an unmistakeably contemporary Arthur: unrefined, cunning, opportunistic, and verbally aggressive. He is neither eloquent or charismatic – and his laddish banter seems eminently inappropriate for the legitimate heir to the royal crown. But he somehow commands the respect and admiration — if not quite the affection — of his band of brothers, who display none of the aristocratic sophistication or courtly trappings we usually associate with the Knights of the Round Table. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170284/original/file-20170522-25076-1eyr0em.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Band of brothers: Arthur and his crew.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Warner Bros</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A populist Arthur, then, channelling civil discontent, who eventually and unwillingly becomes the leader of a revolt against the usurping Vortigern. Vortigern’s forces embody the ruthless, machine-like efficiency of a dehumanised, oppressive establishment, upheld by an army of faceless and heavily armoured knights who are part imperial Stormtroopers, part SS officers, rallying under the banner of an ominous imperial eagle and ruling from an impregnable fortress dominated by a stone tower. </p>
<p>Arthur’s band by contrast is a motley crew of disaffected characters, gathering in a London brothel and united by little more than a steady flow of banter in a mixture of mockney and regional accents. We have a Black <a href="http://www.kingarthursknights.com/knights/bedivere.asp">Bedivere</a>, the Asian <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2017/05/09/how-can-a-king-arthur-story-with-a-character-named-kung-fu-george-be-this-generic/">Kung Fu George</a> — who “don’t speak English good” but is an OK sort of a geezer – and <a href="http://www.kingarthursknights.com/knights/percivale.asp">Perceval</a> as a dopey lad with a knitted tea cosy on his head. London too seems strikingly multicultural. Part Bangkok mean streets, part Varanasi on the banks of the Ganges, part crumbling Rome – complete with ruins of an improbable Coliseum – the whole held together by a vaguely Celtic soundtrack rich in bagpipes.</p>
<h2>Sword and sandals</h2>
<p>Beneath this rough-and-tumble portrait of a streetwise Arthur lies a much deeper unease about the difficulty of constructing and negotiating something like a British identity and addressing questions of political sovereignty and legitimacy in the contemporary context. </p>
<p>With generally awkward dialogue and little in the way of plot, character development, or proper content, it is the film’s eclectic style that takes centre stage. Legend of the Sword is a film obsessed with effect rather than substance and Arthur is less concerned to further a particular cause than to look good and sound good in the eyes and ears of his mates.</p>
<p>Arthur’s crew accordingly punch their way through this movie without any discernible plan or ideological affiliation – and seem content with delivering short, snappy but vacuous replies to any taunts or threats as they arise, shrugging off any opposition or disbelief. Thankfully, little is needed in the way of structured thought and speech, as one of his opponents conveniently reminds him: “If you’re lost for words, the sword will speak for you.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"863170694061936640"}"></div></p>
<p>Appropriately, then, the sword itself becomes the central signifier in this film, rendering the development of anything like character, plot, or a structured ideology unnecessary or impossible. All that is required is for Arthur to overcome his hesitation: “You are resisting the sword,” he is told by Merlin’s envoy, the female mage. Arthur must take the power into his hand by letting go of his rational side and thus the movie effectively becomes a weird, warped narrative about the renunciation of individual will. </p>
<p>As soon as Arthur grasps the sword – unmistakably modelled on Tolkien’s ring – the world around him is transformed in a vision. It is finally the sword itself that supplies the much-needed “vision” that eludes all human characters. In this sense Ritchie’s film is symptomatic of a much broader modern unease concerning traditional political structures and discourses and specifically the loss of confidence in the possibility of articulating something like a consistent, viable political vision through human language. Rather than being ideologically motivated, Arthur’s rebellion is brought about by a set of coincidences and contingencies. </p>
<p>The sword becomes a magical surrogate for the lack of a genuine social or political ideal, an almost spiritual object able to cut through the Gordian knot of doubts and difficulties – and through the painful need for negotiating competing claims and contradictions in an uncertain and unstable world. In such a world, personal and political responsibility are conveniently dissolved and the victorious Arthur finally merges with the land itself. </p>
<p>As he turns to an embassy of very hipstery Vikings in the closing scene, Arthur reminds them that they are now “addressing England” – and they promptly fall to their knees. Arthur, for his part, bears no grudges, seems overjoyed at his own improbable triumph and welcomes the coolest Vikings since the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/leningradcowboys/">Leningrad Cowboys</a> into the fold of the Round Table, declaring: “Why have enemies when you can have friends?” No matter how desperate it may sound, we all need more <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-danish-concept-of-hygge-and-why-its-their-latest-successful-export-67268">hygge</a> in such troubled times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77834/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marco Nievergelt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Somehow the sword Excalibur becomes the central character in this laddish remake of the Arthurian legend.Marco Nievergelt, Senior Teaching Fellow, Medieval and Early Modern English and European Literature, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/777122017-05-17T01:31:40Z2017-05-17T01:31:40ZGuy Ritchie’s King Arthur – a triumph of modern spectacle<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169631/original/file-20170516-24333-1taaat5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vortigern (Jude Law) addresses the crowd in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Safehouse Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, Warner Bros.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There have been several film versions of the King Arthur myth, each reflecting something about the socio-political context in which it was produced. Richard Thorpe’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045966/">Knights of the Round Table</a> (1953), for example, reflects the perception of the need for stable, considered government in the wake of WWII and the onset of the Cold War. </p>
<p>John Boorman’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Excalibur</a> – still the best of the Arthur films – offers a version of the myth combining the austere (1980s Thatcher) and the hallucinogenic (the recently passed 1970s).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eC_TFoGhqUU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Guy Ritchie’s most recent version, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972591/?ref_=nv_sr_1">King Arthur: Legend of the Sword</a>, is one of the better ones, even if its approach leads to a rather uneven film. Ritchie has built a career around infusing old genres and cultural myths with fresh energy through hyper-kinetic style – with more or less success – and King Arthur is no different. </p>
<p>Like many of Ritchie’s films, King Arthur is acutely self-conscious vis-à-vis its own processes of narrative construction. There are, for example, several scenes in which Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) recounts to other characters recently occurred events in the world of the film, which we see enacted and re-enacted on screen through tongue in cheek flashbacks. </p>
<p>The whole thing is, indeed, hyper-aware of its own mythology – and the key part the Arthur myth plays in the formation of English nationalism. </p>
<p>This awareness of cultural myth – and Ritchie’s attempt to energise it – is evident in the aesthetics of the film. It sutures together sequences evoking the earnestness of Game of Thrones-style fantasy (which can appear ludicrous if played to the hilt – dragons, really, how seriously can we take them?) with those defined by Ritchie’s trademark larrikinism and gallows humour. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x6KihePgZFo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This odd aesthetic combination is probably the most compelling thing about the film, epitomised in the opening 20 or so minutes of it.</p>
<p>This extended pre-title sequence takes place in Camelot, following the backstory of Arthur’s part in the legend, including his father Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana)’s victory against the evil Mordred, Uther’s slaying by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law), and Arthur’s escape from Vortigern.</p>
<p>It is filmed in a deliberately serious fashion, with slow motion images of battle accompanied by sombre, medieval music, the whole thing enshrouded in ash and fog. It has an intensity – and interiority – wholly unusual in Ritchie’s oeuvre. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169633/original/file-20170516-24313-19qokng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Astrid Bergès-Frisbey as The Mage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Safehouse Pictures, Villages Roadshow Pictures, Warner Bros.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film then crosses, after the credits, to the town of Londinium, where we witness the growth of Arthur from toddler into fighting man, shown in an accelerated montage accompanied by pounding dance music. The film, having gestured towards its project and dynamic to come – the infusion of one of England’s most serious national myths with a hooligan irreverence – now settles into playing this out to its logical conclusion. </p>
<p>Arthur, when we meet him as an adult, is basically one of Ritchie’s lowbrow gangsters placed in fantasy England – he is a lovable geezer who runs a brothel and a gang of hoods. He refers to his followers as “lads” and there is an extended sequence in which they plan an assassination of the King that plays out like a heist sequence from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208092/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Snatch</a>. </p>
<p>When the film intermittently cuts back to Camelot from Londinium, it adopts the more sombre approach of the opening; when it cuts back to Arthur and Londonium, it becomes Ritchie’s (equally mythical) good-guy, gangster’s paradise. </p>
<p>The film thus develops the story of Arthur’s finding of Excalibur, his revelation as saviour of England (and its commoners), his defeat of tyrant Vortigern, and his construction of the Round Table, making for an at times thrilling, at times bizarre, and generally wildly uneven viewing experience. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169634/original/file-20170516-24333-p90gu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou) does his serious, wise man thing alongside Arthur (Charlie Hunnam).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Village Roadshow</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like most Hollywood films, Arthur’s quest for justice – his activation as leader of the population against its rulers – is couched primarily in individualistic terms.</p>
<p>Arthur is at pains to point out, several times, that for him the revolution is not a quest for any kind of greater justice, but (Batman-style) merely about revenge for the murder of his parents. This revenge mission itself is kinetically filmed and violent – but not too violent, for if it were it would lose its PG-13 rating and a chunk of box office revenue – replete with Ritchie’s usual self-deprecating (some might say affectedly so) touches. </p>
<p>Even the fashion style of hero and villain are telling. King Arthur would almost be worth watching for the comic value of the costumes alone. Hunnam, as Arthur, frequently appears in a sheepskin-lined leather coat, looking like he’s just walked offstage at an Oasis concert, and Law appears, at times, in an open shirt and jacket that makes him look like an effete and sleazy London nightclub owner. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169632/original/file-20170516-24350-1tu0gp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) in that leather coat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Safehouse Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, Warner Bros.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>King Arthur is pretty good, and Ritchie is to be commended for his (perhaps) uncynical attempt to blend classic English myth with the contemporary gangster myth he’s been so instrumental in recreating for the 21st century.</p>
<p>Hunnam is enjoyable to watch, even if Law seems asleep at times, and the suporting actors are good, including Djimon Hounsou doing the serious wise man thing, and Neil Maskell – one of the unsung stars of contemporary British cinema – excellent as the most geezerish of geezers, Arthur’s suggestively named gang member Back Lack. </p>
<p>There are, however, two points of criticism – one major, one less so.</p>
<p>The film ends with a saccharine promotion of British liberal-nationalism. Arthur assumes the person of England and “all of her subjects,” and a brigade of Vikings kneel down before her/him. It is a little on the nose, especially for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between British liberalism and colonialism, and the many atrocities enacted on behalf of Mother England throughout the latter period. </p>
<p>It can be difficult, too, for the modern viewer to sustain her or his interest in this kind of prophetic narrative. We are so used to narratives of individual choice and deliberate action occurring in universes governed by chance that this mythical narrative is always in danger of become uninvolving. If the whole thing is preordained – the film is, after all, called King Arthur – then why would we be interested in following Arthur’s journey? </p>
<p>Still, Ritchie navigates this bind well, knowing that it’s the presentation of the journey – and our involvement in and judgement of the spectacle – that is of paramount importance, rather than narrative development or denouement. </p>
<p>And this is why Ritchie himself is one of the kings of modern spectacle. </p>
<p><em>King Arthur, Legend of the Sword opens May 18.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ari Mattes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is an at times thrilling, at times bizarre, viewing experience that blends classic English myth with a gangster aesthetic.Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Media Studies, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642892016-12-07T18:36:25Z2016-12-07T18:36:25ZGuide to the classics: the Arthurian legend<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136184/original/image-20160901-30762-1xe3slj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How true is the 'true' story of King Arthur?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The early trailers for Guy Ritchie’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3496992/?ref_=ttmi_tt">King Arthur: Legend of the Sword</a> (2017) were released last (northern) summer, which means my favourite season in life as a medievalist academic is coming: the season of The Truth About King Arthur. It doesn’t matter if the movie itself is good or bad: the question I will be getting is “but how accurate is it?” Does it represent the “real” legend of King Arthur?</p>
<p>Knowing Guy Ritchie’s films, the answer is going to be a glorious “no, and it’s not even trying”, but modern audiences often seem to be attracted to the idea of an adaptation that is more true than others. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6rbPTQIdjmY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The 2004 film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/">King Arthur</a>, a glorious romp featuring Kiera Knightley in an impractical outfit fighting hand-to-hand with an even more impractical short bow, billed itself as telling the “real” story of King Arthur as we’d never seen it before. Set, ostensibly, in the 5th century, it promised the story of a beleaguered Briton warlord rallying his people against the Saxons – but it also gave us a love triangle featuring Arthur, his wife Guinevere, and the knight Lancelot; a tale which <a href="http://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/theme/lancelot">first appeared in the 12th century</a>, in France.</p>
<p>Can you tell a King Arthur story to a modern audience without including the royal love triangle? The Australian animated series <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220912/">Arthur! And His Square Knights of the Round Table</a> (1966), aimed at young audiences who presumably weren’t supposed to comprehend a complicated narrative of love, betrayal and sin, is nevertheless peppered with in-jokes about the Queen’s devotion to the comically inept Lancelot.</p>
<p>The BBC’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1199099/">Merlin</a> (2008), a delightful festival of historical inaccuracies, made the triangle a key part of Guinevere’s character arc for several seasons, ending with poor Lancelot as the tool of necromancy and plots against the throne.</p>
<p>Interestingly, Guy Ritchie’s Legend of the Sword seems to have cast no Lancelot; it remains to be seen if modern audiences will accept a Lancelot-less Camelot as “real” Arthuriana. But whether they do or do not, Ritchie’s work will be compared to an imagined true story of King Arthur, which never existed, even in the Middle Ages. The medieval sources dealing with King Arthur are numerous, inconsistent, and wildly ahistorical in and of themselves.</p>
<h2>The historical sources</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136198/original/image-20160901-26166-4mqn1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘King Arthur’ by Charles Ernest Butler.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charles Ernest Butler [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The name Arthur first appears in the work of the 9th century Welsh historian Nennius, who lists twelve battles this Arthur fought against invading Saxons. Similarly, the Welsh Chronicles (written down in the 10th century) make some references to battles fought by Arthur. On this shaky foundation, along with a scattering of place-names and oblique references, is an entire legend based.</p>
<p>Ask any scholar of Arthurian literature if King Arthur really existed, and we’ll tell you: we don’t know, and we don’t really care. The good stuff, the King Arthur we all know and love, is entirely fictional.</p>
<p>The “Arthurian Legend” really kicked off in the early 12th century, with Geoffrey of Monmouth’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/129521.The_History_of_the_Kings_of_Britain">History of the Kings of Britain</a> (1138), which purported to describe the entire history of Britain from the day dot until about the 7th century.</p>
<p>He describes the founding of Britain by the (mythical) Trojan warrior Brutus; he covers a lot of the historical events described in Nennius’ earlier work; and his account is the first to really describe King Arthur’s reign, his wars against the Saxons, and the doings of the wizard Merlin. Some elements, like the part where Merlin helps Arthur’s father Uther deceive and sleep with another man’s wife, thus conceiving Arthur, remain key parts of the Arthurian legend today. Other elements modern audiences expect, like the Round Table, are still absent.</p>
<p>Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in Latin, and his book was read and treated as a history book in the Middle Ages. But very quickly, the material was re-worked into French and English poetry. The Norman poet Wace, whose audience included people living in both France and England, based his <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1316680.Roman_de_Brut">Roman de Brut</a> (1155) on Geoffrey’s History. He added many things to the story, including the Round Table itself. </p>
<p>Around the turn of the thirteenth century, an English poet named Layamon took both Geoffrey and Wace’s works, combined them, and added more in his long English poem <a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=14305">Brut</a>. Arthur is not the only subject covered in the Brut, but it’s the first treatment of King Arthur in English.</p>
<p>These versions, and some of the later English romances like Of Arthur and of Merlin, focus on battles and political tensions. Aside from Merlin they feature few supernatural elements, and do not usually devote much attention to love. In these versions, the traitor Mordred who defeats Arthur at the battle of Camlann is usually his nephew, not his illegitimate son; and Guinevere may willingly marry him after Arthur’s death.</p>
<h2>The Romances</h2>
<p>Arthurian romance is where things really start getting fun, from the 12th century onwards. The earliest romances did not focus on Arthur himself, but on various heroes and knights associated with his court.</p>
<p>The very first might be the Welsh <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/myths_mabinogion_culhwch.shtml">Culhwch and Olwen</a>, the events of which rarely make an appearance in later Arthurian works, but which share with them a common basic plot structure: a young man needs to prove himself to win the hand of a fair lady, goes to Arthur’s court, undergoes a series of supernatural adventures, and is eventually able to marry his lady and settle down.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136194/original/image-20160901-26145-e15h6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Arthur’s Tomb’ by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dante Gabriel Rossetti [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The earliest surviving French Arthurian romances are by an author named Chrétien de Troyes. He wrote five romances, of which the most fun, in my humble opinion, is <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/143100.Yvain_or_The_Knight_with_the_Lion">The Knight of the Lion</a> (1176). The most famous is <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/129898.Lancelot">The Knight of the Cart</a> (1180), which introduces Lancelot and his love affair with Queen Guinevere.</p>
<p>Hot on its heels came <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/397023.Perceval_or_The_Story_of_the_Grail">The Story of the Grail</a> (1181), which introduces Perceval and the Grail quest – although Chrétien himself never finished that work. At around about the same time, a separate tradition of romances about the knight Tristan and his affair with Queen Isolde of Cornwall was also circulating.</p>
<p>Over the 13th to 15th centuries countless romances were written in French and in various other European languages, telling tales of the adventures of individual knights associated with King Arthur. </p>
<p>For instance, in the 14th century English poem <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3049.Sir_Gawain_and_the_Green_Knight?from_search=true">Sir Gawain and the Green Knight</a> (1390), a young Gawain is challenged to cut off the head of the Green Knight, in return for which the Green Knight will cut off Gawain’s head a year later. Unfortunately for Gawain, the green knight has supernatural headless-survival powers which Gawain lacks, and so the adventure unfolds as Gawain seeks to keep his bargain and his head.</p>
<p>After Chrétien de Troyes’ day, the Grail quest story became extremely popular: there are several continuations of his unfinished poem, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560089.Parzival">a complete reworking</a> in German by a Wolfram von Eschenbach, and many translations. In these, Perceval is the hero who becomes keeper of the Grail. In the complex French prose version known as <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/229724.The_Quest_of_the_Holy_Grail">The Quest of the Holy Grail</a> (1230), Lancelot’s illegitimate but extraordinarily holy son Galahad takes that honour.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136190/original/image-20160901-26166-1wg8x6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How Sir Galahad, Sir Bors and Sir Percival Were Fed with the Sanct Grael; but Sir Percival’s Sister Died by the Way by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dante Gabriel Rossetti [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The death of Arthur</h2>
<p>If you read no other piece of medieval Arthuriana, read the 13th century French prose romance <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/93280.The_Death_of_King_Arthur">The Death of King Arthur</a> (1237). The Penguin translation by James Cable is eminently readable, and cheap too. This romance circulated in the middle ages as the last of a “series” of Arthurian works beginning with the Grail’s arrival in Britain and ending with the break-up of the Arthurian court and Arthur’s own death. We call this whole series the Vulgate Cycle, or the <a href="http://www.lancelot-project.pitt.edu/lancelot-project.html">Lancelot-Grail Cycle</a>.</p>
<p>This series, rather like many modern fantasy series, was written out of order: the long romance known as the Lancelot Proper and the Quest of the Holy Grail (the one with Galahad, mentioned above) were composed first, by different authors; very quickly afterwards the Death of King Arthur was added, and then the prequel material dealing with the origin of the Grail and the birth of Merlin was added. </p>
<p>In the Death of King Arthur, the Arthurian court is aging. Lancelot has lost his chance at the Grail, the court’s harmony is shattered as Guinevere’s adultery comes to light, Mordred betrays Arthur, and everything falls to pieces.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136237/original/image-20160901-13438-1tx0c9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A detail of the painting The last sleep of Arthur by the Pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burne-Jones, 1898.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">via Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fast forward to the 15th century, and an English knight named Thomas Malory, serving time in prison in Calais for attempting to abduct a young heiress, gets hold of the Vulgate Cycle, the Tristan romances, and a range of other material, and produces the most famous piece of English-language (despite its French title) Arthuriana: <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/22917876">Le Morte d’Arthur</a>. Malory, whatever else he might have been, was a completist, and he tried very hard to make a single coherent story out of the many contradictory he sources he had.</p>
<p>Chances are, if someone in an English-speaking country says to you they’ve read the “original” story of King Arthur, it’s Malory they mean. Its great popularity is explained by the fact that William Caxton put out a printed edition in the late fifteenth century. You can find that for free <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1251">online</a>, but the best reading version is the <a href="http://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780199540167.html">Oxford World’s Classics</a> translation by Helen Cooper.</p>
<h2>The ‘real’ Arthur today</h2>
<p>Very few people get their first idea of King Arthur from a medieval text, today. When I taught Arthurian classes at Sydney Uni I used to ask the group to describe their first encounter with the Arthurian legend – it got oddly confessional at times, liking asking people to describe their religious conversions or coming-out experiences.</p>
<p>A lot of people my age and younger met Arthur through the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057546/">The Sword in the Stone</a> (1963), although in my case it was the infinitely funnier and more terrible <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120800/">Quest for Camelot</a> (1998).</p>
<p>I was reading Arthurian stories long before I learned that the way we’re supposed to judge an adaptation in the modern world is its “fidelity” to its source. I loved Howard Pyle’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/93275.The_Story_of_King_Arthur_and_His_Knights">The Story of King Arthur</a> (1903) and the 1998 miniseries <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130414/">Merlin</a> and the ridiculous BBC children’s show <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310523/">Sir Gadabout</a> (2002), and the last thing I worried about was whether or not they incorporated exactly the same plot elements.</p>
<p>There’s a distinct pleasure, though, in reading your favourite story told again in new ways: Sir Gadabout was so funny to me precisely because it plays fast and loose with elements that are treated as sacred in the solemn Victorian style of Howard Pyle, or the serious moralising of T.H. White’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43545.The_Once_and_Future_King">Once and Future King</a> (1958).</p>
<p>Ask a group of medievalists what the best Arthurian movie is, and 95% of us will answer <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/">Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail</a> (1975). The reason for that is not, as anyone who has seen it can guess, because it is exceedingly faithful to Thomas Malory’s monumental work, or to any other particular text. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136199/original/image-20160901-26150-1tbt11a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EMI Films</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What Monty Python did so brilliantly was take the cultural “idea” of Arthur (perhaps at that time best encapsulated in the musical <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061439/">Camelot</a> (1967)), along with a broad knowledge of Arthurian traditions both medieval and modern, and have fun with it on various levels. You don’t need to have read the weird romances dealing with the Questing Beast to laugh at the Black Beast of Argh, for instance, but if you have, knowledge of the “original” can only improve your appreciation of the adaptation.</p>
<p>And so I contend that whether or not Guy Ritchie includes Lancelot is immaterial. As far as I’m concerned it’s not a real Arthurian movie unless it contains the Beast of Argh, and that’s the stance I’m sticking to.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><em>Readers interested in the history and development of Arthuriana could consult the second edition of <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/799868.The_Arthurian_Handbook">The Arthurian Handbook</a> (Routledge, 1997), or explore the texts, images and mini-histories at <a href="http://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot-project">The Camelot Project</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Did King Arthur really exist? We don’t know but the Arthur we all know and love is entirely fictional.Amy Brown, Doctoral Assistant in Medieval English, Université de GenèveLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.