best arthurian film?

Caledfwlch

I am not a Geek, I am a Level 22 Warrior!
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
672
Location
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Principality of Wales
Peter Postlethwaite is possibly the best piece of casting of an actor to play a role from a book. He not only encompassed the character that Bernard Cornwell had envisaged, he expanded it to such an extent that the author wrote Hawkeswill's character in later novels based on Postlethwaite's characterisation of the villain.
I only saw Excalibur once, in the theatre, in 1981. I remember being fond of The Sword in the Stone. Of course Monty Python and The Holy Grail cracks me up. I did enjoy Camelot because I love Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet.

On the other hand, even though I have a soft spot for Sean Connery, I cannot stand First Knight. I understand a need to go with current scientific knowledge, but even that could not save King Arthur with Clive Owen and Kiera Knightley. I know I saw The Lost Legion with Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley, but it was so memorable that I cannot remember it.

But my favorite Arthurian movie is..... Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness (this is the name of the video that I viewed).

Which scientific knowledge? :p

If memory serves - we have "Britons' covered in woad paint centuries after that practice died out, we have Romans dressed in armour and equipment 500 years out of date not to mention the word" Knjght"being used centuries early.
We have trebuchets being used again centuries early.
And that's the basics!!
 

Boaz

Happy Easter!
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
6,320
We know more about the Roman province of Britannia than we do about the subsequent 150-200 years. And that is the period of Arthur...

I'm not a historian, but as far as I know... current archeological evidence about the Britons, Picts, Sarmatians, Romano-British, and Saxons allows movie makers to let go of the plate armored knights of the Middle Ages. We no longer have the minor kingdoms of the English, we have a continual influx of peoples into Britain following the Roman withdrawal. Scots, Picts, Saxons, Angles, and Jutes encroaching upon Welsh, Cornish, and Romano-British (sub-Roman) governments all trying to establish order and culture.

Some historians argue that the Sarmatians were the first people in Europe to have the stirrup... as early as Agricola's conquests in Britannia. The theory is that the Sarmatian cavalry brought the stirrup to Britain... and stirrups are depicted in every movie I can remember. As for as I know, there really is no hard evidence for this yet.

This current knowledge lets us envision the Dark Ages in Britain differently than Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Mallory did. It's my understanding that these two men are as responsible as anyone for our conceptions of Arthur.

I agree about trebuchets, but I do not know when the used of woad or body paint died out among the Picts.

The anachronisms will always be there concerning Arthur because it is not well attested by original manuscripts nor archeology.
 

svalbard

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
2,565
IMG_20200531_132928.jpg


One of the better books on this period. Strips back the misconceptions. Written by one of the pre-eminent scholars of that period history. For anyone that is interested :)
 

paranoid marvin

Run VT Erroll!
Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
4,219
Could the movie Jabberwocky be classed as Arthurian? Young lad rises from nowhere to be hailed as saviour of the kingdom; sound familiar? And it's set in a similar time period.
 

Caledfwlch

I am not a Geek, I am a Level 22 Warrior!
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
672
Location
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Principality of Wales
Boaz can the picts "invade" Britain when they come from within it? :p

The general history seems pretty clear despite a shockingly poor documentary by the BBC which claimed established history was wrong.

After the Legions left, the Britons, found themselves facing what those of them who were early Christian would have called an apocalypse.
From the "german ocean" to the east every year came thousands of land and resource hungary Germanic "barbarians", saxons, jutes, angles, frisians and so on.
From the North or If your Welsh like me, Yr Hen Ogledd (the old North) came the added pressure of Gaels, fellow celts, invading the North (now Scotlandl and pressuring southwards

The result of course is a culturally and mainly ethnically germanic nation called England, and the Celtic nations of Cymru (Wales) Cornwall, Scotland. And arguably Brittany in France.

In the mess that turned the Briton and Romano Briton occupied Britannia, the Island of the Mighty into the 3 modern nations of England Wales and Scotland is where you find Arthur. Fighting for the Britons.

whether he was a king or not, there was definitely a Great massive battle, usually called Mynydd Baddon /Mount Badon,
Whoever commanded the Britons that day won an epic victory, and damaged the "English" so badly they couldn't advance for a couple of generations and in fact starting returning to europe/Germany. Maybe that was Arthur.

The naming is where a. Lot of difficulties happen sadly with Arthurian stuff.

In the United Kingdom for example until a certain point in the reign of Elizabeth first, any educated English person would tell you that the island of Britain had 3 races,in 4 lands.
In the Kingdom of Scotland you had the Scots. In Wales you had the a Britons, and in England you had the a English and in Cornwall again, the Britons.
Until the point I mention a Briton / British person referred specifically and only to the people believed descended from the ancient Britons - the Welsh the cornish and the bretons in France.

A movie or TV series based on Warlord Chronicles would be very awesome. Provided it doesn't have as many laughable mistakes as the adaption of Last Kingdom by the same author!!
 

svalbard

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
2,565
Boaz can the picts "invade" Britain when they come from within it? :p

The general history seems pretty clear despite a shockingly poor documentary by the BBC which claimed established history was wrong.

After the Legions left, the Britons, found themselves facing what those of them who were early Christian would have called an apocalypse.
From the "german ocean" to the east every year came thousands of land and resource hungary Germanic "barbarians", saxons, jutes, angles, frisians and so on.
From the North or If your Welsh like me, Yr Hen Ogledd (the old North) came the added pressure of Gaels, fellow celts, invading the North (now Scotlandl and pressuring southwards

The result of course is a culturally and mainly ethnically germanic nation called England, and the Celtic nations of Cymru (Wales) Cornwall, Scotland. And arguably Brittany in France.

In the mess that turned the Briton and Romano Briton occupied Britannia, the Island of the Mighty into the 3 modern nations of England Wales and Scotland is where you find Arthur. Fighting for the Britons.

whether he was a king or not, there was definitely a Great massive battle, usually called Mynydd Baddon /Mount Badon,
Whoever commanded the Britons that day won an epic victory, and damaged the "English" so badly they couldn't advance for a couple of generations and in fact starting returning to europe/Germany. Maybe that was Arthur.

The naming is where a. Lot of difficulties happen sadly with Arthurian stuff.

In the United Kingdom for example until a certain point in the reign of Elizabeth first, any educated English person would tell you that the island of Britain had 3 races,in 4 lands.
In the Kingdom of Scotland you had the Scots. In Wales you had the a Britons, and in England you had the a English and in Cornwall again, the Britons.
Until the point I mention a Briton / British person referred specifically and only to the people believed descended from the ancient Britons - the Welsh the cornish and the bretons in France.

A movie or TV series based on Warlord Chronicles would be very awesome. Provided it doesn't have as many laughable mistakes as the adaption of Last Kingdom by the same author!!

The problem is that it is far from clear. For example there is no evidence for a violent Saxon takeover. No raised cities, mass graves etc. There is little to no evidence of even massive population movements. We basically know nothing about Britain from 410 -550 apart from a few glimpses here and there.

Which makes the Arthur story so great and a fertile ground for the imagination.
 

Similar threads


Top