King Arthur - a defense of the movie

[annwfyn]

While pottering about in the library I found something interesting.

There actually was a Lucius Artorius Castus, who is a historical figure with the closest name to 'Arthur' that anyone has found. He was a career Roman officer who did command Roman Sarmatian Cavalry in Britain. Not Scythian, as I thought, but Sarmatian. He was long dead when the Romans left Britain, admittedly. He was around in the mid 2nd century, when he was promoted to 'dux' or 'rather important officer' and later won a major battle against the Armoricans in 185 AD.

So. If you take into account some serious re-arranging, the King Arthur movie did start off with a fragment of truth.

It's somehow very appropriate that the movie may have done what the Arthurian myth did all along - take something real, and then change and shape it to make the point the storyteller wanted made.

Comments

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Well it does say at the start of the film that evidence had been uncovered pertaining a Sarmatian of that name. I still think it's a cracking film adding a new slant to the myth, thanks for sharing that little bit of fact though it does as you say show the films started out with a fragment of truth.
:o)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

To be fair, the more I read, the more aware I am that a lot of the film is nonsense. Still like the film tho. Tis a fun romp.

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Well I didn't really put a whole lot of stock in any historical accuracy of the film, I just thought it was a cracking story. Clive Own was well cast as Artorius. It was good to see known british actors in the main roles. I bought the Director's Cut on DVD when it was released and have watched it a few times.

[onyxtears.livejournal.com]

Sweet icon btw.

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Cheers, it's the closest thing to a photo of myself on-line. It's a photo-manip. a mate did for me. Myself as The Crow. you can find a full size version here: link (http://soullessflyer.deviantart.com/)

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I... just don't see it. The film actually left me unhappy not on a historical front, but just a King Arthur front. I don't need dappy french knights, but this deviated so far into a weird cross between seven samurai/braveheart/gladiator that I just could take no joy inb it.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I guess King Arthur is a legend and as all versions of the legend have been so loosely based on what may or may not have been then anyone really has a right to do what they want with it.

It's notmy favourite version but it seemed to have more historical links than most

[onyxtears.livejournal.com]

Didn't king Arthur walk on water and turn water into wine?

Or am I getting it muddled with another myth and legend?

[ulaidhan.livejournal.com]

An awful lot of the criticism of the ahistorical nature of the film came from people bitterly disappointed not to see Arthur and his knights in full Gothic plate.

Repeatedly, I came across people laughing at how _crazy_ it was to pretend to be historical by associating Arthur with _Romans_.

:P

Others complained about Saxons being involved in his story, crossbows appearing out of the hands of medieval Genoese mercenaries, and the suggestion that Roman troops had ever set foot North of Hadrian's wall....


The film was tosh, yes, but so was most of the criticism of it. And the film at least has the merit of being quite fun to watch. ;)

[dunsirn.livejournal.com]

hmmm...

there was also actually a vlad dracula. i think bram stokers dracula story is actually more believable than the "king turd" movie.

"hi there, i'm merlin. we've been fighting off romans and saxons and christ knows what else for hundreds of years now, but for no apparent reason we want to hand over our entire army to you"

pffff...!

[melsner.livejournal.com]

I thought King Arthur was an American?