A dark, unheroic take on ‘Arthur’

VAN NOVACK

King Arthur has been the subject of more than a dozen Hollywood

films, several television shows, numerous documentaries and even a

cartoon or two. Often, the Arthurian legend is portrayed as ideally

chivalric and romantic, a notion perhaps best typified by the musical

“Camelot” in 1967. My personal favorite cinematic adaptation of the

Arthurian Legend is 1981’s “Excalibur,” a somewhat dark and

appropriately brooding take on this oft-told tale.

Since this story has been told so often and sometimes so well in

the past, there seems no point in churning out another version unless

a fresh angle could be found. Such an opportunity is provided by the

work of scholars in recent years who have generally concluded there

may indeed be a historic foundation for King Arthur, although much

earlier than normally depicted.

According to the new movie “King Arthur,” the “real” Arthur was

not initially a king, but a 5th century Sarmatian knight in service

to the dissolving Roman Empire. Fighting in the remote Roman outpost

of Britannia for 15 years, Arthur and his knights are men without a

country, sustained solely by duty. As the knights’ indentured

servitude to Rome is about to end and their freedom granted, the fall

of the empire forces the Romans to abandon their outpost to the

invading Saxons. The knights can leave with the Romans but choose to

stay and fight the brutal Saxons with the help of the Woads, British

freedom fighters led by Merlin himself, portrayed here as a master of

guerrilla warfare.

The Saxon leader Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) is a pragmatically

ruthless commander who calmly orders his men to “kill everyone and

burn everything.” Cerdic revels in the killing and mayhem and only

seems to be flustered by his own son Cynric’s occasional

insubordination. Skarsgard’s portrayal is chilling in its

single-mindedness and fanatical devotion to conquest.

The relatively unknown Clive Owen plays Arthur. In this film,

Arthur is strictly a military commander, who inspires his men with

word and deed. Owen looks the part of the consummate, though weary

fighting man. Hopelessly holding on to a vision of a Rome that no

longer exists, Arthur slowly comes to the realization that Britain is

now his only home.

In this film, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior fighting

right alongside the men. Although not portrayed as a defenseless

woman in need of rescue, Guinevere nonetheless morphs from muddy,

tattooed guerrilla fighter to beautiful maiden when the need arises.

The romance between Guinevere and Lancelot, the centerpiece for most

Arthurian stories, never takes place in this version.

“King Arthur” is a gorgeous-looking film with realistic battle

scenes, good costumes and the other prerequisite trappings of a

typical “sword and sandal” movie. One thing I appreciated was that

some of the key sets, particularly the Roman fort in Britain, look

brand new. I’ve seen countless films made on location at some

battered surviving castle or fortress. This always bothers me, as I

assume these structures were in better shape when they were

originally built.

Despite the good performances, sets, scenery and costumes, “King

Arthur” just misses being a great film. Perhaps the Arthurian legend

exists due to the embellishment it has gathered over the centuries.

Stripped down to the “true” story, Arthur is not as heroic or noble

as we might like. In the final analysis, making a legend human may

not be the best storytelling device. Without the sorcery, intrigue

and romantic hyperbole of other Arthurian epics, this is just another

tale of war with all the ugliness and futility that entails.

* VAN NOVACK, 50, is the director of institutional research at Cal

State Long Beach and lives in Huntington Beach with his wife

Elizabeth.