Release Date: July 7, 2004
Starring: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Mads Mikkelsen, Joel Edgerton, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Ray Stevenson, Stephen Dillane, Stellan Skarsgård, Til Schweiger
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Written by: David Franzoni
Distributed by: Buena Vista Pictures
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality, some language)
Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur is the self-proclaimed untold true story behind the legend of Arthur and his knights of the Round Table, except that what is, by its own definition, an historical demystification of a broadly popular tale has an atrocious disregard for history of any kind. That said, it is a refreshing reinterpretation of the legend, and one that does away with many of the overblown touches that Hollywood has added over the years. If you can stomach the unmistakable disconnect between this movie and the real Arthurian legend, you can just as easily enjoy it well-produced action-adventure flick it is.
This version of the story, which is written by David Franzoni, posits Arthur (Clive Owen) and his knights as Roman legionnaires, garrisoned in Britain on the eve of the Roman pullout in the mid-fifth century. Before being given their discharge papers, Arthur and company are sent on one final mission: They must rescue a family of Roman nobles who are living north of Hadrian’s Wall in wild country about to be overrun by the Saxons, who, under the leadership of the ruthless Cedric (Stellan Skarsgård, doing his best Nick Nolte impression) and his son Cynric (Til Schweiger), are eager to take possession of the land when the Romans withdraw.
Along the way, however, Arthur runs into Guinevere (Keira Knightley), the representative of a native people who will be swallowed up by the bloodthirsty Saxons as an unfortunate consequence of the Romans’ absence. She introduces him to Merlin (Stephen Dillane), the leader of her people, who convinces Arthur that he must lead this indigenous force against the Saxons and preserve what will one day come to be called England.
Arthur, of course, was never a captain in the Roman cavalry; the legend that bears his name can be traced back to Welsh and Celtic folk tales originating sometime in the seventh century, and these probably had an even earlier source that came from Ireland, not Rome (the legend wouldn’t make it to Rome until the time of the Crusades, or later, in Sir Thomas Malory’s famous Le Morte D’Arthur). For its part, the movie also distorts Roman history, for though the plot proper takes place in 467, the Romans had left Britain over half a century earlier.
But with all of the components of history rearranged to suit the movie’s needs, it makes for an entertaining and action-packed story, a solid companion piece to Gladiator. Franzoni, who also wrote the screenplay for that film, has incorporated many of the same characteristics into Arthur as he gave to Maximus -- an undying loyalty to his men, a thoughtful intelligence (depicted as uncommon for a fighting man), an eagerness to retire from military service to a life of peace after a long and distinguished career, a frustration that the world he once knew is changing before him, and a reluctance to accept his role as the leader of a popular rebellion. Owen, who plays Arthur with a brooding determination, lacks the screen presence or life for the part, but he acquits himself well enough, and anyway the part is so similar to Maximus that the ideal candidate, Crowe, would’ve drawn more ridicule than praise for attempting what would have amounted to Gladiator 2.
More fun are Arthur’s knights, whose numbers have been halved for the sake of the story. Played mostly by lesser-known actors, this group -- a medieval dirty (half) dozen -- injects the kind of flippant, carefree humor into the film that is so essential for an action movie. Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd, for once, an actor who is of the same generation as the actor playing Arthur), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone), and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) make for a solid ensemble of supporting players, and even though their number precludes any substantial characterization except for the obvious -- such as Lancelot’s infamous though undeserving reputation as a womanizer (in the legend, he had eyes only for Guinevere, and it was a love so chaste as to be nonexistent by modern standards) -- they provide a reliable foundation on which to build the action.
Not present are some of Arthur’s more famous colleagues, like Kay, Gareth, or Percival, although these omissions are clearly arbitrary as none of the knights in the film have anything to do with their legendary counterparts. Nor do Merlin or Guinevere, except that they have the same names, but the important thing is that the movie works within the boundaries it establishes for itself. Dillane has little time as Merlin, but Knightley does well as the empowered Guinevere, even if she is occasionally forced to walk the well-traveled paths of stale, action movie dialogue -- it seems almost ridiculous that anyone would lecture Arthur, history’s paragon of chivalry and nobility, on the virtue of defending his de facto homeland over leaving with the Romans.
Once he comes to this conclusion, though, the way is clear for the spectacular action moviegoers expect from a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. One of the most memorable battle scenes is the one where Arthur’s knights face off against a company of Saxon troops on a frozen lake. Another opens the film, with our heroes defending a Roman caravan from a raiding party led by Merlin. And, typical for Bruckheimer, the best comes last, when the Romans have left and Arthur uses the now-abandoned Hadrian’s Wall as a critical means of controlling the penultimate battle with the Saxon forces.
Indeed, King Arthur is a competent action movie, and one that would’ve been completely entertaining in its own right. Ironically, if anything has ruined this movie, it is the promotional campaign, which has imposed the demystification label on a film that deserves better. But Hollywood has so thoroughly popularized the story that such a vastly different interpretation needs some kind of explanation if it is to have any chance of succeeding commercially. There are countless examples of American films using shorthand compartmentalization to deliver classic literature to a mass audience, but Arthur is the rare example in which the film industry has sought -- unjustifiably -- to compartmentalize itself.
-- Craig Roush (craigroush@hotmail.com)