![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Arthurian Workarounds
Friday, July 21st, 2006 05:05 amI've just watched the DVD of Fuqua’s King Arthur, and now, having seen the film twice, I think I can definitely say that it is, er … something, and it certainly isn’t something else. I’m just not quite sure what those things are, but I’m working on it.
One thing it both is and isn’t is historically accurate. Obviously it’s more historically accurate than any of the other Arthurian films out there, but this is hardly an achievement, given that to the extent that they try to be faithful to anything, it is to Malory et al. It’s actually darn-near impossible to be historically accurate about the Dark Ages, because they were, well, dark, particularly the fifth century. On the other hand, this gives you plenty of leeway (a leeway which Fuqua exploits to the full). To get it seriously wrong, you'd have to do something like have radio masts in the background (which apparently they do, but I didn’t notice them) or weapons that didn't arrive until several centuries later, like crossbows or trebuchets (also present in the film, though at least they don't dress the Romans in second-century armour like most film-makers do).
There are some less glaring anachronisms in the film, most notably that the historical figure for Fuqua’s hero, Artorius Castus, lived several centuries before the actions in the film were supposed to have taken place, and may even have fought against the Sarmatians rather than with them (the battle on the ice with the Saxons is reminiscent of the battle of Tisza in 172 AD, where the Romans defeated the Sarmatian Iazyges by engaging them on the frozen river Danube). But we can get round this by the nifty device of assuming that the Arthur of the film is not Lucius Artorius Castus but one of his descendants, which does make some kind of sense. Such a descendant may well have been influenced by the teachings of Pelagius, who by a very large stretch of the imagination could be seen as having views similar to those expressed in the film, and might possibly have been murdered by his enemies in the Church. And there were definitely Sarmatians serving in Britain at some point, so there might just have been a dozen of them left in the fifth century.
There is a similar problem with the villain of the film, Cerdic, with a similar workaround. The Cerdic of history was the founder of the Saxon kingdom of Wessex, which was a long way from Hadrian’s wall (not to mention some time after the events of the film). He was also not the Einsatzgrüppenführer type shown in the film, but may well have been born in Britain, as one of many Saxon mercenaries who were taken on to defend the country after the Roman legions left. But again we can get round this by simply assuming that this is a different Cerdic. Another easily-solved problem is the lack of evidence for a Saxon invasion of North-East England at this time. As far as I know, the Picts and Scots didn’t come to blows with the Saxons until around 600 AD. Nevertheless, in the fifth century, Saxons warlords were raiding all over the place, and there is no reason to assume that the only attacks were the successful ones which led to the establishment of Saxon kingdoms. Cerdic's army in the film only looks like a few thousand men, so it’s quite possible that this was one bunch of not very bright Saxons who missed out on the rich pickings in the South-East and wound up in Tyneside. No wonder they got wiped out.
And then there’s Kiera Knightley in her blue paint and leather bikini doing the Celtic Warrior Woman thing. When the film came out, a number of critics (including myself) claimed that this was a gross anachronism, given that Britain had been Romanised and Christianised to the extent that scantily-clad Xena-clones would have been the last thing you'd expect to see in a battle. We were wrong, of course. Christianity did not establish more than a foothold above Hadrian's Wall until the sixth century, so the “Wodes” would have been pagan, and might well have had female warriors. That's no excuse for the bikini, though.
One thing it both is and isn’t is historically accurate. Obviously it’s more historically accurate than any of the other Arthurian films out there, but this is hardly an achievement, given that to the extent that they try to be faithful to anything, it is to Malory et al. It’s actually darn-near impossible to be historically accurate about the Dark Ages, because they were, well, dark, particularly the fifth century. On the other hand, this gives you plenty of leeway (a leeway which Fuqua exploits to the full). To get it seriously wrong, you'd have to do something like have radio masts in the background (which apparently they do, but I didn’t notice them) or weapons that didn't arrive until several centuries later, like crossbows or trebuchets (also present in the film, though at least they don't dress the Romans in second-century armour like most film-makers do).
There are some less glaring anachronisms in the film, most notably that the historical figure for Fuqua’s hero, Artorius Castus, lived several centuries before the actions in the film were supposed to have taken place, and may even have fought against the Sarmatians rather than with them (the battle on the ice with the Saxons is reminiscent of the battle of Tisza in 172 AD, where the Romans defeated the Sarmatian Iazyges by engaging them on the frozen river Danube). But we can get round this by the nifty device of assuming that the Arthur of the film is not Lucius Artorius Castus but one of his descendants, which does make some kind of sense. Such a descendant may well have been influenced by the teachings of Pelagius, who by a very large stretch of the imagination could be seen as having views similar to those expressed in the film, and might possibly have been murdered by his enemies in the Church. And there were definitely Sarmatians serving in Britain at some point, so there might just have been a dozen of them left in the fifth century.
There is a similar problem with the villain of the film, Cerdic, with a similar workaround. The Cerdic of history was the founder of the Saxon kingdom of Wessex, which was a long way from Hadrian’s wall (not to mention some time after the events of the film). He was also not the Einsatzgrüppenführer type shown in the film, but may well have been born in Britain, as one of many Saxon mercenaries who were taken on to defend the country after the Roman legions left. But again we can get round this by simply assuming that this is a different Cerdic. Another easily-solved problem is the lack of evidence for a Saxon invasion of North-East England at this time. As far as I know, the Picts and Scots didn’t come to blows with the Saxons until around 600 AD. Nevertheless, in the fifth century, Saxons warlords were raiding all over the place, and there is no reason to assume that the only attacks were the successful ones which led to the establishment of Saxon kingdoms. Cerdic's army in the film only looks like a few thousand men, so it’s quite possible that this was one bunch of not very bright Saxons who missed out on the rich pickings in the South-East and wound up in Tyneside. No wonder they got wiped out.
And then there’s Kiera Knightley in her blue paint and leather bikini doing the Celtic Warrior Woman thing. When the film came out, a number of critics (including myself) claimed that this was a gross anachronism, given that Britain had been Romanised and Christianised to the extent that scantily-clad Xena-clones would have been the last thing you'd expect to see in a battle. We were wrong, of course. Christianity did not establish more than a foothold above Hadrian's Wall until the sixth century, so the “Wodes” would have been pagan, and might well have had female warriors. That's no excuse for the bikini, though.
