Posted on 07/20/2004 9:45:48 AM PDT by quidnunc
Jerry Bruckheimer's most recent rendition of King Arthur raises a fascinating question: is the political correcting process implemented intentionally, or does such revision simply occur by momentum once patterns of thought start heading in a certain direction?
The newest King Arthur purports to tell the "real story" that inspired the legend of Camelot. The Cliff's notes version is this: King Arthur was really the Roman commander named Lucius Artorius Castus, leading a group of conscripted "eastern knights" charged with repelling Rome's enemies at Hadrian's Wall in Britain. These "knights" are pagan cavalrymen from the Central Asian region that lies between the Vistula River and the Caspian Sea, known as Sarmatia.
Guinevere and Merlin are actually "Woads" (named for the blue dye used to paint the body before battle that gained notoriety in the movie Braveheart). These Woads are pagan barbarians who constitute Rome's primary enemies beyond the Wall to the north. Merlin is not really a magical wizard but a mystical Shaman-like freedom-fighter leading the Woads; Guinevere is not a queen in flowing robes, but rather a proto-feminist archer who goes to battle in William Wallace-style face paint.
The Woads simply want to be left alone after facing great persecution and torture by the Catholic Romans, who are willing to implement any hideous means to convert and enslave the natives. With the exception of Arthur (who is part-Woad), the Christians are almost uniformly duplicitous, and dare I say it, evil. Meanwhile the real enemies are coming down from the north, and they are the blonde-haired Aryan-looking Saxons. The ruthless Saxon leader's most notable quotation is along the lines of "don't breed with the locals, you'll taint our blood."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
Not only is Arthur the only Christian portrayed positively, he is a Pelagian (ie, a heretic)....
It's a MOVIE. Sheesh it hasn't even come out yet.
Did Disney make this flick?
I'm a history nut and my girlfriend is a King Arthur fan.....we both hated this movie.
So many historical errors it's not even funny.
Not to mention every Christian in this movie was portrayed as a murderous and treacherous thief. Where as all the peaceful pagans wanted was to be "left alone".
The real question is...are the movie producers really attempting to revise history, as so many seem to think, or just making their fictional movie in a way they think will make money?
I didn't know this movie was out already. I was watching something about it on tv last night. Oh well. Not too many movies do a good job of historical adaptation it seems.
Actually...it came out on July the 7th, my girlfriend and I saw it on the 12th.
I thought King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were christians.
DOUH!!! I replied a half a second after you did....sorry.
i saw it too.
there were a few good action sequences.
beyond that, it was rather bland and tiresome hollywood drivel.
next thing will be the "life of Pelagius" probably which will show Augustine to be a proto-Republican whereas Pelagius will be kind, sensitve, caring...blah blah blah
In every other telling of the story they are...Arthur is a "Christian" in this movie, but the rest of his Knights are pagans.
That's what the queers were saying 15 years ago...
My brother is a historian and he loved the movie (I hated it). He thought they got a lot of little details right and that the portrayal of the corruption and treachery of the early Christian church was dead-on accurate. He also explained that the original intent was to make it a small, art-house film - Disney decided to market it as a "summer blockbuster", which explains the incoherent presentation.
It did and it tanked.
Saw it. It's just a movie. Really. And I loved the actors, I let go of the Mort d'Artur legends, and just watched. If you saw the 13th Warrior, and liked it, you'd like this, too. If you want another Disney adaptation of the Sword in the Stone, stay home.
Just curious...I had never heard of Pelagius, who was he and what did he do?
My fifteen year old said "Guinevere sucked". He liked most of the movie but didn't like the new twists on the age-old story. He is nuts over medieval stories and battles.
Huh? I think you lost me there.....
I saw the movie, and it was entertaining enough, but wasn't 300 A.D. a little early for the crossbow?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.