Sounds good to me.
No complaints here! 
Posted on 07/20/2004 9:45:48 AM PDT by quidnunc
Well, they were invaders and conquerors, weren't they? No different than the Muslim empire that spread at the point of the sword, saying "convert or die".
Here is my brother's review - everyone can judge for themselves:
***************************
I honestly don't know why people don't like "King Arthur".
I think what everyone is forgetting is that the Arthurian stories are later medieval inventions: Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chretien, Wolfram, and Mallory, spanning the 12th to the 15th centuries.
The historical Arthur (Artorius Castus) was a Romano-Celtic leader of the fifth century, who helped repel Saxon invasions for 30-40 years. His true biography is not known, but the events in the film were quite possible.
Most of the details in the film were amazingly accurate. I had a chance to speak with Mark Ryan a few months ago (at an event I was performing at), an English actor who was the sword master for the film. He told me that it is based on the latest archeological findings.
Several key points:
The historical Arthur does seem to have been based near Hadrian's wall, not in Cornwall or Glastonbury as legend tells.
Sarmatians (from Russia) were used as mercenaries or pressed into service, and they were stationed at Hadrian's Wall. We don't know anything about Arthur's followers (the familiar names, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. were borrowed from medieval accounts for the film), but it is entirely possible that some of them were Sarmatian.
Merlin as leader of the Celtic "Woads" is also fine. "Merlin" was a title, not a name, and referred to a druid or shaman in an advisory or leadership capacity.
The Pictish peoples of the north and the Celts did paint themselves with blue woad. The women were as fierce as the men in combat (attested to in many Roman writings); boys were sent to women for combat training. So Guinevere's role was entirely appropriate.
The depiction of Arthur as a Pelagian was brilliant and undoubtedly lost on 99.9% of the movie-going public. Pelagius was a Celtic monk (and possibly a former druid) who advocated greater individual freedom of thought. His ideas were very popular in Britain, but his movement was crushed by the authoritarian Church. The depiction of the Church as corrupt and greedy even at that point was highly accurate.
The sets were authentic, the costuming very good, even the use of the fragmented Pictish language was a nice touch. The only anachronism I spotted was the Saxon use of the crossbow, a weapon not found in Europe, I believe, until the 12th century.
I could have done with more character development as well; another half hour or so would have been good.
So, the only reason I can see people getting bent out of shape about this film is because it's not the story they know. But all the filmmakers were doing was trying to put forth a plausible biography of the man and times that inspired the legends. Fictional, to be sure, but there's no reason that it couldn't have happened that way.
"Meanwhile the real enemies are coming down from the north, and they are the blonde-haired Aryan-looking Saxons"
Saxons are coming from the NORTH to Hadrian's Wall? Coming from Scotland? What am I missing here? Aren't Saxons Germans? Wouldn't that be more like, from the east, or south?
No one is sure exactly where he came from, but it was somewhere in the British Isles - he is variously referred to as a Briton and as a Scot in the source materials (Scotus at that time could refer to both Irish and Scottish people).
He lived in Rome for decades, however, and that is where he developed his doctrines in opposition to the Catholic view.
Pelagius taught that man could, by his own merit, attain salvation simply by living a good life. A modern Protestant would call this "works righteousness."
His views are obviously influenced by pagan Stoicism, and he apparently cast Christ much more in the role of a teacher and guide than as a redeemer. I.e. - Christ's crucifixion was more of a moral example than a sacrificial, atoning act.
St. Augustine was the most prominent defender of the traditional view of salvation by grace and wrote volumes of very exact critiques of Pelagius' teachings.
Pelagius was a pretty slippery character and went from place to place, including as far as Jerusalem, spreading his views and using fairly weaselly arguments to claim that he held the majority view.
For example, he told the clergy of Caeserea that he believed in salvation by grace, and then he went on to preach to Caesareans that by "grace" he meant the grace of creation not the grace of Christ.
Sounds good to me.
No complaints here!
But what I don't understand is how regardless, "Catholic" Christianity in particular is habitually depicted as not just "corrupt", but cruel and unfair, etc.
I'm no historian of Christianity or the late Roman time (Rome was about to officially fall, let's remember here), nor have I seen the movie, but I not only can't believe there isn't a film out there in my lifetime that shows Catholicism in a good lite, but further that there would be so much horrid corruption. FGS, Rome had only "adopted" Christianity for some 100-150 years at this point. Before that there was little organization and little platform. Just how horrible could it be? (Or was it the fault of the corrupt Roman empirical system?)
Come on. Between harboring and protecting pedophile priests and encouraging and protecting illegal aliens who invade the U.S., I'm not sure anyone is in the mood to either make or see such a film.
So I'm wrong... Where? Please tell me.
The Pelagian heresy seems kind of vague to us now, but it is interesting that many of the Protestant heresies took the early heresies nearly verbatim -- they don't seem to have bothered to have read how the Orthodox Catholic Church disproved the heretics. A great place to read up on these is at www.newadvent.com
But I'm talking about c. AD 450 specifically.
Yes there is trouble in the Catholic church - it's made up of people. There is also tons of trouble in American churches of all kinds, but the difference? They don't have the hierarchy w/specific well-known overall authorities, which makes it easy to throw tomatoes. Or, because this country is still a bit Protestant-biased.
First Knight is my favorite King Arthur movie....just powerfully engaging.
I am boycotting this one after I heard how they changed the story.
And now they make him an apostate Pelagian? sick.
I've noticed the film industry hasn't had a tendency to be kind to Christianity at all, period.
But you points, I think are accurate, and for one reason or another, the Catholic Church is a greater target.
If you want a movie that deals with the nobility, the honor, the justice of the King Arthur legend...and doesn't knock Christianity, rent First Knight.
I don't cry at movies, but I just lose it every time I see this. I saw it so many times I had to buy it. It is powerful, inspiring.
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.