King Arthur Reviewed

The King Arthur, most familiar to us, was a medieval British king who presided over the famous Camelot, an egalitarian utopia featuring courageous knights, a fabled sword, a mysterious sorcerer, and a beautiful queen. History has shown that the Arthurian legend is but a myth, built upon centuries of oral traditions, poetry, and contrived drama.

The myth, however, may have some basis in history. Historians have engaged in a quest of sorts, over the last few decades, in trying to lift the Arthur of history from the pages of myth. And this is what Bruckheimer's King Arthur sets its sights on. In 2004, it sought to present an Arthurian story much closer to truth than fiction.

Screenwriter David Franzoni sets his Arthur in the waning years of the Roman Empire, specifically when the last vestiges of that empire were pulling out of Britain. Franzoni changes history a bit to make this work, as the events of the movie take place several decades after Rome's actual withdrawal from Britain in AD 410. Of course, Franzoni has never let history get in the way of a good story. Neither has Hollywood overall for that matter.

Franzoni's Arthur is a Roman officer commanding a unit of drafted Sarmatian Knights. Played by Clive Owen, Arthur is unswervingly committed to Rome, Christianity, and equality. He is a proud student of Pelagius, an actual historical figure and, according to the film, a family friend of Arthur's.

Pelagius clashed with the Roman Catholic Church in actual history, as the film portrays. But not for the reasons the film lays out. According to the movie, Pelagius preached equality and human dignity, and is excommunicated and burned at the stake. In actual history, the Roman Catholic Church didn't ostracize Pelagius for preaching equality. Rather, it took exception to his teachings on human nature, particularly with respect to the doctrine of original sin. And Pelagius was not burned at the stake. He died of natural causes.

This isn't the only error or falsification committed by King Arthur. The movie shows a Roman Empire controlled by the Pope. This was not the case until much, much later, if ever it really was the case. While the Roman Empire became officially Christian in the 4^th century after Constantine, it was not really controlled by the Catholic Church.

A sinister, all-powerful Roman Catholic Church, however, serves the script's purposes, since Arthur's character arc takes him from idealistic Catholic to neo-pagan. In King Arthur, the pagans and the atheists are the good guys. The devout Catholics are the bad guys.

While it would be tempting to dismiss this as a leftist, anti-Christian stereotype, there is almost always a kernel of truth to the most effective propaganda. Such is the case with King Arthur's rebuke of organized religion. The sad truth is that the medieval Roman Catholic Church was corrupted, even though there were many sincere and honorable adherents in its ranks.

The battle scenes in King Arthur are well choreographed. The costumes are convincing. The various ethnic warriors are all compelling, including the Saxons, though they at first come off as semi-cartoonish for their loathsome ruthlessness. Led by Stellan Skarsgård, impressive for his understated, yet menacing screen presence, the Saxons in this film are among the more feared villain armies of any recent historical epic.

Clive Owen does an excellent job portraying a melancholy, philosophical Arthur trying to adjust to a new world order. Ioan Gruffud plays a dashing Lancelot, and male viewers can't help but appreciate the captivating, hypnotic screen presence of Keira Knightley as Guinevere. Although, truth be told, while Pict women may have fought in battle, Guivenere's battlefield prowess stretches believability just a bit.

The DVD features some interesting extras, including a roundtable discussion with the director and key cast members as well as an entertaining look at the making of King Arthur.

King Arthur is an absorbing film. It is probably closer to the true Arthur of British history than the legendary account. The acting is solid. Its cinematography and special effects are breathtaking. The direction is impressive. Overall, King Arthur is definitely worthy of your time.