Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Reviews (M) > Retrospective: ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 1 Topic 212 of 388
Post > Topic >>

Retrospective: Excalibur (1981)

by Dragan Antulov <dragan.antulov@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 23, 2004 at 07:05 PM

EXCALIBUR (1981)

A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2004

According to the results of recently published poll, some 11 % Britons 
think that Adolf Hitler is product of someone's imagination rather 
than historical figure. Same poll suggests that 57 % Britons think that 
King Arthur was actual historical figure. That poll shocked many 
historians, showing how Hollywood finally blurred the line between 
real history and myth. However, in the case of King Arthur some 
British historians weren't that appalled, shocked or convinced of their 
countrymen's ignorance. According to some studies, in 5th Century 
AD a man named Riothamus brought some sort of political unity, 
law, order and prosperity to inhabitants of Britain following the 
Roman withdrawal from the island. In next centuries accounts of 
Riothamus blended with oral tradition of native Britons and their 
medieval conquerors. The mythology, further refined in the works of 
English, French, German and other medieval poets and troubadours, 
was finally codified in LE MORTE D'ARTUR by Sir Thomas Malory 
(1414-1471), one of the first printed books in England. In last hundred 
years or so, Arthurian legend became part of global culture, mostly 
thanks to Hollywood movies. The most impressive of those movies 
was EXCALIBUR, 1981 epic directed by John Boorman.

Screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg adapted book in such way that the 
almost entire Arthurian mythology is condensed into single feature 
film. Prologue begins in a Dark Ages - period when England was 
plagued by endless wars between petty little fiefdoms. It is 
prophesised that the one man would unite the country and bring 
peace, harmony and prosperity. Uther Pendragon (played by Gabriel 
Byrne) thinks that he can make prophecy true with the help of 
magical sword Excalibur, given to him by powerful wizard Merlin 
(played by Nicol Williamson). Only a step away from fulfilling his 
goals, Uther succumbs to lust towards Igrayne (played by Katrina 
Boorman), wife of one of England's mightiest dukes. For the sake of 
one night with Igrayne Uther throws away the peace treaty, any 
chance to become a king and ultimately his own life. Product of 
Uther's and Igrayne's intercourse is taken by Merlin and later grows 
up to become young man named Arthur (played by Nigel Terry). 
When it turns out that Arthur is the only man able to wield Uther's 
magical sword, he becomes a king. He quickly vanquishes all of his 
opponents and gathers formidable group of supporters known as the 
Knights of Round Table. Peace comes to England and Arthur from 
his castle rules as just, benevolent and enlightened ruler. But that 
bliss is short-lived because evil lurks within Camelot, mainly in the 
form of Morganna (played by Helen Mirren), Arthur's magic-
practicing half-sister.

Arthurian legend was born in turbulent times of transition and that 
explains its contradictions. Arthur (or its historical equivalent) lived 
in times when old pagan world was being slowly replaced by 
Christianity. The conflict between those two worlds reflected on the 
Arthur himself - on one hand, he is described as the first truly 
Christian monarchs and his men are embodiment of Christian 
chivalry; yet, Excalibur, Merlin and all the magic belongs to pre-
Christian world. Malory, the author of the book, was also the man of 
contradictions living in turbulent times. 15th Century England was 
ravaged by endless civil wars that would end in old feudal system 
being replaced with absolute monarchy. Malory himself was product 
of those turbulent times; he allegedly wrote the book in prison, 
having been put there for the acts that had little with ideals of 
chivalry. Five hundred years later Boorman builds his entire film on 
those contradictions and conflicts.

The conflict in EXCALIBUR isn't just the conflict between paganism 
and Christianity. It is also conflict between romanticised mythical 
past and its modern realistic representation. The film is compromise 
between the two. Arthur and his knights are presented just like they 
used to be imagined in medieval songs and chronicles - as the 
idealised embodiment of medieval chivalry. Boorman chose to 
discard historic authenticity; instead of 5th Century AD costumes, 
protagonists wear clothes and objects more familiar to people who 
lived in Malory's times; Arthur and his men are literally knights in 
shining armour. All that makes their human weakness more apparent 
- people in the armour are plagued by rage, lust, self-doubt and often 
commit acts contrary to their noble code of conduct. Boorman 
underlines this contrast with the heavy use of naturalist violence - 
people are impaled, limbs are chopped off, blood spurts and birds 
feast on decomposing human corpses. Boorman also another thing 
which is hard to imagine in spectacular period films these days - 
nudity. It is far from being gratuitous, because nude characters in this 
film are being vulnerable than being erotic. 

Boorman directed this film with great skill. Irish locations are put to 
good use in this film and they show how Western Europe used to be 
both beautiful and sinister in its pagan times, before the arrival of 
Christianity and modern civilisation. Alex Thomson's 
cinematography enhances this impression with green light being 
reflected in knights' armour plates. Acting in the film is superb, 
although only a fraction of this excellent ensemble is well-known in 
today's cinema (most notably Patrick Stewart of STAR TREK: NEXT 
GENERATION fame, here in the small role of Guenevere's father). 
Nigel Terry is very good in the role that required transformation 
from clueless youth to embittered old man. Nicholas Clay is also very 
effective in the complex role of Lancelot. Cherie Lunghi and Patrick 
Geoffrey are more than solid in their roles of Guenevere and 
Pereceval, while Byrne is very effective in the role of Uther. Most 
effective acting, however, comes from two artists whose on-screen 
animosity (according to Boorman in his DVD audio-commentary) 
matched the their real life feelings - Helen Mirren and Nicol 
Williamson. Mirren is formidable as embodiment of seductive evil, 
while Williamson chews the scenery as the character who is hero's 
mentor and comic relief at the same time. Williamson's role, however, 
isn't helped with Pallenberg's dialogue which often leaves much to be 
desired. Music in the film is also something of a disappointment - 
Trevor Jones' original score doesn't mix well with Wagner, while Carl 
Orff's CARMINA BURRANA suffers being overused in plenty of 
other films. 

However, despite those minor flaws, EXCALIBUR has one big 
advantage over most of period, fantasy and sword & sorcery films 
being made these days. Because its contradictions are part of authors' 
artistic vision, this movie represents true art and so far the most 
honest and most powerful on-screen depiction of the ancient and 
universal legend.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

Review written on April 23rd 2004

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 37644
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1274818
X-RT-TitleID: 1006848
X-RT-AuthorID: 1307
X-RT-RatingText: 8/10




 1 Posts in Topic:
Retrospective: Excalibur (1981)
Dragan Antulov <dragan  2004-04-23 19:05:00 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Sat May 17 0:04:01 CDT 2008.