tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post7617413102191728789..comments2024-03-28T13:22:07.685-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: A Fond DesireJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-969139332292398662010-07-01T00:24:15.047-04:002010-07-01T00:24:15.047-04:00I think what James wants is a film adaptation of A...I think what James wants is a film adaptation of Arthur as updated to the 20th century by Howard Pyle and T.H. White. Probably more White than Pyle but White is really riffing off some consolidations and smoothing outs that Pyle made. I would wager hat a Once and Future King Trilogy of 2.5 hour films would be the finality of the matter of britin on film. <br /><br />As an aside has anyone seen the 1953 Kights of the Round Table? IMDB states that everything up to about Excalibur is based on Conecticut Yankee and White. Even Camelot (with Richad Harris) is based somewhat on White.Steamtunnelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02597332921872904036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91914077833486524152010-06-30T23:20:35.042-04:002010-06-30T23:20:35.042-04:00@blackstone: I don't "want to believe the...@blackstone: I don't "want to believe there was a real King Arthur." I don't take either side. But sure, "'nuff said."Rick Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01707062453047354335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28734872151042736752010-06-30T18:32:01.573-04:002010-06-30T18:32:01.573-04:00@ Rick Marshall:
I knew someone would throw the &...@ Rick Marshall:<br /><br />I knew someone would throw the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line out there.<br /><br />(sigh)<br /><br />If you want to believe there was a real King Arthur, that's fine.<br /><br />But historians overwhelmingly agree that he did not exist.<br /><br />'nuff saidblackstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205963961656803303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-85985392967090073462010-06-30T17:32:36.734-04:002010-06-30T17:32:36.734-04:00My vote for the best King Arthur film actually com...My vote for the best King Arthur film actually comes from 1953:<br />http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045966/<br /><br />Admoittedly, it comes from that sort of supersaturated era, but when I think of this era, characters like these are what come to mind, not the grime-covered 'heroes' you see in way too many films today...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47440003853505676022010-06-30T11:40:13.425-04:002010-06-30T11:40:13.425-04:00The problem is that with other adaptions, you at l...The problem is that with other adaptions, you at least have an chance at pleasing someone. With this one, you’re going to please no one. ^_^<br /><br />Rudd, just reread those stories. No reason to go spend money to see a film adaption that won’t do them justice.<br /><br />In fact, I suggest everyone take any money they would spend on another Arthur film or this new Conan film and go see the Rush documentary instead. Even if you aren’t a Rush fan, I think you’ll enjoy it more. ^_^Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16047284742031641312010-06-30T11:22:14.120-04:002010-06-30T11:22:14.120-04:00If, in 500 years, Milius' Conan has eclipsed H...<i>If, in 500 years, Milius' Conan has eclipsed Howard's in the popular imagination, I'd readily concede your point.</i><br /><br />The eclipse has happened. Ask a man on the street what he thinks of when you say "Conan," and he will say something about the governor of California. Most are not even aware that the character's origins are elsewhere. In 500 years, probably no one will remember either version. (And I do feel your pain, as the populace adores the movie version of "The Princess Bride," which is a horror to me, as the film loses everything that makes the book so great.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23938667477810798132010-06-30T10:07:52.332-04:002010-06-30T10:07:52.332-04:00In no particular order.
Excalibur.(Guy Richie and...In no particular order.<br /><br />Excalibur.(Guy Richie and Brian Singer are working on competing remakes.)<br />The Holy Grail.<br /><br />I agree with James that there is a commonly understood(Malory, Tennyson, Hollywood)Arthurian story. That is the movie Hollywood needs to make.<br /><br />I'll watch anything, even dreck like King Arthur and First Knight but what I want to see is a big screen treatment of the stories I read as a child.Ruddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12174843939252395797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50509629157792810412010-06-30T09:37:47.428-04:002010-06-30T09:37:47.428-04:00Excalibur was a piece of dry ice-covered gunk. I&#...Excalibur was a piece of dry ice-covered gunk. I've never managed to watch more than five minutes at a time, because it's so laughably bad and takes itself so seriously. It includes all the worst features of the Arthurian fantasy books of the Seventies, what's more. It's like some English Christmas panto, except with sex and violence.<br /><br />Yes, you can do better than that. Your three year old can make a better Arthur movie than that. I can't believe people have so much affection for that thing. But it's probably because it does actually tell the standard Arthur story, despite the stupid way it goes about it.Bansheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594214770417497135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-84944710991780233372010-06-30T09:11:24.367-04:002010-06-30T09:11:24.367-04:00We're not talking about some passing fancy her...<i>We're not talking about some passing fancy here. Malory and accounts derived from his outline have become the common understanding of the Arthurian legend over the course of half a millennium. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that, in the English language, Malory is as close to definitive as we can get with Arthur</i>.<br /><br />I would argue that it is entirely unreasonable to see it as definitive, rather than as the most popular version. We are not talking about a passing fancy, no, but we are talking about a large corpus of literature with significant differences. <i>La Chanson de Roland</i> is only preserved fully in one manuscript, yet we defer always to that poem as the earliest full treatment, rather than the Pseudo Turpin or the various additional or derivative cycles.<br /><br />It is not like we treat Caxton's <i>Charles the Grete</i> as definitive, nor his <i>Godfrey of Bouilon</i>, so why treat his publication of the third Christian worthy as definitive? Because Tennyson did? Why not T. H. White, then? Too political?<br /><br />The <i>Matter of Britain</i> is a very interesting subject, but I see no reason to slavishly follow Malory (or Geoffrey, for that matter) when one can do exactly as Malory did and create a synthesis of the whole (hopefully a better one), as John Boorman did with <i>Excalibur</i>. Of course, the elements you identify as "stumbling" (Lancelot, Grail Quest) in that film are exactly the "odd" elements not native to the original story.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28416589744414420102010-06-30T08:32:01.268-04:002010-06-30T08:32:01.268-04:00In my medieval literature classes, we read Malory ...In my medieval literature classes, we read Malory and we read Gawain and the Green Knight. <br /><br />What Malory did was bring all the traditions together under one roof and attempt to reconcile them, while explicitly stating that they all happened in the same time and place.Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-11674579270590268102010-06-30T08:25:24.213-04:002010-06-30T08:25:24.213-04:00It never fails to surprise me when popular or wide...<i>It never fails to surprise me when popular or widespread becomes conflated with definitive.</i><br /><br>We're not talking about some passing fancy here. Malory and accounts derived from his outline have become the common understanding of the Arthurian legend over the course of half a millennium. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that, <i>in the English language</i>, Malory is as close to definitive as we can get with Arthur.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79899441646494330682010-06-30T02:07:22.703-04:002010-06-30T02:07:22.703-04:00@blackstone: . . . there is no historical basis fo...@blackstone: <i>. . . there is no historical basis for King Arthur.<br /><br />He's not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Ecclesiastical History of Britain. Any other documented sources lack evidence to corroborate each other, let alone no archeological evidence (i.e. a tomb, fort, etc).<br /><br />I have studied this, being a medieval historian myself and spoke with a few professors about this particular issue. Almost all will scoff at the very idea.<br /><br />He's about as real as Conan is.<br /><br />Accept it folks.</i><br /><br />I don't accept that, and you shouldn't either.<br /><br />One of the core principles of science - including history - is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<br /><br />The period that is the best fit for the more historically serious takes on Arthur is the least well documented in Britain of the last two thousand years. I own transcriptions of many of the written materials from this period; anyone can, because there aren't many of them left to collect. Vikings and monastic closures destroyed almost all of the record from that period.<br /><br />As for archaeology, the wooden structures most popular for fortifications during that same period are long gone, whether rotted away or torn down and replaced by later stone structures, leaving only rare trace evidence.<br /><br />The one thing we can be surest of about those five hundred years is that most of the people who lived then are unknown to us, as are most of the things that happened.<br /><br />To claim that the only things that happened for half a millennium in Britain are the ones written down in that scanty record, to claim that only the paltry few people listed therein actually existed, well that's just bad history and bad science. Such claims should not pass unchallenged.<br /><br />To play the historian card for this period we have to be comfortable publicly acknowledging our enduring ignorance. The truth is that no one alive today is qualified to make either the claim that you made, that Arthur is a fictional character, or the opposing claim, that he was a real person. We don't know and we may never know.<br /><br />Not that it matters for James's original point, since he's asking for a better adaptation of the mythic Arthur, not the historic one.Rick Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01707062453047354335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73616884788446324452010-06-30T02:00:23.276-04:002010-06-30T02:00:23.276-04:00The problem is there is no quintessential Arthuria...<i>The problem is there is no quintessential Arthurian Tale. Even Mallory is an adaption of earlier sources</i>.<br /><br />Indeed; in fact Malory is more of a synthesis, largely derived from the French Vulgate version, but incorporating additional material from here and there. Far more famous prior to Caxton's printings was Wace's version, which is a French adaptation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's original Latin fantasy.<br /><br />It never fails to surprise me when popular or widespread becomes conflated with definitive.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88879937256257944522010-06-30T01:04:00.726-04:002010-06-30T01:04:00.726-04:00The problem is there is no quintessential Arthuria...The problem is there is no quintessential Arthurian Tale. Even Mallory is an adaption of earlier sources.<br /><br /><i>Excalibur</i> did an excellent job of resolving some of the contradictions of the stories (in particular by uniting the myths of Sword in the Stone and Excalibur), but there is no way it can deal with a body of myth that has been constantly reinterpreted and added to throughout history.<br /><br />For example the addition of Lancelot substantially changes the myth structure from low chivalry/romance to high chivalry/romance. But this is good, because most of the subtleties of the previous version, where Gawaine takes the role of Lancelot, would have been lost on a modern audience.<br /><br />In fact this is one of the reasons why the myth is so strong. Because it is constantly being retold and reframed. When a myth becomes stuck in history it starts to lose much of its relevance to the modern audience. <br /><br />I think that the best retellings of the myth are those, like the game <i>Pendragon</i> or the novel <i>Herself</i> by Fay Sampson, which set the evolution of the story against the evolotion of the myth or the history of chivalry. And <i>Excalibur</i> did this to some extent.<br /><br />I would like to see more done with some of the lesser tales of the mythos, such as Gawaine and the Green Knight, and Tristran and Isolde. The adaptions of these have been atrocious.Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38060563177473721682010-06-30T00:53:28.759-04:002010-06-30T00:53:28.759-04:00Well I want to see Arthur get killed by a giant ca...<i>Well I want to see Arthur get killed by a giant cat, who then invades Britain and takes his throne!</i><br />Aslan! <br /><br />I think James' point, that he'd like a good adaptation of Malory, is fair enough (unresolvable questions of authenticity aside). It's a pity Shakespeare never got to it, really (I see a potentially great retake on Lear), but Henry VIII's Arthurian pretensions died before puberty. <br /><br />Re making up your own Arthurian story riff, what I see is a broad thread of mysticism that just doesn't translate well to film (cf. Susan Cooper's <i>The Dark is Rising</i>. IMHO Gilliam's <i>Fisher King</i> is about the most successful thing in this vein).<br /><br />Me, I'd like to see a good film Taliesin. Or Song of Roland. But most of all, an Alp Arslan biopic. That has the potential to completely rewire American fantasy tropes for the next generation.<br /><br />Finally, sub-rosa sub-Romans of Shub-nigurome? I have no idea what these are, but I guess if you try to do a Geoffrey of Monmouth Arthur with Brutus as the progenitor of the Britons you probably wind up with some of them around.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22724668739965224552010-06-30T00:02:44.547-04:002010-06-30T00:02:44.547-04:00I'd hate to rain on everybody's parade but...I'd hate to rain on everybody's parade but:<br /><br /> Those of you who wish to see a "historically" based Arthur movie can't possibly see it for one reason: there is no historical basis for King Arthur.<br /><br />He's not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Ecclesiastical History of Britain. Any other documented sources lack evidence to corroborate each other, let alone no archeological evidence (i.e. a tomb, fort, etc). <br /><br />I have studied this, being a medieval historian myself and spoke with a few professors about this particular issue. Almost all will scoff at the very idea.<br /><br />He's about as real as Conan is.<br /><br />Accept it folks.blackstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205963961656803303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73911776140661319192010-06-29T22:15:31.761-04:002010-06-29T22:15:31.761-04:00I think I'll see either about the same time th...<i>I think I'll see either about the same time that a worthwhile film or TV adaptation of the Matter of France comes about.</i><br /><br>Oh, now you've got me thinking about a cinematic treatment of <i>The Song of Roland</i>. That'd be awesome ...James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29001204149306892662010-06-29T19:53:45.763-04:002010-06-29T19:53:45.763-04:00To do it right as a film, I would like to see the ...To do it right as a film, I would like to see the story confined to a single specific episode- less Excaliber, more Gawain and the Green Knight.<br /><br />To do the entire Matter of Britain justice, it has to be done as a TV series and it has to be a drop-dead serious drama running a decade or so of 25 episodes each (each lasting an hour apiece).<br /><br />I think I'll see either about the same time that a worthwhile film or TV adaptation of the Matter of France comes about.Bradford C. Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10810129226163375188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4308476884709239832010-06-29T18:10:21.818-04:002010-06-29T18:10:21.818-04:00Compare that to cinematic Shakespear productions. ...<i>Compare that to cinematic Shakespear productions. Firstly, they're based on stage plays, and hence do not require so large a budget as I suspect a Malory Arthur adaptation might. Even then they usually have to involve some edgy "modern" twist if they're to be considered marketable at all. Even then, they're basically never the sort of huge box office hits that Hollywood focuses on more and more every year.</i><br /><br>Hmm. You raise very good points here.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-32579604862313677832010-06-29T18:08:56.096-04:002010-06-29T18:08:56.096-04:00"Much like a proper Conan movie, it seems ......"Much like a proper Conan movie, it seems ..."<br /><br />Not at all. Conan is ultimately very much a product of the 20th century in his ways and speech. <br /><br />In a literal Malory adaptation, you'd have characters behaving according to rather alien 15th century mores and speaking in a highly-stilted fashion whilst doing so.<br /><br />Compare that to cinematic Shakespear productions. Firstly, they're based on stage plays, and hence do not require so large a budget as I suspect a Malory Arthur adaptation might. Even then they usually have to involve some edgy "modern" twist if they're to be considered marketable at all. Even then, they're basically never the sort of huge box office hits that Hollywood focuses on more and more every year.Will Mistrettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403399118961902073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-87881556198454146652010-06-29T18:05:57.209-04:002010-06-29T18:05:57.209-04:00Based on this line I could argue that to be true t...<i>Based on this line I could argue that to be true to Conan they should make the current movie as much like the first as possible since that’s the commonly understood interpretation of the character.</i><br /><br>If, in 500 years, Milius' Conan has eclipsed Howard's in the popular imagination, I'd readily concede your point.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4505325457522014922010-06-29T18:02:56.407-04:002010-06-29T18:02:56.407-04:00"I'm not interested in alternate takes on..."I'm not interested in alternate takes on the Arthurian legend, whether they be grounded in Welsh myth..."<br /><br />Not to be rude, but now you’re just contradicting yourself. Basically you’re saying that they should do a “proper” (insert IP or idea/theme here) “in a fashion true to the original and not in a fashion based on popular convections”, except when you don’t care about the original, (which the welsh myths are) or you agree with the popular convections.<br /><br />"I am, however, suggesting that there is a commonly understood outline of the Arthurian story, one largely derived from Malory (and, following his lead, Tennyson and White) and it contains certain standard elements/characters..."<br /><br />Based on this line I could argue that to be true to Conan they should make the current movie as much like the first as possible since that’s the commonly understood interpretation of the character.<br /><br />Or to be blunt about it, your fanboy entailment is showing.NathanShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16318655557022495392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28353320452688948892010-06-29T18:02:51.037-04:002010-06-29T18:02:51.037-04:00Excalibur is a good effort; I like a lot about it,...<i>Excalibur</i> is a good effort; I like a lot about it, especially the first third of the film. I think it starts to stumble once the whole Lancelot/Guenevere plot line appears and its Grail quest is just incoherent. It suffers, I think, from being too ambitious, which, as movie failings go, isn't one I can criticize strongly, but I still think there's room for another traditional take on the Arthurian legend.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53923785687193547442010-06-29T17:59:21.354-04:002010-06-29T17:59:21.354-04:00The main problem would be that it would cost a for...<i>The main problem would be that it would cost a fortune to do properly and be far too out there for general audiences.</i><br /><br>Much like a proper Conan movie, it seems ...James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12247473831505480192010-06-29T17:59:06.172-04:002010-06-29T17:59:06.172-04:00If that's the case, then I'd contend that ...If that's the case, then I'd contend that Excalibur is the closest thing to that. <br /><br />Nigel Terry, Helen Mirren, Nicol Williamson, along with the (then) very young Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson and other fine actors (really the cream of the young RSC core at that time), directed by John Boorman? <br /><br />Perhaps everyone else has stayed away from "traditional" Arthur because Excalibur knocked it out the park.Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.com