King Arthur
Movies I’ve seen twice, actually. What can you do? Two different pals want to go see the flick and I’ve never anything exciting to do so I go and see this vaguely annoying yet mildly entertaining film twice.
It wasn’t better the second time.
Don’t let me discourage you. It really isn’t that bad. The first thirty minutes or so are actually pretty enjoyable. Soldierly banter, heroic drinking, bureaucratic betrayal and other typically Roman pasttimes keep your attention engaged. Then, as we get to the so-called meat of the story everything falls apart.
I won’t comment on the history involved except to say the filmmakers really ran away based on some very flimsy evidence. I wouldn’t mind except that the average moviegoer is apt to think this is historical fact – particularly in light of the text in the film’s opening which indicates this might be historical fact. Bollocks.
What I will comment on is Hollywood’s complete and utter inability to make a film that portrays the Roman Catholic Church as anything other than a cult of self-important slavemasters happily slaying dissenters left and right. The only “good” Catholic in the film, Arthur himself, is actually a follower of a Fifth century heretic – Pelagius – and breaks with Rome and Roman authority when he discovers his mentor has been put to death by those same Roman authorities. Funny, I can’t find any evidence the Pelagius was put to death, and anyway the best guesses of his date of death are twenty years before this film is placed. Not to mention that the only explanation of Pelagian doctrine in the picture is that all men are equal and have free will – delightful things which play well with American audiences but very nearly completely contrary to the actual thinking of Pelagius himself.
Watch the film as something mildly entertaining, a tolerable way to pass a couple of hours but do not think that any part of it – excepting the existence of a Roman Empire – is in any way associated with fact.
Better yet, time it so you can see the first thirty minutes and then duck out to go see Spider-Man 2 again.
July 15th, 2004 at 2:27 PM
The reason Hollywood tends to portray the Catholic Church as “slavemasters happily slaying dissenters left and right” is because they were for a good portion of their history. Now, before the flaming begins, I’m not saying that all Catholics were like that, but most of the larger stories that are worth telling to Hollywood usually involve the Catholic Church’s darker side — Joan of Arc, the Crusades, heck, even that love story were the teacher falls in love with the rich guys daughter, and then the church castrates him and they write letters for the rest of their lives (the movie’s called Stealing Heaven)…
July 15th, 2004 at 2:52 PM
I’ll make no comment other than this:
The fact that those are the stories that survived only serves to prove my point. It just makes the whole affair much larger and more involved than modern Hollywood.
-bp
July 16th, 2004 at 10:09 AM
Hey, you forgot the whole silent support of the holocaust thing, Chad. Damn Bloody Catholics (of film). Although Van Helsing s portrayal of the Catholic Church sponsoring a secret James Bond inspired demon hunting M-6 was kinda cool (despite the awfulness of the movie).
As for Arthur, I did enjoy watching it (at times). But the history and a few plot points were physically painful. Did you see the History Channel movie tie-in they did? I guess they paid HC a huge sum of money to try to lend some legitimacy to the film. It was bad… you could almost feel the producers rolling their eyes at their own creation.
-bampf
July 19th, 2004 at 10:46 AM
As I said, let the flaming begin…