But it was a really basd movie, and totally unedifying for young Ben, Jr for Arthurian lore.
Posted on 09/29/2018 4:45:09 PM PDT by Twotone
Back in the Nineties Robert Altman released a droll Hollywood satire called The Player about a murderous studio executive, and included towards the end a parody action movie with Bruce Willis. A couple of weeks later Altman ran into the producer Jerry Bruckheimer, who told him he'd seen The Player and liked the Willis parody. "That's where you went wrong," he said. "You should have made it for real," he advised Altman. Bruckheimer's made them for real for decades: Top Gun, The Rock, Con Air, Pearl Harbor, and franchises, franchises, franchises - Beverly Hills Cop, Bad Boys, Pirates of the Caribbean, National Treasure. Oh, and, on telly, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, CSI: Nunavut, etc. But, for all those interminable franchising operations, to mark the 75th birthday of one of the most successful producers of all time, I thought I'd pick one of Mr Bruckheimer's more ambitious bits of hokum, his 2004 take on King Arthur.
This is not your father's Round Table. There's no castles, no sword in the lake, no Mordred, no Holy Grail, no Camelot, no love triangle, no Richard Burton warbling 'How To Handle A Woman', and not a lot of women to handle in any case. Instead, this is supposedly the first Arthurian tale to be rooted in historical Arthenticity. There is a Round Table, but it looks alarmingly like the UN Security Council table, which, for all the claims of authenticity, I doubt you'd have found in a fifth-century Berwick furniture showroom.
And that's where we are - the fifth century up at Hadrian's Wall in the fag end of the Roman Empire.
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
King Arthur (2004)
Made the mistake of taking Ben, Jr. to see that. It stunk on ice.
You needed to see Mark Steyn’s review to fully appreciate it. ;-)
But it was a really basd movie, and totally unedifying for young Ben, Jr for Arthurian lore.
I saw that movie. One of the problems is that the original story/script set the story in the Thames valley, which was compatible with historical records that show a Bishop Germanicus visiting Roman Britain in the early 400’s. There was also, supposedly, a Sarmatian Numerous (or Squadron, nominally about 300 men) of “knights” (equitati, or horsemen; cavalry) on the Roman Army List, whose commander (or perhaps the original commander who recruited/formed the unit) had the Roman name Arturius. This unit may/or may not have still been active after the last Roman Legion was pulled out of Britain in 405 AD. We find accounts of some Roman troops still holding parts of Hadrian’s Wall and the Saxon Shore Forts even after their units had been called back to Gaul. Retired troopers with local ties, who settled down near their former posts, perhaps. In any case, Arturius’s Sarmatian Cavalry would have been stationed in the Midlands, not near the Wall, to give them maneuvering room to intercept any raid which got past the Wall.
So they messed up the original story by changing the setting. They confused the “Woadies” ( a modern play on the Picts, Romano-British for ‘the painted ones’) with the Romano-British, who were Christians and thought of themselves as Roman citizens. They moved the stories of Arthur from the Late 5th - Early 6th Century back to the early 5th Century. In so doing, the producers and director ruined a good, if fanciful, piece of historical fiction.
What was the point of this?
That there is more to life than unmitigated politics and a little relief from it in reading a Mark Steyn column can be good. Thanks to Mark I have saved myself the trouble of watching the movie “Arthur” and learned a bit of English history.
If someone doesn’t like an article the easy solution is to stop reading and move on to something you like.
Agreed. I fortunately saw it on cable. That's about where it belongs. But having seen the movie, it makes Steyn's article that much funnier.
That was a funny column.
The point is to enjoy some fun writing from Mark Steyn.
Column was very punny.
Yes it did!
And you should know! :)
I was expecting a real point, that’s all.
I mean, this movie is 15 years old so even from “light non-political reading” standpoint, it just seemed pointless.
LOL
It had Clive Owen.
It needed nothing more.
And I think a lot of people here probably share your feelings. This is an entertainment article on a political discussion site.
While there is no point to you, there may be to someone else.
The point of the column? Mark Steyn writes on movies & music as well as politics. The lighter stuff is definitely entertaining, as he’s a witty guy. But the point is...the left has taken over culture, & Mark frequently points out that we have to take the culture back to triumph over leftism. His columns on movies & music sometimes make that point more forcefully. Other times...less so.
It was an amusing column, none-the-less, & I figured there are Steyn fans here on FR who would enjoy it.
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.