Le Roi Arthur - Version cinéma

The film tries to be historical, but not really, sort of in the manner of 'Gladiator'. But it isn't 'Gladiator'. It tries to be 'Braveheart' in tone and message. But it isn't 'Braveheart'. It tries to be a triumphant tale of the king. But it isn't 'The Return of the King'. True, the viewer will see elements of each of these films in the plot, the characters, the cinematography, the choreography - but it falls short of each of these other films in significant ways.

One film this is deliberately not trying to be is 'Excalibur'. This is a demystified Arthur. There is a Merlin, but his character is a Druid leader, devoid of any real supernatural powers; he is a shamanic figure, called a Dark Magician, but there's no magic here beyond the blue paint and mysteries-hiding-in-the-forest ways. Arthur is a half-breed, Roman and British; this corresponds with what historians believe about early possible Arthurian figures - that he was a Romano-British leader at the time of the collapse of the Empire. The knights in this tale are a complete invention - supposed conscripts from the Asian plains transplanted into Britain, they are under the leadership of Arthur along Hadrian's Wall (the northern border of England). Fault number one occurs here - in a film trying hard to establish its this-really-happened credentials, Arthur should not be in the north. Nor should the Saxons be invading in the north. Nor should a principle Roman family be located on the undefended side of the wall. Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, but these are too many in a row.

I would give this picture three-and-one-half stars, but as whole numbers are required here, I will bump it up to a four-star-out-of-five picture on the whole. The plot was plodding at times, but picks up near the end; too much reliance on battle scenes and not enough character development is done, particularly as the characters deviate from standard legends so much. We care for Arthur, Guinevere and his knights, but somehow are left wondering why we do. There's something missing here, and that's too bad.

The round table is effective but only vaguely explained. The knights' relationship to each other and to Arthur is very clear from the outset, but apart from the most general of relationships with the legendary figures, they bear little resemblance in terms of actual deeds. Arthur is an idealistic Roman Christian who becomes disillusioned by the failures of people far away - one should look up the historical figure of Pelagius prior to attending the film, as the early Christian heretical controversies play a rather unexpected role here. The sword-in-the-stone legend is explained in a very innovative fashion.

The battle scenes are interesting if not entirely original. The effects would be quite at home in films such as 'Gladiator' and 'Braveheart', right down to the armour and the blue paint. The sword play is very good in some parts, although 'Troy' had better choreography in this regard. The one very effective battle scene was the battle on the ice lake, which is quite ingenious, if not entirely believable.

One thing that is believable here are the character developments - not all the good guys live to see the end; not all the bad guys die or get their come-uppence, much like real life. There is a happy ending of sorts, but of course history dictates that the Saxons would not in the end be held back; indeed, various invasions would continue until the time of the Normans. Arthur's ideal in the film is one people united, ostensibly for liberty; of course, Arthur is declare king - at a time when constitutional monarchies did not exist, so much for the hope of liberty...

The juxtaposition of church and empire on the one side and the locals on the other is a bit of a problem - the Saxons are invading, so that is bad; the Romans and the church institution are foreign implants into the land also, and they are bad (neither live up to their ideals in practice). The message here is a rather xenophobic one, not too thinly veiled.

Clive Owen puts in a very solid performance here, one of his best. Stellan Skarsgård as the Saxon king is a bit overdone, but appropriate to the character. Guinevere, portrayed by Keira Knightley, is a unique character, a native (Woad) who becomes the conscience of Arthur. The love interest/affair between Guinevere and Lancelot (portrayed by Ioan Gruffudd) is given a new and interesting twist, taking place entirely before the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere, with Merlin as the officiant of the ceremony. Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is a shadowy figure who fights the Romans until the Saxons become an even worse enemy - then, the enemy of my enemy...; Dillane carries this role out admirably, largely by his presence more than by performance.

The film was set on location in Ireland for the most part - undisturbed rolling hills are seen everywhere; primeval forests that make one think of Druid/Celtic/mystic influences.

One thing I did love was the sound - I think I was more aware of the sound in this film than any other for quite some time. From the arrows flying through the air, the horses pounding the ground, the swords clanking and the ice cracking, the sound really stood out as full and crisp, moreso than in similar films. The music by Hans Zimmer is appropriate, but also somewhat derivative of other films like 'Gladiator' - the songs by Moya Brennan are (not surprisingly) hauntingly Celtic in tone.