Quest 2: Why is the Arthur Archetype so Popular?

Why do we seek to prove Arthur’s existence as opposed to other mythological characters (Gilgamesh, Snow White, etc)? What aspects of the Arthur Archetype make him so popular (at least in Western culture) while other mythological characters receive less attention?

The king who touched kings

The quotation I found most impactful while reading was "The Arthurian legends were never merely entertainment, however. By the late twelfth century Arthur, the symbol of British resistance against the English (the Anglo-Saxons), was adopted by the Norman conquerers of the English. The Angevin-Norman Plantagenet dynasty in the succeeding two centuries provided great patronage to Arthurian writers, and even claimed to have excavated the graves of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury." (Snyder, Ch. 1, Pg. 16) I feel like this quote and the previous sentence about the weight that Henry VIII put into the Arthur myths best illustrate how historically and culturally impactful the myths were, even far before modern history. The myth intertwines itself in German, French, British, English and Norman culture and directly impacted major historical events, which blew my mind to learn. 

Petition to add this movie to the curriculum.

Source: Snyder, Christopher A. The world of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson, 2011.

Okay Film, Bad Execution

The believability of King Arthur was okay. I felt the character, Gwenevere was more sexualized than she should have been. She wasn't a character, if anything she was annoying. Also the broken finger bit made me angry because her hand still wouldn’t be able to use her hand at all let alone have perfect aim on a bow and arrow.

I loved the costuming, but most importantly I loved all of the Knights and their friendship was probably the most believable thing in the entire movie.

I know many would not agree, but personally my favorite part of the whole movie was the ice scene, not because of its believability, but because of how cool it looked. Aesthetically speaking, the aerial shot of the knights shooting the bow and arrows and hitting nearly every one of the Saxons was beautiful to watch.

In all honesty I was confused by Merlin’s character because I wasn’t sure if he was actually important to the story, it didn’t seem like he was even doing anything besides attacking Arthur which wasn’t even explained in the plot. Overall King Arthur was a good movie, a bit confusing at times as to who was who in the beginning but overall an aesthetically pleasing film, but just a really bad execution.

Who Would Win: A Hollywood Film vs One Historically Uninformed College Kid

I had several questions while watching the 2004 film King Arthur. About twenty minutes into the film, I thought, "Wait a minute, didn't the Roman empire fall by now? Didn't the so-called Dark Ages happen after the Roman empire fall?" Either way, they’re there, and as far as I know, their soldiers are dressed as they would have been historically. I have no clue how they did with the Saxons on the historical accuracy front, but for practical reasons I wonder about the Saxons’ loose hair. It makes them look cool, but if they’re constantly itching for a fight, shouldn’t they tie it back or cut it short? Then there are the Woads. Are the Woads the same as the Celts? If so, then as far as I know, the film’s depiction is historically accurate (blue body paint, questionable leather armor, both men and women in combat), though I still wonder how they managed not to get stabbed more often without a lot of protection during battle.

Regarding Arthur and his knights, I was surprised they let Guinevere be one of their archers. They’re Roman-trained, so shouldn’t they balk at women who want to fight? “A woman? Fighting alongside us? Does she think we’re Woads?” Speaking of Guin, when she first showed up in her archery outfit, I thought, “elf.” That flowing dress/robe could get caught on something, and I don’t know where or how she got all that fabric. Wouldn’t it have been expensive to get that much? Either way, said fabric looks too light for winter. Later she adds a cloak, but she still could be warmer, and maybe have armor. At least she eventually ties her hair back for battle. Also, I doubt hygiene, nutrition, and cosmetics back then were advanced enough to make anyone as pretty as Guinevere and Alecto.

Another question: did Briton brides dress like that? The white dress and veil are traditional for us today, but was it for them? Or are those traditions more recent and from elsewhere? Also, again: where and how did they get all that fabric?

"Go all out. It's my wedding." -Guinevere, probably

Image from Harvey Furnishing's web site.

Who is Arthur? Let's Discuss

Something I've been wondering for a while is "Why is there so many different variations of King Arthur?" Most myths or stories the characters stay about the same throughout different medias but with minor changes to their roles not their history or personalities. This is not the case with Arthur however as stated in the readings. For he has many different renditions of him from his personality, background, looks, etc.  as well as many different tales from folklore, myths, literature, and romance. So how did this great debate of who King Arthur truly is really come about?

Way Too Hollywood...

It is plausible that King Arthur existed during the mid to late 400’s in the Western Roman empire. This was a troubled time for Rome. The empire had split 160 years before and the western half was being attacked by barbarians from the north. These attacks weakened Rome and caused destruction to the far reaching parts of the empire. This would have been a perfect time for a hero to emerge. It seems as if research was done for the movie, but it was not “Hollywood” enough for it. As usual, things were added and smashed together to make it more exciting. I know very little about England during the mid to late 400’s, but walling people up seems rather far fetched for a small village in northern England. It seems that when it came to the Woads the costume department wanted more to work with. So they mixed tattoos and body paint with unnecessarily revealing costumes. No matter what time period, soldiers would have wanted to protect their torsos in battle. The writers seem to have forgotten that names are tied to certain locations. Lancelot, which is a french name, somehow was from Sarmatia, which is nowhere near France. Arthur was called Arthur by Romans who would have called him Artorius and was called Artorius by the Woads who would have called him Arthur.

Would watch again!

I will say I do not know about much European 5th century history, but the movie itself was entertaining. The acting could have been improved with more realistic scenes but for the most part I was intrigued the whole time. Most of the battle scenes were very dramatized. Example with the beginning fighting scene where the savage warriors from the north attacked the Roman wagon, Arthur and his knights road in and saved the day without misplacing a hair on their head. This identified them as invincible superheroes. To the battle on the frozen lake, it was almost too good to be true that they beat the odds with a winning victory against a much larger infantry, AND managed to get majority of the Saxon’s under water. The final battle had unique strategies at the opening that made you wonder when they had time to plan it all out, throwing balls of fire into the stampede of men and smoking out the battlefield to attack while on horses. It seemed as they accomplished all this effortlessly and letting the fire do the work. The warriors serving under Merlin had various painted symbols on their bodies, making them look like savages from the jungle with incredible assault skills. Originally they hated Arthur and his knights, literally attempting to kill them a few scenes prior to calling him King in the end. It is amazing how quick everyone was to join together for a common cause. Im curious if it would have played out like that in real life.  Arthur’s men seemed to have more authentic knight-like armor, considering they weren't head to toe in metal like the knights I invision in my mind; they also displayed what it is like to be true soldiers demonstrating brave chivalry. The character of Guinevere, Arthur's lover, was very influential however she did not present an actual lady from that time period by being brave and fearless with the battling soldiers. The idea and story line of King Arthur himself is not representable to reality; winning the battle, marrying the girl he saved, becoming King; all the loyalty, honesty, and courage illustrated creates an awesome screenplay. I thought I wouldn't enjoy the movie, but it turned out to be an entertaining creation for the well known "fairytale."

Howells Intro Quest

Jake Howells

            I cannot talk of the specific historical accuracy or plausibility of this movie because I am not an expert on King Arthur or the Roman Empire’s control over Britain.  I wasn’t a huge fan of this movie.  It came off as more of a fan-fiction reboot then a real King Arthur tale.  I also questioned when Arthur pulled the sword from his father’s grave rather than the “sword from stone” that is pretty synonymous with the legend.  I was also pretty sure that Merlin was supposed to be a good guy. It was challenging trying to keep the new Roman names straight with my limited King Arthur knowledge.  The biggest hole this movie failed to cover in regards to plausibility was that they sent out just Arthur and the knights to rescue this family.  There is no way that the Roman Empire would send seven, eight, or however many knights after a family deemed important to the Pope.  They would have easily sent a rescue party of three or four times that number for such a dangerous mission behind enemy lines.  And then when they get there, Arthur would have never taken the time to save all the innocent peasants at the peril of his own men and time.  I saw the most recent King Arthur movie, and thought it was much better.  While it got real bad reviews, I thought it was much faster paced with a more consistent story with what I had thought King Arthur to be about.

Where do savages find cosmetics in the woods?

The movie made out Arthur to be a Roman soldier, and I have never heard of him before as such. I only ever heard that he was a legendary English king, not a civilian of Rome. I also thought that the clothing Guinevere was wearing was way out of historical context. For living as a savage in the woods, I am just dying to know where she got her lipstick? Her outfits even look like something you can buy from Aeropostale and Victoria's Secret, as I saw her on several occasions wearing exposing gowns and fancy dresses. Further, I remember reading that Roman armor was designed to be tough and sturdy, being able to withstand several attacks and not break easily. I saw in several scenes that arrows and swords were able to easily break through this armor, and in one particular scene, I saw an arrow break through a supposed iron helmet. One thing that also really bothered me was that the Pope had power over the Western Roman Empire. I remember learning that only the Eastern Roman Empire accepted the Pope and Christianity, not the West, so that bishop character should have had almost no power in the movie. I did like that the movie included Arthur's round table, and showed that he thought of his knights as equals.

King Arthur (2004) Historical (In)Accuracy

The 2004 movie King Arthur is filled with historical accuracies and inaccuracies. The opening battle scene of the Woads attacking the Roman convoy escorting the Bishop does not seem like it would be accurate. Firstly, why would the Romans allow a bishop to ride out in front leaving him in danger? Secondly, why would the Romans allow Arthur to let the last Woad flee? Why not take him as a prisoner? I found Arthur’s treatment of authority figures to be historically inaccurate. Arthur is still a soldier/knight and must follow orders whether he likes them or not. He talks back to those in higher positions than himself, which was not very characteristic of people of the period. The time was one of respectfulness. Arthur standing up for his men does seem to be accurate. Arthur is said to have believed that all his soldiers were equal to himself, so it seems right that he would do everything he could to keep them safe and help ensure their freedom. These accuracies and inaccuracies however have not too greatly impacted my overall view of this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

Arthur Romeo... like the car? I'm bad at this

The movie “King Arthur” portrays a much more realistic homage to the myth of the king than most other representations, though it’s not without moments of questionable reality. The most obvious instance is how skilled all of Arthur’s knights are as archers, namely Tristan. He’s shown to be able to pick off Merlin’s soldiers with ease, even while shooting into the woods, from hundreds of yards away with no idea of their exact locations. Later, when Arthur and his knights fight the Saxons at the frozen lake, they all have a range two to three times that of the Saxon soldiers, even Guinevere, who prior to that was an unassuming serf. Guinevere does become a total badass later in battle, but until that point there was no reason for her to be this skilled. Furthermore, Tristan was the only knight shown to hold a bow prior and it was established the Saxons were superiorly armed. I also find it odd that the entire lake was frozen over when there was no indication that it was winter outside of a light snowfall the night before. Which just reminded me, if the Roman lord knew it was winter, why were he and his priests so lightly dressed? As for the final battle, I feel that it’s a reach to accept that Merlin’s army pledged support to Arthur based one vague, brief meeting in the forest and his relationship with Guinevere. While Lancelot killing the lead Saxon’s son was cool, I think it’s unlikely that he'd be able to accurately and with force throw his sword 15 yards into a man’s chest while having an arrow in his. 

Helmets, Ice, and Keira Knightley

The movie King Arthur gave great insight into the story of King Arthur; however, some components of the movie seemed to be historically inaccurate.  First, throughout the film, the Knights do not wear helmets. It is strange that the Knights wear full body armor but no helmets even during the battle scenes. I image that a Knight would want to wear a helmet since the head is one of the most vulnerable parts of the body. Only during the final battle at the end of the movie do that Knights wear helmets. Second, the scene where one of the Knights breaks the thick ice on top of a lake with an ax so that the Saxons fall in seems impossible. Although the weight from the Knights and the Saxons walking across the lake may have weakened the ice a single person with an ax could not cause a massive break in the ice that all of the Saxons would fall into because the ice was too thick. Finally, Keira Knightley's outfits throughout the movie do not fit the period in which the movie takes place. I image that women during that period wore many layers of clothing that included corsets, petticoats, and tunics especially since the story takes place during the winter. However, Keir Knightley wears an ill-fitting dress that lacked layers and is reveling. The outfit she wears during the final battle is the most ridiculous because it barely covers her private parts. In an actual battle, Keir Knightley could have died because a sword could easily puncture her exposed skin. Overall, I gained some background information about King Arthur from the movie, but I wish that it was more historically accurate.

King zzzzzzzzz

            As with any Hollywood movie, based on historic stories, there are to be many false or over-exaggerated details so the movie sells. There has been one good King Arthur movie, and it is not this one. King Arthur (2004) is a terrible and boring movie to put it bluntly. There are several massive faults with this movie that should blow the viewers mind.

 First of all, the story shows the viewer the ruler of Rome is the Pope. The Pope is not the ruler of Rome. It is in fact Emperor that is the true ruler. The Emperor held the power of taxation, the military, and the lands Rome held, not the Pope. Why was there the love story between Lancelot and Guinevere? She had "relations" with Arthur because death was approaching, but then randomly Lancelot? It was definitely the hair. The best reason to dislike this movie is the ice-lake scene again. The character who strikes at the ice with a mere pickax would not cause all that ice to break as it did— basic logic. Also, even if the pickax worked, both armies would have fallen through the ice. The scenes were rushed and not entertaining at all. When I was not sleeping, I was furious with how poorly written the film actually was. Finally, Rome had left the island by the time this movie took place. The armies left over fifty years prior to the movies date. 

The movie does have some truth to it, however. The Christians did start to move into England approximately in 330 A.D., so the depiction of Christianity there is justified. Also, the usage of chainmail is correct for the Roman armor; the chainmail worm over the knights head started in the 12^th century. Lastly, the knights all had certain qualities that made the group work well.

Overall, the typical viewer would not notice these faults, and the movie should not be liked or disliked based on them, as it fits its narrative. However, it should be disliked for how poorly written it was; come-on, where did the “love” come from between Lancelot and Guinevere?

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.