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.

King Arthur Movie

Although I do not know much about historical accuracy of this time period or movie, there are some things that I found that stuck out to me. For instance, everyone’s teeth are nice and white looking. Dental care in the 5^th century was terrible, and especially in Britain where nowadays British people are notorious for having crazy teeth. I also found that the horse technology seemed more modern. I do not know about horse technology of the time period, but it seemed like it was a more of a modern set up rather than something that existed 1500 years ago. The last thing that stuck out to me was Kiera Knightley’s warrior outfit. It seemed pretty ridiculous, and that it would easily come off in the middle of battle.  Also Arthur seemling walked around doing whatever he wanted, freeing people he thought should be free, letting his knights kill random people who aren't in battle with them. The ice battle seems pretty inaccurate as well, who would choose to fight an entire army when you are completely outmanned and on top of a frozen lake?