FanUnity B(uzz)log

For all the esteem the legend of King Arthur and his Knights Of The Round Table receives, the stories have failed thus far to really conquer the big screen in any way that lives up to expectations. The stories have been attempted on film a number of times, most definitively in John Boorman’s “Excalibur” and more recently in the Lancelot-centric “First Knight” and the Clive Owen-starrer “King Arthur.” The legend of Arthur and his knights is particularly appealing, one would presume, to movie studios these days because they are very condusive to a full-blown film franchise. Each of those three movies has its own strengths and weaknesses, though none has achieved the type of box-office success or critical acclaim worthy of such a highly-touted epic.

I’ll take a look at a few key areas and look at which film is best at what:

ARTHUR

In “Excalibur”, Arthur was played by Nigel Terry as a somewhat meek and effeminate man. Arthur starts off as a goofy and awe-struck bloke, and develops into more of a kingly figure, but retains a certain element of girly-man-ness. Terry’s Arthur is not really a believable leader of men.

“First Knight” sees film legend Sean Connery as Arthur. Connery clearly has the gravitas, charisma and regal air of a great king. The thing is, he’s so damn old. This Arthur does not look fit to join battle with the Knights. This Arthur does not lead his troops into battle like a warrior-king so much as he directs them from a far like a fragile nobleman. Connery no doubt is great casting as Arthur, it’s just that he should have played the role 20 to 30 years before he did. Arhtur as an old man doesn’t quite fit.

“King Arthur’s King Arthur, Clive Owen, is the best of this lot. Owen’s Arthur is a thoughtful man, quietly charismatic, regal and fierce in battle. This Arthur is a general as well as an enlightened despot and man of the people.

WINNER: “King Arthur” and Clive Owen.

GUENEVERE

“Excalibur” sees Guenevere played by Cherie Lunghi. This Guenevere, like the film’s Arthur, is somewhat meek and of course the effeminate part is actually a plus here. Lunghi’s Queen is not particularly remarkable in anyway.

“First Knight”’s Guenevere is played by Julia Ormond. This Guenevere is athletic, starting the film playing what appears to be an early form of soccer, and later jumping out of speeding carriages and riding horses like a pro. Ormond’s Queen is very much the modern powerful woman, but almost feels too 90s in this way to be spot on. Still, her performance is layered and her Guenevere is a more attractive figure than Lunghi’s, even if she feels a touch anachronistic. Ormond’s Guenevere is the one of these three that feels most like a queen.

The Guenevere played by Keira Knightley in “King Arthur” is even more athletic than Ormond’s in “First Knight”; in fact she’s an all-out warrior-princess. Despite a somewhat radical take on Guenevere is far off the legend, Knightley’s screen presence and sex appeal hers the most attractive lady of the lot. Since the Arthur-Guenevere-Lancelot love triangle is absent from “King Arthur”, Knightley has less of the same emotional material to work with in the film, which makes her Guenevere less well-drawn figure, despite the actress’ individual appeal.

WINNER: While Keira Knightley’s is the most alluring of the three, the absence of the love triangle does not give her enough to do and thus Julia Ormon’s version of Guenevere from “First Knight” wins out.

LANCELOT

Of the three love triangle characters in “Excalibur”, Lancelot, played by Nicholas Clay, is the best performed. Clay’s Lancelot is so pure of heart and full of virtue at the beginning of the tale that it makes it all the more tragic when he falls from grace. Clay’s performance captures the innocence, and then the fall into sin, wonderfully. Clay is also the most physically impressive Lancelot of this group by a long shot, which helps his case because the character is supposed to be the greatest warrior in all the realm.

Richard Gere’s Lancelot in “First Knight” is an interesting figure, and the title character of that particular story. Like Gere himself, he is somewhat of a Buddhist figure, who at the beginning of the film has abandoned desire and attachment … until of course he meets Guenevere. Lancelot then becomes the expert seducer, with Gere’s absolute confidence and sexual bravado (”I know when a woman wants me”). Gere’s Lancelot is a calculating figure who wants Guenevere from day one, basically joins up with Camelot just to lure her in, and achieves his mission. The friendship he develops for Arthur barely slows him down, but does give him some cause for remorse. Gere is more charismatic than Nicholas Clay, but his Lancelot is more reprehensible than tragic.

“King Arthur”’s Lancelot is played by Ioan Gruffudd, and is basically a non-factor in the film. Gruffudd’s Lancelot is first among Arthur’s knights, but the lack of a love triangle with Guenevere means the character has little dramatic importance. Gruffudd’s portrayal is not particularly inspiring, and the Lancelot of this film is a forgetable figure. Essentially, the character was in this film in name only. Seeing as “King Arthur” was supposed to be a “historical” take on the Arthur legend, Lancelot should not have even been in the film, since he clearly was invented later in the legend-weaving process and certainly was not a historical figure.

WINNER: Nicholas Clay and “Excalibur”.

KNIGHTS & OTHER HEROES

“Excalibur” features a full-blown Round Table with Perceval (Paul Geoffrey), Gawain (Liam Neeson), Kay (Niall O’Brien), Ector (Clive Swift), Leondegrance (Patrick Stewart) and more represented. Even Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne), Mordred (Robert Addie) and Merlin (excellently drawn by Nicol Williamson) mix it up in the film. These figures add color to the story and are generally well-performed by their actors.

“First Knight” sees Agravaine (Liam Cunningham), Kay (Christopher Villiers) and a few lesser known knights in action. Its Round Table is relatively small, though their customes are definately the nicest of the three groups. Their main purpose is to project an image of nobility in the Round Table scenes. In battle, only Lancelot seems to do any heavy lifting alongside the regular soldiers. These knights are a pretty bland lot.

“King Arthur”’s Knights Of The Round Table give off something of a dirty dozen vibe. They are harder and flithier than either of the above sets, and they are the fiercest warriors. Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy) and Bors (Ray Winstone) are some of the prominent knights on display. Merlin makes an appearance her, but as something of a wildman shaman.

WINNER: “Exaclibur” wins the day thanks to Williamson’s Merlin.

VILLIAN

In “Excalibur”, the rival is the duo of Morgana (Helen Mirren) and Mordred (Robert Addie). Mordred’s really more just a prop and a tool of Morgana’s will than anything else. As Morgana, Helen Mirren lights up the screen with sexuality and power. Her Morgana is a tempting asp of a villian, and one whose evil plans ultimately succeed.

In “First Knight”, Ben Cross plays the invented Prince Malagant, a Lucifer figure who was once first among Arthur’s knights but broke off to become master of his own realm, with designs on overrunning Camelot. Despite the corny name, Ben Cross makes Malagant into a worthy advisary to Arthur. He is loathsome, fierce in battle, not afraid to use the dirtiest of tricks and carries a menacing aura up until the final scenes of the film.

The villian in “King Arthur” is a Saxon general played by Stellan Skarsgard, whose eyes are set on overrunning the land and stamping out the last vestiges of Roman civilization. While Skarsgard is a fine actor whose able to bring a menace to his particular character, the Saxons have to go down as the least inspiring enemies of this lot.

WINNER: “Excalibur”, thanks to Helen Mirren, with props to Ben Cross for an excellent job making “First Knight”’s Malagant a hateful son of a gun.

FAITHFULNESS TO LEGEND

The clear winner here is “Excalibur”, which is practically from the pages of Thomas Mallory when compared with “First Knight” and “King Arthur.” To be fair, “Excalibur” is really the only of three that makes an attempt to be faithful to the legend. But that counts for something. “First Knight” attempts to bring a 1990s sensability to Camelot, and “King Arthur”, with eyes on appealing to audiences that loved “Gladiator”, makes a half-hearted attempt at historical fiction.

WINNER: Since “Excalibur” actually has a proper Merlin, a proper love triangle and a proper death for Arthur, it runs away with this category.

FINAL RESULTS: “Excalibur” 4, “First Knight” 1 and “King Arthur”