|
|
|
|
|
|
We do more than just read books. Many of us love watching a good film or a made for TV production. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. We like to be entertained. TV and DVDs are a big part of our lives, admit it. But how much do you actually know about that film or TV production. Is it appropriate for my children? Will I like it? Could I use this material in school? Just how historically accurate is this? How much "Hollywood" is in this film? And finally, if I buy this film and take it home, will I enjoy it as a film? Or is it going to bore me to tears? Many of you have found my reviews helpful in the past. It is my sincere hope that you will find these reviews just as helpful. Quick links to my most popular reviews: The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Kingdom of Heaven If you would like to read my reviews as they appears on Amazon, please click on the picture of the movie. The title will take you to the product on Amazon.
|
|
|
Overall Rating - Rated PG-13 Accuracy - ** Entertainment value - *** This timeless love story has been told many times over in print. From its origins as a Celtic story, to the French romance to Wagner's Opera, there are many versions and each of them is intriguing in their own way. But there are key elements to the story. The love potion that the couple drinks, the broken sword that indicated that Tristan slew the Queen's brother. The story, which predates the Arthurian legends and is probably the origins of the Arthurian legend, and it contains some magical elements that made it a fascinating story about a noble knight, Courtly Love and betrayal. This production of the story, staring James Franco as Tristan and Sophia Myles as Isolde with Rufus Sewell as King Mark, presents us with the lovers triangle and is well done for a Hollywood tale with the usual Hollywood spin. The costumes are attractive and the scenery is probably the best part of the film. However, I was not impressed with the interpretation of the story. I felt that the plot had been changed a bit more than I would have liked. Tristan is not the noble knight portrayed in the original story. And the stiff acting by James Franco left that part lacking is so many aspects that for me, Tristan was neither attractive nor heroic. King Marke, in the original story, is the betrayer, always looking to find fault with Tristan and looking to catch the lovers in some kind of compromising position. In this interpretation, Marke is the one wronged, and he is the one betrayed. The couple, in the legend, never ventures further than Courtly love, Tristan always being the honorable knight. In this version; well, Hollywood must have its love scene. And the magical element? The love potion which is the reason in many of the stories for the two who fall in love, is left out. The story becomes changed and the whole responsibility is placed on the lovers, not the magic. The love potion is excluded. So, we go back to, ok, Hollywood did a number on the original story, and they do that, don't ya know. We are still looking at a movie and its merits. The acting of Rufus Sewell is a standout. Sophia Myles is also as beautiful as she is talented. But we come back to James Franco. Sorry, but he was unimpressive as the Hero of the story, lacking in presentation, dialogue, and at times he looked like he was dragging himself through the part. So, in all fairness, the movie was not uninteresting. But there were times when it overly resembled the Arthurian Legend, with the King being wronged by his queen and her knight. It did seem to be working towards yet another version of King Arthur, and in that respect, it seemed unoriginal. The elements that made it unique seemed to be left out, and the viewer was left with the impression that, yup, yet another remake of the story of King Arthur. And if I wanted that, there are film versions of that story with better acting. medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
Overall Rating - I would give this an R This movie is rated R for good reason. While I have no issue with the R rating, the saga was never like this. Accuracy - *** The Beowulf Story is there. This is a "modern" and "updated" version. Entertainment value - ** I want to start off by saying this is an adaptation of the book, it is by no means the story as told in the book. The move is sold as a "modern adaptation" of the book. It is filmed in Iceland. To be honest, the scenery is lovely, and sets the story well. Costumes; I'm mixed on this. Some look appropriate, others look a bit out of place. The accents also struck me as wrong. Sorry, this is a hodgepodge of accents, ranging from Canadian to Scottish, to English to Norse inflections. No one seemed to be on the same page with this. I am not familiar with any of the cast. The director is Sturla Gunnarsson, who's credits include everything from Da Vinci documentaries to Ricky Nelson. Beowulf is Girard Butler, probably most recognizable from his role in the 2004 production of "The Phantom of the Opera". Grendel is played by Ingvar Sigurdsson, and I did not recognize any of his film credits. But familiarity with the cast is not as necessary as familiarity with the saga, as you will be challenged in that respect. But on to the actual film. The scenery in Iceland is barren and mysterious, as is this movie. It is a very violent film, taking us very visually into the slaughter perpetrated by the Grendel. This movie is presented as coarse in it's approach and it's language. We are given barbarians as interpreted by the writer Andrew Rai Berzins and the director. This movie presents us with a very raw and unrefined version of Beowulf. Some of the dialogue I felt is, well, off. The language used is not of the time period but modern. And while they were a randy bunch of barbarians, the life style was overemphasized, in my opinion. Too many parties, not enough story. Overall these elements gave this movie more of a modern slasher feeling than the classic epic I was expecting. Maybe too much modernization can spoil the feel of a classic masterpiece. I was left feeling disappointed rather than entertained and exuberant at the conclusion of the film. I was looking for Beowulf and Grendel, I saw an SCA reinactment in a Friday night drive-in B movie special. The acting is... convincing - the actors get into their parts. But again, I was hard pressed sometimes to locate the original story amongst the various interpretations and modern trappings included in the film. Hollywood in Iceland. Their interpretation, their idea of what the story is about and while interesting, not entertaining. I do not recommend this for young kids, and you really do need to take this as the modern interpretation it is intended. Overall, I found it "interesting". medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
The Crusades: Crescent & The Cross A History Channel Presentation Overall Rating - I would give this a PG rating. While the violence is included, it is in many cases held to a respectable level for all viewing. I would say from 6th grade on could view this without incident. It is good they did not de-emphasize theviolence of the period and they conveyed this in the production very well without going overboard. Historical Accuracy - ***** As in all History Channel productions, the material is expertly covered, well researched and there are even little extras that make this a valuable asset to both the casual student of the Crusades as well as the specialist. Many little elements make this a good reference piece. Entertainment value - ***** I rate the production at 5 stars, for excellent research, good production values and being entertainingly told to the viewer. The various scholars chosen for their areas of expertise are also very good as they are energetic for the most part, do not drone or bore, they fit their commentaries precisely into the production and do nothing but add to the material. I also enjoyed the battle reenactments. Perspective - **** The story is told by the various chroniclers for both sides. We see William of Tyre's chronicles as the "zealous, Christian eyes" version of the Crusades, just as we see Baha-al-Din's much over romanticized and "honeyed over" version of Sal-al-Din's deeds. There are also additional "eye witness" accounts added in. This is balanced out by the addition of the commentaries of the various scholars. I received this advanced review copy from the promotional company working for the History Channel. I must admit that they sent me a very nice package and a bonus disk. This is an eight sided box, like a two pound box for candy - lovely print job. The two disks are contained in a book inside the box, along with a CD disk of photos - some from the production, others are historical pictures of either the key players or events/places. A very nice package, though it will not fit on your DVD shelf. Also, one of the pages in my book was stapled in upside down. Still, a nice presentation. Apart from this, the work itself is very interesting. I sat through the entire production and was never bored or antsy. Actually, I found myself marveling at what the History Channel has done here. The program covers the First Crusade on the first disk. There is an examination of the causes of the initial conflict, examining cultural issues, Religious issues, European social and political unrest, Church influences, financial issues and points of conflict in the Moslem and Byzantine world. While Religion is acknowledged as the primary cause of the conflict, they also do not ignore key issues that lead to these conflicts. There is also discussion of Urban's "selling of the Crusades". Very well put together and an in depth examination of the events leading up to the First Crusade. Included also are maps of the areas, modern day images of the cities today as well as places that have survived, and those that have not. There is a lot of information to sift through here. While the story is carefully laid out and well developed in order of events, the program purposefully comes across as a story woven by an expert story teller. Even the added discussions by such noted scholars as Dr. Thomas Asbridge, Tariq Ali, Prof. John France and Dr. Taef el-Azhari, to name a few, comes across as additional parts of the storytelling. There are the usual added "tidbits" thrown in by the History Channel, like uncovered bits of text to give clarification to some accounts and the discovery of a location of a famous battle that up to now had been unknown. Emphasis appears to be on key battles, as these are reenacted for the viewer. These are provided by Lion Television, and are nice additions to the material. They keep the viewer interested as this material could get rather dry if not for points of interest like this. The second disk covers the Second and Third Crusades. Again, social and political climates are discussed and examined. Again, the story is covered in a "timeline" of events from the vantage point of the chroniclers. We are presented with the fall of Edessa, the calling of the Second Crusade, the rise of Nur-el-Din, the battle for Damascus, Egypt and Sal-al-Din and the arrival of Richard the Lionheart in the Holy Land for the Third Crusade. Again, key battles are reenacted, strategies discussed, failures noted and by the end of the film we are looking at a very good wrap up of the entire program. Conflict, social upheaval, cultural differences, battle strategies, religious zealots and the lust for war and violence all comes through as the story of the Crusades unfolds in this production. We see the heroes, and the vile nature of the event itself. Nothing is left glossed over. There is some romanticism here, as the chroniclers tended to be very bias towards their benefactors, but on the other hand, we also see the social and political issues that were key to the events that took place. And while not shown, there is discussion of the atrocities and barbarism that was prevalent during these events. This is a good overview of the events that took place starting 1099 and which continued for about 200 years. There are some events that are more examined than others, and some key figures that are discussed in some detail. It was, however, very entertaining, factual and well worth, I felt, the time I spent watching it. medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
Kingdom
of Heaven Overall Rating - Rated R by the Motion Picture Industry Standards Historical Accuracy - ** This is Hollywood Entertainment value - *** and a half. Perspective - *** The story line tells of a man who was a lord in the Levant who returns to France for his long lost son, brings him to Jerusalem where the father dies, the son takes his place, and Jerusalem falls to Sala-al-din, and the people are saved by the son's cunning and kindness. The question I've been asked a few times by readers of this site is - how historically accurate is this piece? I watched this movie through, and I want to remind my readers that the only historically accurate information here is that Hollywood does tend to take a story, base it in some kind of historical reference, add to it for romance, action and how well it will fit into 145 minutes. However, before we correct the errors, I want to say that taken as an entertainment and not for historical value, the movie was entertaining. I liked the interpretation of Balian by Orlando Bloom. Actually, Orlando Bloom was nice to see as other than some hunky cheesecake on the screen. He may actually have an acting career if he continues to take parts that require him to act. He did a good job here, and for an overall period piece on the Crusades, I would give this movie 3 and a half stars. It's a bit better than average, but the lack of accurate history takes one star off the top, and a few of the "goofs" in the movie take another half star. It was worth sitting through, it is nicely done with the costumes and the scenery, and overall, the major events are somewhat accurate. The movie makes the assumption that you are somewhat familiar with the Crusades, and know about the battle at the Horns of Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem. They assume you know that Sala-al-din was in charge of the army that finally rousted the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. Not much background is given on any of the major players. I am sure that more than one watcher of this film scrambled to the history books to look up some of the information. I know I've gotten lots of emails regarding this film and questions about it's historical accuracy. Balian was probably not brought from Europe by his father as the story here tells, nor was he the only son. Balian had a brother Baldwin of Ramla and both brothers seem to just appear in the history books. The story about Balian's background is a Hollywood production as I see it. But Balian was one of the designated "bailliage" for Jerusalem, a position that was like an "overseer" for the King, who was either ill or too young to handle all the duties at that time. These "bailli" are changed as needed throughout the historical final story of Jerusalem. At one point Guy de Lusignan was bailli, till his failure at Damascus. Sibyl was Baldwin (the Leper) IV's sister. Sibyl was married previous to Guy and had a child who would be crowned king at age 5. Her first husband lived only a few months into the marriage. This was all left out. She was married to Guy. To be honest, Sibyl's reputation as a flirt in the history books would have made good fodder for the story plot if they would have played it out, but they decided to make her a very "good" and lovely queen to Orlando Bloom's Balian. They did not run off together into the sunset. But the choice of the lead character, Balian, was a good one on Hollywood's part, as he is treated well by the history books as one who was respected by both the royal court in Jerusalem as well as the Moslems. Balian was in the rear guard at the battle of Hattin, and was allowed by Sala-al-din to return to Jerusalem to remove his wife and children before Sala-al-din was to seige it. The rest of the story is pretty much true. Balian threatens to kill all and destroy Jerusalem unless there is some truce reached. What is not told is that Sala-al-din allows everyone to leave provided they pay a "ransom". The lords do ransom themselves out, as do the clergy, but the Templars and the Hospitalers leave all the poor folks high and dry, and Balian pays what he can for the balance of the people to leave, which by the way, was most of the population of Jerusalem. Sala-al-din releases the balance without ransom, allows them 40 days to depart, and escorts them all to the sea. The story is Hollywood, woven around some actual facts. There are a few goofs in details, some key facts just left out, some romance spun around to make the movie more palatable to some. The battle scenes are done well, much gore splashing around, no lack of blood and gutts. Probably what got this film an R rating, as I see it. There is no "sex" to speak of except for a brief love scene, which is very short and discrete. I am glad to see they did not make Sala-al-din out to be the bad guy in the bunch. There were enough bad guys in the Crusaders court to hold the story together. No one was spotless, and the movie goes that route. If you want something that is entertaining with a Crusader theme, this is a good choice. If you are looking for historical facts, they are not really here. Orlando Bloom really does act in this film, proving he can be more than just eye candy. Liam Neeson is excellent as ever, as Balian's father. Jeremy Irons as the trusted Tiberias was an interesting character as well. Enjoy the movie for what it is - entertainment. Look to the history books for actual history. This is the Hollywood rendition of the Crusades and the Fall of Jerusalem, and they tell it in the best entertaining way they can. Facts get in the way of plot, and actors are chosen not because they are accurate in their appearance, but because they are good at playing a part and big names attract attention. If you take this into consideration, then you will enjoy this film. And, of course, you have to be interested in the Crusades. medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
The Knights Templar Overall Rating - I give this a G - General Audience, any age group. I think it will appeal more to the 6th through 12th grades mostly, as younger groups may find the material generally uninteresting. Historical Accuracy - **** Entertainment Value - *** The entire production, while not boring, did seem challenged for graphic or visual appeal. Producing four one-half hour segments should not have been such a problem to fill that material was repeated. Perspective - **** The perspective here is very professional and straight forward. We are discussing history, there is no attempt to over romanticize or gloss over anything presented. Very nicely presented. This documentary examines the Military Monk order of the Knights Templar. This is a Canadian production and it is, in my opinion, quite good. The material is based on the researches of Professor Malcolm Barber of the University of Reading in England, who appears in this production discussing the history presented. It is augmented with material by Dr. David Nicolle of the University of Nottingham in England as well. Both men are noted Medieval Historians and authors, Prof. Barber being a noted historian on the Crusades, and Dr. Nicolle being very well versed on medieval history, castles and warfare. The production is in four parts, covering Origins, Corporation, Frontier and Legend. The total viewing time for this entire production is approximately two hours. Origins cover how the Templars came about. They do not mention Hugh de Payne or the original group who are credited with the founding of the Templars, but does pick up from the time of the First Crusades, and does cover the circumstances of why a military order was needed, and how the Order was finally acknowledged and accepted. The battles are not extensively covered till the fall of Jerusalem. The battle at the Horns of Hattin is covered. What is covered very well is how the Templars populated the area with castles. The film covers many locations, examining the castles, showing bits of artwork and some gents dressed up as Templars. As far as history goes, most of episode covers the general history of the Crusades, finally focusing on the Templar part in the history. Corporation is much more interesting, showing how much of an important part the Templars played in the construction of the financial basis for that time period in history. The foundation of the Templar finances is examined and clearly laid out. This is necessary in order to understand what finally happens to them. Also examined is the power struggle in the Middle East for the control of the Holy Lands, the various groups who had a part to play in this, and the Templar reinforcement of the Crusader holdings in that area. Frontier lays the basis for the fall of the Holy Land and the effects it had on the Templars. Reinforced and secure, they lose their ground to the Mamluks. The power struggle plays out, the Holy Land is finally lost to the Crusaders, and the Templars move back into Europe to find they are financially secure, but have no reason now for existence. They expand their basis in shipping and trade, but their existence can not bejustified as their main purpose, to protect the Holy Lands, is no longer valid. The final installment, Legend, examines the fall of the Templars. Their financial holdings appealed to a failing monarchy, they become the target for the financially strapped French King, and are arrested, tortured, tried and burned. The Pope disbands the order, hands over their holding to the Hospitalers. They examine the final days of the Templars, and what remains. Also examined are some of the more dominating legends and myths. Curses, treasures, the Shroud of Torin and the Free Mason associations are discussed. Throughout the documentaries, Prof. Barber and Dr. Nicolle, as well as a few other specialists, add their viewpoints and their expertise to the topic and make some sense out of what could be confusing and lacking in details. The material is augmented by the commentaries and is very much like a college class study than a read through a high school text book. A big plus in my view. The examination of the legends and stories about the Templars is also a big plus, as it puts into perspective some of the myths that started almost as soon as the last Templars were put to death. A very good addition to the work. While the history seems skimmed over, it appears the timing is probably the reason why. Each episode is approximately 30 minutes long, so there really isn't all that much time to get into details. One thing I did find annoying was the production itself. There is much repetition in the visuals. The same knights keep trotting across the screen to fill in the visuals while the narrator Art Malaik covers some details. Mr. Malaik's voice, however, does not drone on as some narrators do, so it saves the production in that respect. But that same group of men dressed as knights plod through the entire production, sometimes in a repeated scene, and in my opinion the producers could have found some better material to fill the visual spaces with. But that is my opinion. As far as the history, the material is well researched, well presented and the whole of the production is very interesting and the time allowed for the production covers the material well enough. This would fit well as a four part series to augment any medieval history class, as they are roughly thirty minute episodes. And the expertise of Prof. Barber and Dr. Nicolle make this a very good all around picture of the Crusades as well. So, if you are looking for some good historical background material for the Crusades and the Knights Templar, this is a good production well worth the time to explore. medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
The Crusades Overall ratings: I give this a rating of PG 17 because of some brief partial nudity in Part 4 and overall violence. Not that this would bother me or keep me from showing this to my High School aged kids, but there are folks out there who take exception to this and this is being noted for your benefit. After all, this is a program about the Crusades... it was violent. Though, to be very honest, there is probably more violence in that video game your kids are playing right now than in the entire 4 hours of this show. As for the nudity, again, it is a personal thing. I did not find it distasteful, nor did I think it was out of place, though some may consider it so. I leave it up to you. Historical Accuracy - **** Entertainment Value -
**** Rather, this production is well presented, a visual feast for the eyes and the brain. The material presented moves at a good pace, not losing the audience nor boring them to death, which could easily happen with material such as this. It will also keep the attention of the High School crowd. Perspective - **** However, if you are of the opinion that the Crusades were a sacred mission from God and that we were justified by any means to do what we did, this is not the production for you. Only the open minded will appreciate the material provided here. But, as a warning, the markings for the perspective are purely from my own point of view. I think the producers succeeded in presenting the material fairly. Having made these opening statements, and leaving it to your own personal judgment from this point on, I would like to recap some of the material covered in this production, and give my own impressions of the material presented, the style of the presentation and what I feel personally about the work labeled The Crusades by Terry Jones. Terry Jones is probably better known for his work as one of the members of the 1960s comedy group Monty Python. But more notably, Mr. Jones does have several books out including a work on Chaucer and a television piece called The Complete and Utter History of Britain. His work is a bit tongue in cheek and that is Mr. Jones style. He does tend to overstate the obvious and because of his work in television and the movies, he does it with a very dramatic flair. That is what entertainment is all about... attracting the audience's attention by playing up the obvious and emphasizing it with drama and special effects. Assisting him is Alan Ereira, who has produced many documentaries for the BBC, including many historical ones. These two men teamed up to produce a four hour documentary on the story of the Crusades, one which has been poo-pooed by many "authorities" and praised by many others. However, it is hard to put down a documentary which has so many professors of Medieval History and Historical experts appearing on it. Sir Steven Runciman appears in the film to present bits of history to the viewers. As does Professor Jonathan Reily-Smith, Dr. Christopher Tyerman and Professor Zakkar of the University of Damascus, to name but a few of the very easy to recognize Historical Experts adding to the material presented. The material is well researched. It covers many different aspects of the Crusades, including life, art, warfare and more. As an example, there is a wonderful "sidebar" presented about the place and importance of "washerwomen" in the life of the soldiers. While it may sound at first to be a kind of rant or a tangent that Mr. Jones goes off on, the importance of these women to the traveling soldiers is made perfectly clear when their real purpose is revealed. There are many such interesting facts added that makes this work a very good overview of not only the Crusades, but medieval life as well. This production covers a lot of history. From the letter written by Emperor Alexius to Urban to the final sweep of Babar and the Mamluks into Acre, the history is presented in a "timeline" fashion, making it easy to follow and keeping it in historical perspective, showing how one event led into another. There are two disks in two covers inside a very attractive slip cover box. There really isn't much more information other than the brief cover notes. It is presented in the original four one hour episodes. The episodes are, in order, Pilgrims in Arms covering Peter the Hermit, the First Crusades, and the trip as far as Constantinople. The second hour is Jerusalem covering Edessa to Jerusalem. The third is Jihad which covers the Arab response to the Crusader invasion of the Holy Land and the rise of Sal-al-Din. The final episode is Destruction which covers the final ousting of the Crusaders from the Holy Land. The production is a mix of the old with the new. A very original use of medieval artwork literally brings art to life, having the historical figures speak for themselves, quoting documentation and chronicles from that time period. Images of old medieval renderings of places and events are mixed with new footage of the same places, giving the viewer the real sense of history, places and conditions. Yes, there is a touch of "Hollywood" in the presentation. This is very well done, though sometimes it may seem overdone. But in my opinion, it keeps the viewer involved, entertained and takes what could have been dry, boring and basically uninteresting and grabs the viewer's attention. This is a mark of excellence in my book, rather than a mark against it. Having dragged myself through a number of sullen texts and boring classes on the subject, I appreciate something that is original, interesting and still historically accurate. The accuracy of the material has been called in question by some "authorities". Actually, what is presented here is both sides of the coin. We look at the Crusades from the Moslem side as well as the Crusaders side. Some folks are not happy with this, and I believe the producers restrained themselves sometimes in the material presented. But the balance is well done, and presents a very big and bold picture. There is no shortage at presenting the Crusaders as they really were. Sir Steven Runciman says it well when he described the Crusades as "a barbarian invasion." These were little more than barbarians who had religion, as he puts it. And one group of barbarians met another group, who also found themselves not that far from their own barbarian roots. Both sides fancied themselves as "civilized" and for their time, they were. But it's interesting to note how long that "civilized manner" lasted when faced with the circumstances that took place. Not to say there weren't members on both sides who showed common sense, civility and humanity. But that was few and far between. History remembers them briefly, and then writes down the facts as they saw it. The perspective presented, in my opinion, is fair. There is much material here to ponder, research further, and even argue if you are so inclined. But no one is favored here; all the skeletons are pulled out of their closets and paraded about for all to see. There are those who will also argue that Terry Jones gave this production more of a comical approach. Rather, I feel he adds to it. His sarcastic approach is appropriate in many instances. He slides to the cutting edge, rather than presenting you with the bloody knife and then ignoring it. Yes, you don't know you've been hit with the brutal truth till you are knee deep in blood. And that is exactly where he wants you to realize you are. After all, this was the Crusades, not a walk in the park to Jerusalem. He presents all the brutality, all the blame is placed on the appropriate parties and no one is allowed to escape their crimes. This is going to upset those who are romantically approaching the Crusades, or who have not read anything other than "approved texts" for the very indoctrinated. I found this refreshing, and very well done. If you are looking for a good beginning point for your study on the Crusades, if you want to ditch your schoolbooks and get into the meat and potatoes of what really happened, if you are open minded enough, and if you are into being entertained with a well done, well produced and historically accurate work, this is a really good overview of the Crusades. I would love to recommend you give this a few hours of your time. It is a very well done documentary. medievalcrusadesbabe |
|
|
King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend A Delta Production Copyrighted 2004 Delta Entertainment Corp. This is a Delta production, and is presented as a documentary in DVD format. The idea from the title is to present the legend, and then present some kind of proof for the legend. Overall ratings: ** I would give this a PG rating, viewable by all ages. However, because of it's slow pace it may not be a good production for the classroom, as it will probably not interest or keep the attention of the 6th through 8th grade crowd much. Historical Accuracy ** For information, it is about 2 stars. For a production made in 2004, I've read some much more interesting new information regarding the locations of the events in the legend than what is presented here. I have also read some of the earlier works from France and Wales about Arthur and the Grail that I found to be the origins of the Malory rendition that are never gone into here. There is no discussion of the deeper meanings of the stories. It is mostly superficial, just the legend and the variations. Even the credits at the end do not give any sources for the information presented, just the names of the locations photographed. Historically, there is more evidence that could have been presented but was not. There are earlier versions of the Legend that are not explored. Note also that none of the more popular Knight's stories are included here. Entertainment Value - ** This production drags and plods along for much of the 90 minutes the film runs. Nicely photographed, the narrator's voice (Liam Dale) is not really all that pleasant. Much of the material in this production is well known and has been speculated to death elsewhere. If you have read the "Morte d'Arthur" you know much of what is in this production as far as the story goes. Nice pictures, average story dragged out to 90 minutes. Perspective - ** This production is presented as a mystery that is going to be solved. In actuality, nothing is solved, much is speculated upon, and the wrap up is more like a pep rally for the Arthurian Legend than a wrap up. It is presented as a "truth behind the legend" but there is only legend presented. Nowhere is actual "proof" for "truth" presented. I looked to this production to be a very updated and scholarly work looking at recent findings and work done in the field to bring Arthur into a more realistic perspective than is done in the legends we have to date. Unfortunately, this was a disappointment for me. The visuals show lots of "name places" throughout England. It is interesting to see many places like Tintagle Castle. At times it looks more like a travel log than a documentary. While there is much discussion about "legends" there are small discussions about the Celts and the Romans and "Hadrian's Wall". There is some material, like the Celts and their cultural practices, that is mentioned but no sources given. There are a few bad puns as well. I wish the production would have given sources which could have allowed further research. The discussion proceeds into Monastic practices of illuminated manuscripts, Celtic metalwork, and it sometimes seems the documentary is getting off track, discussing finds of Celtic metal workings in lakes, or discussion of the Romans and their invasion of Britain. All this seems to take up more time than necessary, including a visual travel log of Roman places in Italy. We return to Arthur uniting the Celts and overcoming the Germanic Saxons. Again, no sources quoted, but rather there is mention of how long ago this was and the "hit and miss" of putting together information. What is pointed out is the fact that there really isn't much historically other than Godfrey of Monmouth's work that mentions Arthur. They do rightfully point out that Godfrey was fond of filling in the blanks with his own imaginative stories. Issues of the social structure and the need of hero worship at the time does allow the viewer to understand more clearly why Godfrey's work stood for 600 years without question. The legend of Arthur is finally related, from his fathers growing up and taking the throne, to the birth of Arthur. It is referenced as told as the legends relate. The story of Stonehenge is worked in, probably just to include it in the ever present background photographic travel log of England's famous places The story of Igraine and Uther is related. Tintagle Castle ruins is pictured as it is today. There are sweeping images of the ocean, complete with water droplets on the lens. Many of the locations are pictured adding to the feeling of the legend. More often than not, the photography of the countryside of England takes center stage, backfilled by music rather than dialogue. I found myself wanting to know what some of the locations that were shown but not discussed. Waiting to the end of the film for locations only lists the Historical sites. The story switches at this point from Geodfrey of Monmouth's "history" to the telling of the story of "Morte d'Arthur" by Malory. There is a nice overview of the history of the story. Also discussed are the lovely illustrated versions by Tennyson. The story is then related from various bits from all these versions of the legend. What follows is the story of Merlin taking Uther and Igraine's first born son, his growing up in foster care and the political unrest while the boy grew up. There is the story of the sword and Arthur at the Mid Winter festival and how Arthur became king. Again, the photography takes over the story. Images of chess boards and various older texts becomes the backdrop for the slowly unfolding story. As we follow the young king through his trials and life, there is much speculation about where Arthur established Camelot. Many locations are suggested, including Winchester and the history of the round table that is located there is discussed. Further story telling includes the story of Guenevier and the marriage to Arthur. Discussion brings Arthur into historical perspective and we see how his persona is modeled after various well known historical figures. More actual history is given of Winchester than of Arthur at this point. There is also the speculation of Cadbury Castle being Camelot. We follow through the story into the Lady of the Lake legend and the sword Excalibur. Discussion follows about Glastonbury being a possible location of the lake, Avalon and Arthur's tomb. There is also discussion of the story of the Holy Grail and that the entire story may have taken place in France rather than England. The production wraps up with the inclusion of Lancelot to the story and the battle of Mordred and Arthur. What is interesting is the photography of the name places and locations and items that are associated with the legend. In all honesty, the production could have been cut down to about half an hour to 45 minutes and done the job just as well. If you have no background to the legend of Arthur, this is a nice,
general overview. But sitting and
watching it can be a bit antsy for viewers, as there are a lot of
points through out the production that drags. medievalcrusadesbabe |
