War and Battles

After completing today’s reading, I believe it connects to the larger theme of war and battle. For hundreds and thousands of years, we as humans have gone to battle due to indifference's between two different groups whether they be culturally divided, a country that is divided, or disagreements. “What great honors each of you will possess if as faithful soldiers you obey my will and my orders! For once we have beaten them we will aim straight for Rome and will capture the city we have aimed for and will take possession of what we have captured” (Loomis, pg. 81). According to Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth, battle was over land and who was the ruler of that land.

I believe rulers back then were similar to how our president is today, they aim for defeat of the enemy in hopes to gain control. Fortunately, today, we do not seek war for the reasons they did back then. America today has goals of controlling specific land outside of the US and to keep treaties and compromises between other rulers. Around 800 BC, war and battle were much more popular, in hopes of ruling as much land as wanted or needed. The goal for army’s back then were to defeat the enemy and take their land.

King Arthur Film: Where is Merlin?

Looking at how Arthur is displayed in the movie it does make it seem a little similar to how I thought that he would have been portrayed. In the film, he seems as if he is a brave warrior that is willing to take on the entire Saxon army with no problem. When he rides out to face the Saxon leader by himself it makes him seem as if he is the protector of Britons and had previously done something similar. It also showed him not only as the leader of the battles but as a King and the respect that he got from people when his knights decided to fight with him. 

On the other hand, there were aspects of the movie that didn’t add up to the myths we have been told. One of these was that Merlin seemed to play a very small role in the movie. During the trailer and a small part of the movie that we watched, Merlin was only depicted once; whereas in the myths he always seemed to play a major role in the life of Arthur. For someone that was supposed to guide Arthur and make sure that he is making the right decisions, he does not seem to be as prevalent in the movie.

2004 King Arthur film reflection

Honestly when watching the trailer and clips from this movie, I wasn’t too surprised with how King Arthur was depicted. He’s shown as heroic, selfless and noble; most if not all of these traits are frequently attached to King Arthur. A few things that surprised me was how they showed the knights. When people think of King Arthur and his knights, people tend to lump them together in terms of personality and assume that they're all great people, noble and selfless. I enjoyed the fact they showed the knights as fallible, and how they were able to react with human emotions. They were so close to being able to go back to Rome and be free, which had been their goal all along. Arthur had chosen to stay which isn’t surprising considering his personality traits previously depicted in the movie. It was refreshingly surprising to me however that the knights originally were going to leave and head back to Rome. They weren’t happy about leaving Arthur behind, but from the trailer and the beginning of the movie it seemed they considered Rome there home rather than Britain(which is quite different for the normal depictions of the story, typically they were of Roman and Celtic descent but live in Britain not Rome). They felt they had earned their freedom and this fight for Britain was not their fight. In the end they, of course, stayed with Arthur, which I felt was true to their origins and really demonstrated their loyalty to Arthur and what he stands for.  

King Arthur Film Reflection

I think I knew exactly nothing about King Arthur when we first started talking about him in class. Sure, I’ve heard the name before, but I never really went out of my way to figure out who he truly was or read anything that had to do with him. But after the scenes of the film that we viewed in class, I feel much better about the idea I have about this “King” Arthur. He seems like a fearless leader, oozing with masculinity and toughness. The last scene we watched before the battle with the Saxons illustrated this the best, in my opinion. His heavy and shining armor, his nights reuniting with him after being promised freedom, the inspirational speech Arthur gives to them, the threatening words to the enemy before the battle, were all things that seemed like a great king would do. The fact that the actor that played him was also super handsome helped too. ANYWAY. He truly did seem like a legend, and surely it was because he was presented this way. I now believe that I understand how important his legend is, why so many authors have picked up this mythical king character and ran with it, telling stories of hard fought conquests and the magic surrounding King Arthur himself.

King Arthur (2004)

In the trailer for the King Arthur film, King Arthur was portrayed very differently from what I see as a stereotypical king. When I think of a king, I think of a pretentious jerk that was born into royalty. In the trailer, he seemed a lot more normal and a lot less royal. He earned his spot as King by being a fearless warrior. He was not narcissistic at all, in fact, and what stuck out to me was his connection to his family and the soldiers under him. Also, in other movies and novels, kings are sometimes unintelligent, especially in their younger years. King Arthur was younger than all of the other main characters that were in his militia, but yet clearly the bravest and brightest.

While many things in the trailer differentiated from how I think of kings, some traits aligned. Kings are supposed to be handsome, and King Arthur in this film is definitely portrayed as good looking. Also, Arthur is talked about by others in the movie as being larger than life. This seems like a consistency among fictitious kings.

King Arthur Reflection Post

When watching the trailer and a few scenes of the movie, it became apparent to me that King Arthur represents something more than himself. During his talk at the round table, he and his other knights were disbanded by a Roman General and given their freedom. As you watched the other knights leave the castle with their freedom while the saxons prepared to attack, you realize that any normal person in this scenario would take their newfound freedom and hightail right on out of there. The knights didn't owe Rome anything, so they left. Not Arthur. Arthur was made into something more than just a King. He stood as someone who needed to do the right thing first, so others could watch and eventually follow. Instead of doing what any sane person would do, he became an idealized human, one who would lead by example and stick to his moral beliefs no matter what. Eventually his knights returned to the battlefield to be with Arthur at the end, and while probably a suicidal attempt to defend Rome, it shows how Arthur isn't just a King who knows the difference between right and wrong, but one who is willing to show his people he'll do anything for his morals. 

James DeProspero

Arthur Film Reaction (I guess)

I am in no way surprised about how the trailer or film clips turned out. Arthur is a soldier and king who seems to be, for a lack of better words, indestructible. He's seen as this extremely threatening but also impossibly strong force both in the battlefield and in the roundtable. It's clear that he was the precursor to almost every heroic fantasy king or noblemen. They were skilled and selfless warriors who treated everyone who was on the side of right with respect. These include Prince Marth from Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, Lord Eliwood from Fire Emblem Blazing Sword, and many many more. They, as well as Arthur of course, all exuded mannerisms that were ahead of its time. 

Even still, I find some of Arthur's actions, although seemingly heroic, to be quite idiotic. The perfect example being the scene when Arthur is on his horse in full armor and battle ready staring down the entire Saxon battalion while the rest of the knights and the Briton civilians are retreating. Had the army decided to press an attack, Arthur would stand no chance. It would have to take an event akin to the Bible story of Samson killing 1,000 Philistine men with a donkey's jawbone in order for that fight to end well. Outside of divine intervention, Arthur would have not been protecting his people. He would have committed suicide. What goes up must come down, and had the Saxon leader made an assault right then and there, Arthur would have come tumbling down.

The One (and Only) King Arthur

Something that struck me as interesting in the Snyder readings was one of the first things the article discussed; the fact that there was more than one Arthur. Not one single Arthur was the one who shaped the tale we think of today. And yet, when we watched the clips/trailer from the film, it was clear that the Arthur depicted was the one and only. In the scene with Stellan Skarsgård (really, who else would play the Saxon leader but a Skarsgård?), we hear the Saxon leader (I don't know his name unfortunately), talking about how he's heard tale upon tale of Arthur prior to their meeting. This gives the viewer a false sense of the true King Arthur. Anyone viewing might think that this depiction is, in fact, what King Arthur must have been like.

In addition to this, something that immediately struck me in the film was the way the Saxons were dressed. They appeared to me like Vikings, which I'm fairly certain by this point were not around. While I do know there were similarities between the Vikings and Saxons, I think it was at the least historically inaccurate to dress Saxon warriors in the same way the History Channel dresses Vikings. I'd say I'm a bit more inclined to believe that the History Channel is correct, over this movie, but obviously, I'm no historian.

(edit for day after I wrote this: i didn't know this took place in the 5th century so i take back what i said about the vikings)

Guinevere: Native or Noble?

My first impression of the clips we watched in class is that the movie is very ‘Hollywood’. Very dramatic and whatnot, and while I’m sure this was the style of action movies around this time, it definitely withdrew me a little bit from what was happening in the movie. I always thought on the spectacle of Arthur as one that is vague but momentous nonetheless, and this movie definitely did not align with my preconception. One thing that stuck out to me in the movie trailer was this notion that this movie was the “true story” of king Arthur. After reading our documents on Arthur, this statement is very easy to dispute, as no one really even knows for sure if he existed, let alone what his life consisted of.
              The depiction of Guinevere in the movie was very interesting to me. She (as far as I remember) was the native Briton (whatever that is) in the movie, but in Snyder’s Introduction chapter, he mentions that the first time we see Guinevere’s name in history as in the twelfth century where she was stated to have been a noblewoman from Rome. These to depictions certainly don’t align. Overall, I understand some of the decisions made by the directors and producers to make the movie more appealing for general audiences, but part of the myth of Arthur that intrigues me the most in the uncertainty and vagueness of our knowledge of him.

Not a king yet...I guess

After watching the trailer and some scenes from the film, I was surprised by some details portrayed by the filmmakers.  I have very little any prior knowledge on the history of Arthur, but I never thought he was working under someone, as shown in the film when the Roman leader entered the room with the Round Table.  I always thought of Arthur as a king, so the way the filmmakers structured his character with manners and honor rather than stereotypical rude and cocky surprised me.  The trailer did a great job showing what is commonly known of Arthur as a brave military leader. 

I was surprised about the concept of the Round Table because I know Arthur as a king, and almost all kings like it to be known that they are above everyone else.  However, at Arthur’s Round Table everyone is equal because there is not anyone at the head of the table in front of everyone, which is usually shown as a status of power.  Based on my knowledge of Arthur, it did not surprise me that he was prepared to take on the entire Saxon army at the end of the clip we watched in class.  According to the Snyder reading, the Britons and the Saxons were enemies, so the filmmakers were historically correct when setting up the final battle of this film.

2004 King Arthur Film

The historical plausibility of the film is somewhat similar to what Snyder wrote about. Snyder mentioned how Arthur’s Britons we’re descended from Celts and Romans. In the 2004 film the Roman influence of Arthur is heavily used. In fact Arthur and his knights are fighting for the Roman Empire in the film. In the trailer, before I was aware of the whole Roman Empire thing, I noticed that the armor that Arthur was wearing looked more Roman than medieval. The idea of Christianity was also mentioned in the film with the Roman person, I think a bishop if I’m not mistaken, who came to see Arthur. He came to give freedom to Arthur’s knights and wanted to know what religion Arthur’s knights were and was a little taken aback when he found out they were still pagans. Snyder wrote that around the 4^th century CE Christianity was a growing force and it was already the official religion of the Roman Empire.  Snyder also talked about the struggle between the Saxons and the Britons. The movie depicted the Saxons as the enemy of Arthur and his knights. They were the ones who surrounded the fort during our final clip I believe. The Saxons and Britons as enemies is historically accurate according to what Snyder wrote. 

King Arthur Film Reflection

After viewing the trailer and clips of the film in class there were certain decisions that the makers of the film made that missed the grand spectacle that is Arthur and his Knights. I have read a couple pieces of literature that refer to Arthur such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. This story displays Arthur in a heroic fashion who is well established and known by many people. It was evident to me that Arthur was a great King and commander, which is portrayed well in the trailer of the film, but is lost in the film's entirety. The different clips that were shown and the dramatic music that was playing in the background of the trailer illustrated the heroic nature of Arthur. However, viewing the different scenes of the film it was rather slow and quiet. The speed and dramatic music that was seen in the trailer was gone and the viewer was left with a film that moved along at a slow pace. I think the heroic nature of Arthur was lost with the movement from written pieces to the big screen. This happens to many different pieces of literature, and a tale so grand as Arthur's it is easy to miss his character and what he represented at the time. The film does try its best with the opening quote of the trailer being "the only story you've never heard is the true story". Making this claim sets the film to be one as heroic as Arthur, however, I think that the film fell short in illustrating this grand tale.