~ Kommentary by Kritter ~

King Arthur

Game: Word Association
Subject: King Arthur
Words: Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin, Lady of the Lake, Excalibur, Knights of the Round Table, the sword in the stone, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Well, those are some thoughts at least. A grand legend retold in at least a dozen ways. But no one knows the truth. Or even that Arthur existed at all.

When my two friends and I were in Wales attempting to follow in the last Princes' steps, we met a wonderful woman, Kathryn Pritchard Gibson, who is a well-known Welsh historian. Some may remember that I wrote of visiting her home, which many believe was the dwelling place of the Princes Llywelyn. When we met her, Kathryn was finishing a long non-fiction book supporting her theories of the real background of Arthur, whom she believed was Welsh. She felt she could prove who he was. She also believed his court was held on the same ground on which she lived.

Well, David Franzoni, who authored the screenplay for Gladiator, ran across some information while delving into that Roman drama. It was new archeological evidence that named a conquered Sarmatian knight as leader of a group of supreme fighters in the Roman outpost of Brittania. His name was Arthur Castos. Hence, Franzoni's screenplay King Arthur.

However, I started with the book. The book written from the screenplay. (I listened to the book on CD actually). I'd barely noticed that fact when I checked it out from the library. I listened to the book in the car on a road trip last weekend, and then while sanding in the shop.

I'd only listened to one other book written from a screenplay before - Pearl Harbor. In that case, I had seen the movie and listened to the CD a while later. It was predictable of course, but still interesting as the book takes the time to flesh out the details one only sees briefly onscreen. This time, I listened to the book first, and I must admit it made a huge difference.

When I finished the book and rushed to rent the movie last Tuesday evening, I was quite apprehensive. The author Frank Thompson had done a pretty good job of endearing me to the characters. The rough and tumble, Dark-Age knights each had their own personalities, dreams and fighting styles. It was amazing how quickly the long-winded and gory battle scenes flew by onscreen. But I'm jumping ahead of myself.

What Franzoni wanted to do was offer a different, more realistic idea of whom a historical Arthur could have been. Premise: The infamous Sarmatian knights are conquered by the Romans and forced into a pact that has they and their sons and their sons' sons etc. serving 15 years in the Roman army. Considering that living to age 40 was a feat in the Dark Ages (we're talking around 300 AD), 15 years of hard service was nearly intolerable. Arthur was the son of great knight who had led the Sarmatians in Britain, and Arthur was destined to do the same. Who would have thought of Arthur as a Roman?

But he wasn't really a Roman. He was half Sarmatian and half British, but raised on Roman ideals. His primary function as leader of the knights was to hold the Roman territory south of Hadrian's Wall from the indiginous people they called the Wodes. The leader of the Wodes was Merlin, and his daughter was Guinevere.

Okay, okay. A bunch of hogwash. Maybe so. And I suspect that some of my friends saw and hated the movie. It was a little ridiculous having Guinevere/Keira Knightley in that thongy, leather thing. But if you put that aside and suspend your disbelief - as all movies call you to do - well... I have to say I enjoyed it. And I KNOW that I only enjoyed it so much because I had listened to the book. I had heard the further explanation of the fine details. And frankly, I most enjoyed the much more realistic version of the knights of the round table. I mean really, we ARE talking about the Dark Ages here. And I found Franzoni's tale to be as viable, in fact much more viable, than any other I have heard of Arthur. Of course, I never did finish reading Kathryn's book. It was in such a rough state when she passed us the manuscript and we have lost touch with her now. I'm sure she'd laugh mightily at the thought of Arthur in the Roman army. But, as I began, who knows?

Also, if you are remotely interested in this sort of thing, I do recommend watching the bonus features. The book ended as the movie's alternate ending, which was MUCH less corny. And it was interesting to hear the historical research behind the movie as well as the trials of filming it.

Posted by kristen at December 17, 2005 06:57 PM