Excalibur (1981)
Excalibur (1981)
I
remember the first time I laid my eyes on Excalibur.
It was my high school freshman year English class. I thought the movie was
incredibly boring. Flash forward a decade later, I took the opportunity to
revisit the movie. Thankfully, my opinion changed. This film is a solid take on
the King Arthur mythology with hammy (although enjoyable) acting, great special
effects and costume designs, a rather violent screenplay, and character
development/dialogue that could have been better. Based on that last sentence,
you can see that I thought of this film as a mixed bag. In the end, it is a fun
fantasy adventure.
Ever
since learning about the legend of Arthur in grade school, I was always
fascinated by this legend. Is this story real? The only thing anthropologists
have discovered regarding this legend is some Celtic texts. It is apparent that
Arthur was a real person, but I do love all the fantasy stuff added to the
story. The Knights of the Round Table, the evil Morgana, the sword in the
stone, etc. This particular adaptation is based upon Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur
which was one of the original versions of the tale as it was released in 1485
and is considered a great piece of literature. By the 20th century,
American audiences were enthralled with this legend as well considering the
popularity of films like 1953’s Knights
of the Round Table and the 1963 Disney flick The Sword in the Stone. With this 1981 feature, people say this is
the best adaptation to date. A more spirited, operatic, and philosophical take
on the famous tale.
The
film is directed by John Boorman and was adapted to the screen by Boorman and
and Rospo Pallenberg. Prior to this film, Boorman wanted to adapt the Lord of the Rings as his big fantasy movie,
but that never came to be. However, his big fantastical ideas live on in this
movie with great visuals, lavish costumes, and striking imagery. Boorman also
added his own take to the Merlin/Arthur story. When the world was still young,
the sword Excalibur was forged and it was given to Uther Pendragon (Gabriel
Byrne) by the all-powerful wizard, Merlin (Nicol Williamson). When the violent
Uther dies, the sword is cast into stone where the next man who pulls it out
would be named the new king of England. Many years later, a squire named Arthur
(Nigel Terry) happens to be the one. He also happens to be the illegitimate son
of Uther. Arthur is the one to bring peace and prosperity to the kingdom, but
his lustful and evil half-sister Morgana (Helen Mirren may have other plans for
the kingdom.
This
movie gives the chance for English thespians to have fun and bring their own style
into a legend of old. Sure the acting can be hammy at times, but its clear the
cast is having fun. Of course, I would expect Merlin to be an old, wise man
with a flowing white beard ala Dumbledore or Gandalf, but this Merlin is
different. There is hardly any beard if at all, and Nicol Williamson plays him
as a witty wizard that you do not want to get on the wrong side of. Nigel Terry
made a great King Arthur, although he portrayed Arthur from young to old as a 35-year-old
and the age difference is noticeable. The cast is filled with upcoming stars
who would have long careers including Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Helen Mirren,
and Patrick Stewart.
Director
John Boorman made this film with a philosophical edge. He explores ideas on love,
leadership, heritage, among other things. Purists may scoff at this movie, but
Boorman has some very close to making the “perfect” Arthur movie. The battle
scenes are well-staged and visually impressive, the set design is actually
rather realistic. Looking at these castles and knights made me think about the
actual history of medieval England. I liked the music and the use of Richard
Wagner. I wondered why Wagner’s music was used, but I understood how well it
blended in with the story. The movie is not perfect, but those who do not mind
campy action films will have a blast with this King Arthur itineration.
My
Grade: B-
Comments
Post a Comment