Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur (2004) Versus the Lancelyn Green’s King Arthur (1953)
In this paper, it will be shown that the 2004 film version of King Arthur is not an historical retelling, nor does it capture the real belief systems of a Sixth Century king. Clive Owens stars as King Arthur in the 2004 Hollywood version directed by Antoine Fuqua. In this version, the film states in the beginning intertitles that the story of King Arthur, while written down in the 15th century, is based on “a real hero who lived thousand years earlier in a period often called the Dark Ages” (Fuqua 2004). The fifteenth century tale is Sir Thomas Mallory Le Morte d’Arthur, a compilation of the Arthurian legend that has become the foundation for all subsequent stories about Arthur (Lancelyn Green 11). However, the film purports to be a more accurate telling of the tale of Arthur, based on what it says are new finds about the legendary hero. By contrast, Roger Lancelyn Green’s King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table is also a retelling of Mallory’s classical fifteenth century tale.
While aiming to be a more historical retelling of the Arthurian legend, the 2004 film is actually merely a warped version of Roger Lancelyn Green’s 1953 novel. Green wrote the book for children, and it is a clear retelling in modern twentieth century language of the story of the knights of the legendary round table. However, Lancelyn Green’s text, as he writes in his introduction, is based on various textual sources, including the French and German versions of the story (12). The truth seems to be that the origins of the Arthur story are shrouded in mystery, and while it is truth “there is something new to be found in them,” Fuqua’s 2004 film is no closer to uncovering the historical Arthur as is Lancelyn Green’s book just a simple story told to create a clean version of the Arthur Myth.
According to Lancelyn Green, King Arthur “brought peace to Britain” when “he had defeated the Saxons” (81). While Lancelyn Green does present an Arthur who is trying to establish authority in a world dominated by tensions from Rome and the tribes that are seeking to squash Arthur’s rule, it is interesting that the 2004 film completely gets the names of the tribes wrong. There is no mention of the “Woads,” in any of the legends that tell of King Arthur and his knights. There is mention of the Picts, which is probably who the filmmakers are trying to evoke. In the 2004 film, Arthur is depicted as someone torn between two world, Christian Rome, and the world of pagan Britain. The Pope has sent an emissary, Bishop Germanius, to Arthur’s camp near Hadrian’s wall. The Pope wants Arthur and his men to rescue a boy from the Saxons, because this boy is destined to be Pope. In exchange for completing this mission, Arthur and his men can be freed from Roman authority. However, this story is not at all a story to be found in Lancelyn Green’s retelling. It appears to be a complete fabrication of the filmmakers. While it is true that in the classical retelling of the tale, Arthur did indeed fight the Saxons (who lived north of Hadrian’s Wall), there is no evidence in the historical record that Arthur had to save a boy who was destined to be the Pope.
Certainly, Fuqua’s film ostensibly sees itself as an accurate, historical retelling of a true Arthur distanced from the stuff of legend. Even in simple things, without even resorting to the Lancelyn Green text, the filmmakers conflate history. For example, Lancelot tells Guinvere that rain and snow falling at once is a “bad omen.” An omen is bad by itself. An omen never pretends to be good! Also, there is no indication between the classic love triangle between Guinvere, Lancelot, and Arthur, although it is slightly hinted at in the film, when Lancelot asks Guinevere for her to show him “her heaven.” In the film, there are several examples where the characters try to suggest that they are not the stuff of legend, that the film is actually a record of events of how things would have played out for a sixth century Arthur who is warring with the Saxons. Guinevere tells Arthur in the film that “We are not the polite people who live in poems” (Fuqua 2004). However, anyone who studies the Arthurian legend can easily discern that extracting the historical Arthur from the ancient tales proves to be nearly impossible. All we have are retellings. The principal error in the film, and why it is a warped retelling, is that it hopes to be remove itself from legend, and pretends to be close to history. According to the legend, Merlin “made the Round Table,” Arthur uses to consult with his knights. However, in the film, while the round table is an image that is used, and it is mentioned that Merlin helped to build it, the filmmakers choose to create a completely fabricated story that the Romans who are sent to visit Arthur disapprove of Arthur’s round table. What kind of tables did the Romans use? Again, it seems as if the filmmakers want to project a historical tone in this film while still relying on spectacle to tell the story. There is no historical evidence that the Pope sent an emissary to Arthur’s court, and this emissary disapproved of Arthur’s method of statecraft.
For example, at the end of the film, Arthur and Guinevere are married inside the circle of Stonehenge. While it is true that Stonehenge is an archaeological site that dates back to Britain’s ancient past, it is not clear how Stonehenge would have been used by an historical Arthur. No historian or archaeologists states that Stonehenge was used as the site of royal weddings! Again this is an example of the filmmakers loosely using historical facts and combining these facts into their own retelling of the story. Added to this is the interesting way the filmmakers combine the personas of Guinevere and Morgana La Fay. In Lancelyn Green’s retelling, Morgana La Fay and Guinevere are separate people. While it is interesting to conjecture that they may be the same person, the film seems to suggest that their decision to combine the two characters is based on historical evidence.
While it is interesting that in the film, a major preoccupation of the characters is the difference between destiny and free will, this philosophical debate is not really born out in the text.
Throughout the film, Arthur and Guinevere seem to represent this idea that there is no such thing as destiny, only free will. But the other knights seem to think that they are being led by the gods. It becomes very confusing in the film, for how do we know what kind of religious beliefs the historical Arthur held? Certainly, in the Lancelyn Green retelling, as well as in the Mallory retelling, Arthur is presented as a Christian king. And certainly, he is considered a Christian commander in Fuqua’s film. However, Fuqua tries to suggest that Arthur’s Christianity is influenced by Pelagius. While this is an interesting historical theory, there is no evidence that Arthur knew Pelagius. Even if he did, it seems like in the film, the filmmakers have their own version of what Arthur’s Christianity would look like, and it becomes more of a modern democratic notion.
Keep in mind that in Lancelyn Green’s retelling, he states that the Arthurian legends are timeless and that they can take on the preoccupations of whoever is telling the tales. So in conclusion, it seems that the 2004 film version of the Arthurian legend is not two things. First, it is not a historical retelling of the Arthur story. For this is not historical record that can one hundred percent back up a veritable Arthur. Arthur will always be shrouded in mystery. Secondly, it is not a reflection of a Fifth Century Arthur’s belief system, but rather the belief system and preoccupations of a twentieth century filmmaker.
Works Cited
Fuqua, Antoine, Jerry Bruckheimer, David Franzoni, Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Ioan
Gruffudd, Stephen Dillane, Stellan Skarsgård, Ray Winstone, Hugh Dancy, Til
Schweiger, and Hans Zimmer. King Arthur, 2004.
Green, Roger L. King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table. S.l.: Puffin Books, 1993.
Print.
