MovieChat Forums > Knights of the Round Table (1954) Discussion > Its Different, but...

Its Different, but...

posted 8 years ago by Eric266
4 replies | jump to latest

Just watched this the other (k)night on TCM. I've always been a huge fan of the King Arthur legend. I've read both The Once and Future King as well as Le Morte d'Arthur. Since Arthur is mostly of legend, there are no facts by which the movie must abide. Even so, they really butchered the legend. Mordred is Arthur's son by way of trickery from Morgana who cast a spell on him. Ick. The Holy Grail storyline did not surface until the late 15th or 16th century and I hate when they insert it into these movies. Arthur was a young man when he married an equally younger Guinevere. Arthur killed Mordred while being fatally wounded himself. Having Lancelot do it just smacked of Hollywood tinkering.

Okay, I get it. Hollywood can do as they like so let me discuss the movie on its own merits.

Everyone, with the exception of Ava Gardner, seemed to be on a double dose of Prozac. Robert Taylor's Lancelot was a bore and boorish. What about him would make any woman fall in love with him other than his intense brooding eyes? He acted as if he was mad all the time. Mel Ferrer's Arthur was bland and forgettable. Arthur needed to be more dynamic. How can you have a love triangle when one of the lovers is just a snorefest? Although he did get the betrayed husband part down pretty well. That was the only time I felt the movie picked up. From the point where the lovers are discovered the film began to gain some speed. Prior to that, I was falling asleep with boredom. Fancy costumes and colorful sets do not make up for stilted dialogue and contrived settings. The funniest part for me was in the battle scenes, you could see the swords bend as they were either rubber or plastic. At one point, Lancelot is holding the hilt with one hand and grabs the end of his sword with the other and it bends significantly. That made me laugh.

I watched this after seeing the King's Thief which starred Roger Moore in a supporting role. Catching Desmond Llewelyn in his pre-Q days made this a nice Pre-007 double feature.

My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

[–] pol-edra 8 years ago

The Holy Grail storyline did not surface until the late 15th or 16th century

Huh??? I think you need to brush up on your sources... You say you read Le Morte Darthur, didn't you notice the Holy Grail in it? Malory wrote it in the 1470s, that alone should tell you there's something wrong with your statement (there's hardly any Arthurian lit written during the 16th century, and certainly nothing as major as the Holy Grail added to it after the end of the Middle Ages). Malory got his inspiration for his Grail, like much of his other stories and characters, from much earlier sources. For the origins of the Grail storyline, I suggest you look at Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval (written in the 1180s) or the Lancelot-Grail cycle (13th century).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] Eric266 8 years ago

You say you read Le Morte Darthur, didn't you notice the Holy Grail in it? Malory wrote it in the 1470s, that alone should tell you there's something wrong with your statement

Well, since you are nitpicking my comment and not really looking at the overall point, allow me to retort...

Sir Thomas Mallory's novel was first published in 1485 following his death in 1471. You may want to brush up on your sources, because that would make it the late 15th century. That alone should tell you there's something wrong with your statement.

(there's hardly any Arthurian lit written during the 16th century, and certainly nothing as major as the Holy Grail added to it after the end of the Middle Ages).

I stand corrected. I was picking a window of time when I mentioned the book. I did read the book many years ago, but could not remember when it was published. My overall point is that the earlier writings about Arthur did not mention the Holy Grail aspect. It was not until the Renaissance when the idea of the Holy Grail and Arthur became popular. I could have looked up the date of the book, but I figured that was kind of inconsequential to my overall point.

My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

[–] pol-edra 8 years ago

And my overall point is that the earlier writings DID menion the Holy Grail. The Lancelot-Grail cycle, written down over two centuries before Malory's Morte Darthur, comprises a whole book abut the origin of the Grail and how it came to England and a story of the Grail Quest that is on its own as long as Malory's whole work. And before that, there was Chrétien de Troyes and Robert de Boron, both writing about the Grail in the late 12th century.

I'm not nitpicking: I'm just showing you you are misinformed if you think the Grail storyline originated in the late 15th century with Malory). You're some 250-300 years off.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] cdull 8 years ago

The Holy Grail storyline did not surface until the late 15th or 16th century and I hate when they insert it into these movies.

Actually the Holy Grail first showed up in the 12th Century. It appeared in Chretien de Troyes unfinished work Percival, or the Story of the Grail
which was composed between 1180 and 1191.

De Troyes claims he based his tale on older sources given to him by his patron. This seems to be true as their are Celtic stories very similar to De Troyes grail.

Don't you lay a hand on my Sasquatch!