Skip to main content

Arthur and Merlin: Knights of Camelot



I stumbled upon this film while I was looking for Merlin, the previous stop on my Arthurian films tour. It’s very recent (released in 2020) but pretty obscure, starring nobody I’ve ever heard of and bearing an ugly rash of one-star reviews. Most of the one-star reviews rightly point out that it has a clumsy and misleading title: Merlin is not by any definition a Knight of Camelot, and even if he were, he’s only in this film for about five minutes (he’s played rather well by Richard Brake). 

I’ve decided to stop blogging about the bad Arthurian films I encounter, and this one certainly isn’t good, but it does have  a couple of interesting things about it that make it worth including here. Of all the films I’ve watched for this blog so far, I think this is the only one which makes use of the story related by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sir Thomas Malory that Arthur led his knights across the Channel on a war against the Roman Empire. Perhaps these stories originated in folk memories of characters like Carausius and Constantine III, Roman military commanders who used their power base in Britannia to try and become emperor? And maybe they persisted because they chime with mediaeval English kings’ own empire-building shenanigans on the continent?  I don’t know, you’d need to ask an historian or a literary critic or somebody of that sort. Merlin, maybe…

Anyway, it’s interesting to see someone taking that cinematically neglected bit of Arthurian lore and trying to spin it into a film, even if the film doesn’t really work. It has Arthur (Richard Short) losing both Excalibur and his mojo during this European expedition. When word arrives that his regent Mordred (Joel Phillimore) is plotting to take over his kingdom and marry Guinevere (Stella Stocker) he sets out for home - this bit is borrowed from Malory, where Arthur raises the siege of Lancelot’s castle to head home and settle Mordred’s hash. But in Malory he takes a whole army with him, where here he has only a small band of followers. They’re called Sir Tristan, Sir Perceval etc, but they’re rough, tough fighting men, more like outlaws or guerillas than knights, and very similar to Arthur’s gang in Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. I imagine this is why the European war appealed to director Giles Alderson and screenwriter Stephen Cotton: it means they can show an Arthur who is an outcast rebel against tyranny rather than a reigning monarch.

Unfortunately it leads to a rather plodding sort of film, cutting between endless scenes of Mordred being brooding and/or beastly at Camelot and endless scenes of Arthur and co tramping through the forests on their way to an underwhelming final confrontation. The forest scenes feel like a grungy version of Robin Hood. The Camelot scenes feel like it’s aiming for dumbed-down Shakespeare, or that Netflix film The King with Timothée Chalamet as Henry IV, or maybe Game of Thrones (my knowledge of GOT comes from skimming about half way through the first book and deciding it would Never Catch On, but I think I got the general idea). It’s really not up to much, but I don’t want to be too hard on it since I get the feeling that a tiny budget has been stretched to breaking point in a heroic effort to make it: it’s a wonder it exists at all.

The photography is often very good, using mostly natural light, with candles in the interior scenes. Camelot is filmed in an actual castle (Caerphilly, I think?): vast, draughty, stone halls, with not much furniture and wan grey light spilling through the windows. The forests are in full summer leaf, and almost as dark.


Most importantly, there are a couple of supernatural encounters which I thought worked very well, precisely because of their simplicity - there’s none of the CGI morphing of Merlin or Green Knight, just a little mist, and figures who appear and then vanish again between shots. Amid all the dreary Game of Thrones-ing there is one scene which delivers EXACTLY what I want from an Arthurian film. Arthur, wandering in the woods alone, comes to a waterfall. Wading into the plunge pool, he finds himself face to face with the Lady of the Lake, a spooky young woman who appears suddenly, standing waist deep in the dark water. She says nothing, just stares at him, then ducks beneath the surface. Beautiful, uncanny, and haunting, it’s a moment of magic in a flawed movie.



And the waterfall, I think, is one of the ones near Ystradfellte where I got the first inklings of the idea for Here Lies Arthur…

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Merlin (1998)

I remember Merlin being shown on TV as a two-part mini-series over a bank holiday weekend. The version I found on YouTube is a single three hour movie, but I think it might work better in two chunks, as originally broadcast. It still works pretty well, though. Director Steve Barron is completely infatuated with video editing tricks and slightly primitive CGI effects that I’m sure were state-of-the-art when it was made, but he uses them quite inventively, and there are some very enjoyable performances. Since First Knight was such a washout, I guess this is the definitive ‘90s Arthurian film. Like Excalibur , the definitive ‘80s Arthurian film, it tries to tell the entirety of the Arthur story, but since it’s main focus is Merlin it covers a lot more too, and Arthur himself ends up being a bit of a side-character, with the rise and fall of Camelot packed into the second half. At first glance, Merlin seems to be aligning itself with what I’m coming to think of as the Low Arthurian tradi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lord of the Rings 7: Minas Tirith

'This is not a work which many adults will read through more than once,' claimed the historical novelist Alfred Duggan, reviewing The Lord of the Rings when it was published. But I've read it through LOADS of times and now I'm blogging my latest re-read, so what did he know? And so we come to Minas Tirith, Tower of Guard, citadel of Gondor, seven tiers of fancy white fortifications built against a buttress of Mount Mindolluin, with the Tower of Ecthelion rising a thousand feet above the plain. It seems to me the template on which a whole genre of knock-off fantasy cities has been based - I guess Robert E Howard and people wrote about such places before Tolkien, and perhaps there were cities of equal grandeur on Barsoom, but when concept art threads on Instagram throw up unlikely gold and marble castles built on mountaintops and over waterfalls they always look distinctly Minas Tirithy to me. I'm wondering now if London in Mortal Engines was subconsciously echoin...
5 comments
Read more

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

One of the reasons the Arthurian Legends appeal so much to writers and film makers is that there is no single original version. If there ever was, it was a tale told by some Romano-British storyteller, sitting by a fire in a damp hall, perhaps expounding on the great deeds of a local ruler or late Roman general, and spicing up the action with some motifs borrowed from old Celtic myths. In the centuries that followed, the story grew, and changed. Lots of legends about other heroes got tacked on to it. French and German poets got hold of it and added Camelot, the Grail, and Courtly Love: Malory borrowed from them all in his Morte D’Arthur . Later, everyone from Tennyson to TH White to Rick Wakeman to little me retold the stories, altering them to fit our own vision and reflect our own times. So you can do whatever you like with King Arthur: everyone else has. At least, that’s the theory. Now here's Guy Ritchie’s 2017 box office catastrophe King Arthur, Legend of the Sword to destru...
1 comment
Read more