sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arthur and Merlin, Ben Cross, First Knight, Lancelot and Guinevere, Vortigern

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Zdeňka Dvořáková

Arthurian Characters and Their Representation in Film Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph. D.

2018

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

I would like to thank my family and friends for their patience and encouragement.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5

1. The Films in Question ...... 10

1.1. Knights of the (1953) ...... 10

1.2. (1981) ...... 14

1.3. (1995) ...... 16

1.4. (2004) ...... 18

1.5. Arthur & (2015) ...... 20

1.6. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) ...... 23

1.7. King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table (2017) ...... 24

2. The Arthurian Men ...... 26

2.1. The King – Arthur, Artorius Castus, and Arthfael ...... 27

2.2. The Warrior and the Lover – and Sir ...... 37

2.3. The Magician, the Old Wise Man - Merlin ...... 41

3. The Arthurian Women ...... 45

3.1. ...... 46

3.2. and the Mage ...... 54

Conclusion ...... 58

Works Cited ...... 63

Resumé (English) ...... 66

Resumé (Czech) ...... 67

Introduction

There are not Perhaps, could be considered a magical negro, a term coined by Stan Lee in the theory of recent stereotypes of African Americans in films, since he is the helper of the main white protagonist.many historical, mythical, or legendary figures that would fascinate people as much as the character of King Arthur and his knights of the round table. Such a fascination can be tracked in the amount of adaptations of the Arthurian legend. Since the first mentions of these figures in stories such as the Welsh tale and , many variations of the legend have been produced. However, there are certain roots of the legendary material in which modern authors have sought inspiration, the base for the plotline, or the plotline itself. Usually, they are to be found in Historia Regum Britanniae, written by in the twelfth century, Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, le Chavalier de la Charrette

(Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, 12th century), together with Sir Thomas Malory and his Le Morte d’Arthur, which enlarged the Arthurian canon in the fifteenth century.

Together, these literary works form the traditional legend known worldwide.

With the popularity of the novel, writers have made use of the whole Arthurian plotline for their own works, as for example Terence Hanbury White. Some, on the other hand, took just some details and concepts, well known among their audiences, like

Clive Staples Lewis. Despite these numerous literary representations, the form of art which has proven to be most popular for modern audiences is the film. One of the advantages of the popularity of this medium, in comparison with formerly favoured drama, is that it provides the same aesthetic experience for the audience throughout the whole world, since such an experience can be potentially distorted just by technical issues, not alternations on the part of the actors as in a theatre performance (Cardullo

5

185). Therefore, the focus of this thesis is the Arthurian legend in motion pictures, produced in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

There have been many writers that have engaged in working with the Arthurian legend and a similar number of screenwriters got inspired by the legendary material and the have created various versions and interpretations of the original story. As Kevin J.

Harty, Associate Professor of English at La Salle University, has noted already in 1987,

“the film transpositions of Arthurian materials are as varied in their interpretations of the legend of the once and future king as the written and oral traditions on which they are often based” (“Cinema : A Filmography” 5). It could be said that there are several types of representing the legendary material in film, including those working with traditional retellings of the legend or its parts set in the (Knights of the Round Table 1953, Excalibur 1981, First Knight 1995), films adapting recent literary versions of the legend (The Sword in the Stone 1963, A Connecticut Yankee

1931, Guinevere 1994), films that introduce a different version of the legend, while claiming that their version has the true roots to the historical characters (King Arthur

2004, Arthur & Merlin 2015), or films that take just specific features of the legend and transform the legend into a new story (King Arthur was a Gentleman 1942, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table 2017).

This thesis focuses mainly on the recreations of the medieval romances and films which introduce different, perhaps historically correct, versions of the legend.

Nonetheless, the majority of the films that portray the legend set in the Middle Ages are based on Le Morte d’Arthur or Lancelot, le Cavallier de la Carte; therefore, it might be said that they are adaptations of literary works. A distinction between such adaptations and adaptations of later literary works had to be made for the purposes of the present thesis, leading to the decision to omit films based on recent or contemporary novels,

6 among which the most significant happens to be Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at

King Arthur’s Court (1889), since there are many film adaptations of this novel, for example, A Connecticut Yankee 1931, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court first film 1921, second film of the same name produced in 1949, or A Kid in King

Arthur's Court 1995.

Films covered for their clear link with medieval literary versions of the

Arthurian legend are: Excalibur (John Boorman, 1981), First Knight (,

1995), and Knights of the Round Table (Richard Thorpe, 1953), as well as Arthur &

Merlin (Marco van Belle, 2015). Considering the second group, that is, films with their own plotlines, it consists of the titles King Arthur (Antoine Fuqua, 2004), King Arthur:

The Legend of the Sword (Guy Ritchie, 2017), and King Arthur and the Knights of the

Round Table (Jared Cohn, 2017).

With the roots in far history, the legend has provided various archetypes in almost all its characters. These archetypes are rooted in the unconscious of contemporary audiences and there are certain expectations connected with them. This thesis shall explore these archetypes and ask which forms the archetypes have taken, and how they have been developed recently in comparison with the older cinematic representations. Even though it is sometimes argued that archetypal analysis is a dominance of the literary criticism (McLuhan and Watson 18), it could be argued that it is even more connected with films.

There is a direct link between the concept of archetypes and films, since films give us “a view of dramatic events which was completely shaped by the inner movements of the mind. […] We do not see objective reality but a product of our own mind” (Cardullo 26-27). This idea is linked to one of the first explanations of the concept of the archetypes by Carl Gustav Jung, described in his Psyche and Symbol

7

(1968): “the archetype is an element of our psychic structure and thus a vital and necessary component in our psychic economy. It represents or personifies certain instinctive data of the dark primitive psyche; the real, the invisible roots of consciousness” (qtd. in McLuhan and Watson 22, original emphasis). In other words,

“the archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif—representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern” (Jung 67). The question arising from these definitions is whether the films working with the Arthurian legend keep the basic patterns of the archetypes that the legend invokes or how they change these patterns of behaviour.

It could be suggested that the audience has certain expectations of the legend and its characters based on the archetypal patterns. The issue of meeting the expectations of the audience combined with the visual presentation of the film might influence the final evaluation of the cinematic experience. It is striking that in the amount of films produced with the Arthurian motifs, just a few are considered cinematic masterpieces

(Lacy 75). Therefore, another research question asked was: Does the archetypal permanence or variation of the main characters reflect on the critical evaluation of the films?

Considering the film theory, Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze will be discussed in connection with the portrayal of the female characters of the legend. Since this term of feminist film theory was coined in 1975, the filmmakers’ approach has changed, therefore the question arising is, whether this theory can be applied not only on Knights of the Round Table but also on the other films discussed. There is also a suggestion that the focus of films has recently moved from including all aspects of the medieval romances to a rather individualistic approach, which might be more attractive

8 to the audience. Does this shift influence the portrayal of the characters? If so, then how, and what does it mean for the legend?

9

1. The Films in Question

This chapter is devoted to a descriptive introduction of the films analysed in the thesis, with the intention to allow the subsequent chapters to focus directly on the issues discussed, without the side effect of getting the reader lost in, or confused by, the plotlines. The films are presented chronologically, according to the date of their first release. Some questions that will be answered in the following chapters are suggested alongside the descriptions, together with film theory and analysis of the motion pictures.

This chapter also aims to outline the differences and the similarities between the selected films, and the reasons for which they have been chosen.

Apart from the reasons that will be discussed in separate subchapter of the films, some are included in the thesis to illustrate the impact of the cinematic gaze. The problematics was first studied in 1975 by Laura Mulvey, who coined the term “male gaze.” Laura Mulvey studied cinematic production and how it is viewed by the audience from the perspective of psychoanalysis with taking account of feministic reading of the theory, hence her conclusions are derived from scopophilia and voyeurism of the patriarchal society. She discussed the topic in her paper Visual Pleasure and Narrative

Cinema, first published in the Screen in 1975. She argues that psychoanalysis is in her article “appropriated as a political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form” (198).

1.1. Knights of the Round Table (1953)

The first of the selected films is one of the first movies that provided their audience with the pleasure of a widescreen spectacle, thanks to the aspect ratio of

CinemaScope which became popular in the early 1950s (Bordwell 46). The

10

CinemaScope refers to formerly referred to an image of up to a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, even though today it may differ. The story of Knights of the Round Table was directed by

Richard Thrope and produced by Pandro Samuel Berman. The film was released in

1953 in the US and in 1954 in the UK.

Although the model story for the screenplay was without a doubt Thomas

Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, Richard Thrope’s film does not present its viewers a typical story of the legend. The film starts with a prologue introducing the miserable situation in Britain after Rome withdrew from the land and the country was left at the mercy of various kings fighting each other. At the very beginning, the filmmakers deviate from Malory’s version when they present Morgan Le Fay (Anne Crawford) claiming her right to rule alongside her champion Modred1 (Stanley Baker).

Arthur Pendragon (Mel Ferrer) with Merlin (Felix Aylmer) stand against them and

Merlin reveals the sword Excalibur which, as usual, detects the rightful king.

Unfortunately, Modred does not agree, and the king is to be determined by vote on a council at the ring of stones (resembling ). The character of Lancelot

(Robert Taylor) is introduced next, searching for Arthur to serve him. Lancelot happens to meet (Maureen Swanson) and then fights Arthur, not recognizing him. After their even fight Lancelot swears to serve Arthur. There is a significant imbalance in the screen time devoted to these two characters, which suggests that the same imbalance will also occur considering the characters’ power and importance for the whole storyline. However, the shall be discussed in detail in chapter three.

After the council, a civil war breaks out. This unrest is then won by Arthur who is afterwards declared King of all Britain; however, he loses Lancelot who does not

1 Even though the name is usually spelled “Mordred”, there is little evidence of Modred being intended as a different character. Apart from his different relation to Morgan Le Fay than in other versions, his evil intentions and role in the story are still the same. 11 agree with forgiving Modred, which leads to his banishment by Arthur. The civil war and its aftermath pose other important moments in the development of these two characters. Lancelot saves Guinevere (Ava Gardner) from a (however, it is just the colour of his clothing that refers to Sir and the Green Knight) and comes back to Arthur’s court at their wedding.

Morgan Le Fay notices the affection between and the plot takes a direct course to Lancelot and Guinevere being accused of treason. Arthur seems to have lost his will to live and rule after having lost Lancelot’s friendship and

Modred once again starts a civil war after Lancelot is banished. Arthur tries to agree on the terms of peace with Modred when the battle starts again through a short series of coincidences, and Arthur is deadly wounded. He dies in the arms of Lancelot who has returned to re-establish their friendship. Lancelot throws Excalibur to the sea, visits

Guinevere in a convent to deliver her husband’s last word of forgiveness and love and kills Modred to avenge his king and, most importantly, his friend.

Indubitably, the plotline revolves around the love triangle between King Arthur,

Queen Guinevere and the queen’s champion Lancelot. From the mere description of the film, it could be suggested that Lancelot is even more important than the King himself.

Evidence for such a claim shall be provided in the chapter devoted to the analysis of the representation of Lancelot in comparison with the other films.

As it was mentioned in the introduction to the subchapter, Knights of the Round

Table was made in the era of the first CinemaScope films. The newly introduced 2.66:1 aspect ratio challenged some film conventions and customs used before the 1950s.

“Many directors and producers believed that these screens made close-ups unnecessary, perhaps too aggressive. The new exhibition demands pushed many filmmakers toward distant framings and full-size figures” (Bordwell 46). The suggested unnecessity to use

12 close-ups is well recognizable throughout this film, since majority of the scenes comprise wider scenery. One can scarcely find a close-up; the characters are just occasionally shot from a shorter distance, interestingly it is almost always Arthur or

Lancelot speaking with each other or with Guinevere. There are basically no occurrences of extreme close-ups when only faces of the characters would be seen. On the other hand, the CinemaScope was the technology necessary for screenings of battles, when a great number of warriors and horsemen engage in fierce fights.

The film is set in the Middle Ages, yet one of the characters is likened by another one to a cowboy. It is not probably meant to imply that there really were cowboys as we know them in the Middle Ages. Perhaps, this is a joke meant for the audience, since it would remind them of the “Old West” movies which were popular through the 1950s to the 60s. It may not be just a coincidence, since, as Kevin J. Harty notes, “despite the [armour] and the sword play, the characters are really nothing more than cowboys chasing each other across medieval versions of the Great Plains of the

Old West” (“Translations to Screen” 100). After the initial fight with Arthur, Sir

Lancelot addresses a young man riding a horse, “Stand and declare thyself, plowboy.”

The man responds to such am appellation somewhat disturbed, “I am no cowboy, Sire. I am Perceval of .” If the filmmakers wanted to be historically accurate, it is impossible that they would use the word “cowboy” which, according to the Online

Etymology Dictionary, originated in the eighteenth century. However, the audience may be influenced by the resemblance between Knights of the Round Table and the “Old

West” films mentioned by Kevin Harty, that they could misunderstand the word

“plowboy”. Such a misunderstanding can be seen in the subtitles to the film, for some interchange the nouns and use either “cowboy” or “plowboy”. Such misunderstanding is

13 an example of how other, unrelated, films and the outer world influences the perception of the film together with the common experience of the audience.

1.2. Excalibur (1981)

The director, producer and co-writer of the 1981 film Excalibur John Boorman, decided to film a cinematographic challenge—to process the complete story of the legend. Even though Boorman claimed the aim of the film script to be an adaptation of

Thomas Malory’s classics, the film received various reactions where critics and reviewers agree that the outcome is far from close to a complete artwork (Harty

“Translations to Screen” 108). Norris J. Lacy, in his essay elaborating on the question of the urge to stick to the tradition when adapting the Arthurian legend, criticises the intent to process everything in a single movie: “The legend is too rich, too complex, and simply too extensive to be captured in a film, albeit an overlong one, and the very fact that Boorman would even attempt to present the whole story in a single film may constitute the clearest possible demonstration of the tyranny of tradition” (77). He agrees with Bruce A. Beatie, who elaborated on this issue in connection with the issue of reception of the legend through film and came to the conclusion that “to retell in two hours the entire Arthurian ‘biography,’ from Uther to the death of Arthur, including the

Grail quest, was a task beyond the limits of the medium” (70). Perhaps this might be the reason why other filmmakers chose certain aspects of the legend to focus on rather than convey the whole story, as can be seen in the plot outlines of the other films. On the other hand, Beatie notes that there are no neutral reactions to Boorman’s film (70), which might be understood as an advantage.

As mentioned above, the film starts at ’s court, with the events leading to the conception of Arthur. In contrast to the previously discussed film, Knights

14 of the Round Table, Excalibur does not omit magic and shows Uther (Gabriel Byrne) taking an advantage of Merlin’s (Nicol Williamson) abilities to get Igrayne (Katrine

Boorman). The child is promised to Merlin who leaves it with a foster family. Young

Arthur accidentally releases Excalibur from the stone and then leads his first fight, at whose end he is knighted by his opponent and declared king. Excalibur is quite unique also in portraying Arthur’s childhood.

Nonetheless, Boorman did not try to recreate Malory’s version completely, as can be seen, for example, in the reduction of characters, when (just as in the Knights of the Round Table) Arthur (Nigel Terry) meets Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) in a fight. A similar fight appears in Malory; however, is the one fighting Arthur there, not

Lancelot (Volume 1, 42). Lancelot and Guenevere2 (Cherie Lunghi) fall in love.

A significant part of the film is devoted to the relationship between Merlin and

Morgana (Helen Mirren). It could be suggested that in this case, it is not only the wish to rule and Arthur’s death what motivates Morgana to raise her child Mordred (Robert

Addie) to slay his father and sit on the throne. The other motivation might be the way in which Merlin treated her when she wanted him to teach her the arts of magic; however, that shall be discussed in the proper chapter. Their relationship is also an aspect in which Boorman diverges from Malory.

Finally, when Arthur is dying, his knights go on the quest of the and encounter Morgana and her son, her knight in golden armour. Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) succeeds and brings the Grail to Arthur, just to give him enough strength to fight in his final battle against Mordred. In contrast with Thrope, Boorman puts emphasis on what happens when Excalibur is thrown into water by Perceval and the magical sword is shown in the hand of the is one of the last scenes. Excalibur is also

2 There are many varieties of King Arthur wife’s names, the different spellings in this thesis are chosen according to the films’ descriptions on www..com. 15 one of the few films which gives hope that the once and future king still lives in , since the last sight of King Arthur is a body laying on a boat, accompanied by three women, and sailing to the horizon.

1.3. First Knight (1995)

The following film does not even by the title suggest that the focus would be on the Arthurian legend in general. In contrast with Knights of the Round Table, it openly indicates its focus on one of the knights, namely, of course, Lancelot (Richard Gere).

First Knight, directed by Jerry Zucker, has been chosen for analysis mainly for its innovative ending and treatment of the main characters. It could be suggested that Sean

Connery as King Arthur represents an archetypal portrayal of the saviour of Britain and the rightful legendary king, especially when compared with Arthur from Excalibur, despite the fact that even Arthur of the First Knight has some flaws, as shall be discussed in the following chapter.

Authors of First Knight are among the first writers who add characters rather than omit them, which is in stark contrast to their predecessors. Unfortunately, due to the addition of new characters, they omit even more features of the legend than had been usual. Many filmmakers omitted various knights and kings to keep a cast of an appropriate size; yet they tended to keep the key characters, such as Mordred and

Morgana La Fay, as, for example, in Knights of the Round Table. Authors of First

Knight, however, did not include the plotline of Morgan La Fay, changing Mordred into

Prince Malagant () plotting against Arthur.

The storyline revolves around Lancelot saving Guinevere (Julia Ormond), who is on her way to marry King Arthur, and during this first encounter they fall in love.

Several occasions of Arthur offering Lancelot a place by his side at the Round Table

16 follow. Lancelot first declines, saves the Queen from Prince Malagant, ultimately accepts Arthur’s offer and is caught by Arthur kissing the Queen. Subsequently, there is a trial for treason which is interrupted by Prince Malagant’s attack. Yet, the character of

Malagant is not a sole invention of the filmmakers, but an example of drawing inspiration from different sources than Malory and bringing up characters that are not that well-known as others. Carlos Sanz Mingo itemizes that “Malagant is a fusion of

Mordred …, Melegant, a French medieval character who kidnaps Queen Guinevere, and

Melwas, a Welsh character in medieval tales who is also keen on abducting Arthur’s wife” (64).

The concept of the trial, together with Malagant’s attack, forms a new approach to the legendary events, since they force Arthur to a rather unexpected action when he seemingly concedes to Malagant. However, the fighting is not renewed by a coincidence, as in Knights of the Round Table in contrast, Arthur changes his mind and calls for the whole of to fight back to preserve the values which Camelot stands for. Nevertheless, he is shot right after the shout, “Never surrender!” In his final speech before his death, he pronounces his last orders for Lancelot, to take care of

Guinevere and Camelot. In the case of First Knight, there is no doubt that the King is dead and therefore Avalon is out of the question here.

As already mentioned, the film has been chosen for its peculiar treatment of the legend and the portrayal of the three main characters of Arthur, Guinevere, and

Lancelot. It is the first occurrence of modernization of a character’s behaviour as shall be demonstrated on the case of Lancelot. Guinevere, too, is worth consideration in this film, mainly because, even though it is set in the Dark Ages, her opinions and wishes are given significant space. Just as Lancelot, she portrays a character with rather modern traits than a just a plain historically recognizable behaviour.

17

1.4. King Arthur (2004)

The director Antoine Fuqua and the screenwriter David Franzoni created one of the most uncommon and original Arthurian films – King Arthur, which might sound appealing; however, it was received in quite a contradicting manner. The title does not suggest anything unusual; however, the authors claimed their film was based on archaeological evidence, therefore historically accurate. The problem which critics usually have with this kind of claim is the unorthodox interpretation of evidence, or rather the evidence itself – the Sarmatian theory. The Sarmatians were “a nomadic tribe

[…] This warlike people collided with the armies of Rome, led by the Emperor Marcus

Aurelius, in the second century A.D. Having suffered a resounding defeat, they were

[…] drafted into the Roman legions, and posted to the furthest borders of the Empire”

(Matthews 112).

The audience is told by a narrator that Rome has incorporated Sarmatian cavalry into the army and that every Sarmatian boy has to serve Rome as a knight, even though the historical Roman army did not have knights. This much is the historical evidence according to the Sarmatian theory, which was first proposed in 1922 by Kemp Malone

(Matthews 112). The narrator turns out to be Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), who is taken to

Britain to serve under the command of Arthur (Clive Owen). Arthur is claimed to be the same person as the historical Roman commander Lucius Artorius Castus; however, this theory has not been proved correct yet. On the other hand, Lucius Artorius Castus was a historical figure, a real–life Roman commander in the second century A.D., who commanded troops in Camboglanna (Matthews 112). Nonetheless, Arthur fights together with his knights of the round table at the Hadrian wall against the natives, referred to as Britons (the Woads), when they are summoned to save a Roman family from a Saxon invasion North of the wall. During their journey, Arthur finds Guinevere–

18

(Keira Knightley)–daughter of Merlin. Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is the leader of the

Britons, and thanks to Guinevere, they join forces with Arthur against the in the final battle. Lancelot dies in the fierce fight and the other knights stay in Britain with

Arthur, who marries Guinevere and becomes the great .

Apart from introducing the Sarmatian theory to general public, the film works with the questions of alienation, fighting for a stranger far away from home, and the importance of friendship considering chivalry. Although it slightly touches on the otherwise traditional love triangle, this tension inside of the group is almost entirely missing. It could be suggested that the filmmakers just did not want to disappoint the audiences’ expectations considering the traditional features of the legend. The matter of expectations connected with the legend is one of the reasons to include this film in this comparative analysis, since it is not clear if people generally disliked the film because it offers a different Arthur, or because it simply is not what they expected.

Even though John Matthews, in his essay on the film and the Sarmatian theory, claims that there are some “strong parallels [between the Arthurian legends and the

Sarmatians which] are too obvious to ignore” (112), the films itself does not work with them at all. One of these parallels which he gives as examples is the name of Arthur’s legendary sword, Excalibur. Matthews elaborates on the name that it “may have originated from the far-off lands of the Sarmatians. A tribe originating from the same part of the world, and famed for their skills in smithcraft, were known as the Kalybes.

The oldest name for Excalibur is Caliburn, a word that originates from chalybus, (white) and eburnus (steel)” (112-13, original emphasis). Another significant parallel, according to Matthews, is, that “the Sarmatians liked to eat—and dance upon—circular tables,” suggesting the origin of the Knights of the Round Table (115). Even though John

Matthews expresses confidence in the Sarmatian theory, according to Carlos Mingo,

19 claims that “we encounter the problem of the liminal expertise in the text that is supposed to be the basis od the film, Littleton and Malcor’s From Scynthia to Camelot, where there are many gaps to be filled and almost as many theories needing support”

(61-62).

The main point in including Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur in this thesis is his, or rather Clive Owen’s, portrayal of Arthur’s character, and Keira Knightley’s performance of Guinevere. The film’s screenwriter, David Franzoni explained that he intended to create Arthur who would be different from those in other films, since he

“disliked about other Arthur movies […] that Arthur was never anything but a symbol; he was never a human being for [him]” (Franzoni and Matthews 116). The extent to what he succeeded in his goal and what picture of Arthur’s personality the audience gets in the end shall be discussed in the next chapter. Guinevere in this film is one of most complex depictions of the character, since she embodies not only feminine archetypes but also the archetype of the warrior, as she stands with the Knights equal on a battlefield. The effects of such shift will be discussed in the third chapter of the thesis.

1.5. Arthur & Merlin (2015)

Besides the 2004 King Arthur, there is another film suggesting a different version of the past. Arthur & Merlin from 2015 is not a standard Hollywood production as the previously introduced films. On the contrary, it is a low budget UK film, which is worth comparing with the others, since it is said to be based on old Celtic stories about

Arthur and Merlin. In contrast with King Arthur, the movie Arthur & Merlin contains a lot of magic and various rituals. Even if it was not the intention for Franzoni and Fuqua, not including magic makes King Arthur perhaps more credible than the later film by

Marco van Belle (director and writer) and Kat Wood (writer), authors of Arthur &

20

Merlin. The title of this film is an example of attracting audiences with the title, since even though the film is about , the filmmakers name them differently, thusly telly a story of Celtic characters, Arthfael and Myrrdin. The source for the name

Myrrdin might have been name of a famous Welsh bard from the twelfth century (Dent

101).

The film starts with the birth of Myrrdin (Merlin), who is born with a mark of the old divine race, the Tuatha Dé Danann, on his face. Just as in any traditional retelling of the legend, Myrrdin has no physical father, as his mother claims that “he came to me as his name did, in a dream full of hope.” Later, young Arthfael (Arthur) saves him from being sacrificed by the King’s Aberthol (Nigel Cooke). Myrrdin flees to a forest behind the village, where he learns the old rituals and gains knowledge of the Tuatha Dé Danann. Others, however, think he is dead, until adult Arthfael, banished by his king, finds him there.

Arthfael (Kirk Barker) persuades Myrrdin (Stefan Butler) that they need to work together to save (David Sterne), the King of Britain, who is under the control of Aberthol, the druid who had tried to sacrifice young Myrrdin and who is in league with the Saxons. When Myrrdin finds out that Excalibur has chosen Arthfael, he agrees with the only objection – Arthfael is supposed to be the king. Thanks to Myrridin’s magic, they defeat Aberthol and because Vortigern dies after the battle, the climax of the film is Arthfael becoming the new King.

Considering the other characters to which the audience is used to in the

Atrhurian legend, there is no one apart from Arthur, Merlin and Vortigern. Just those who are acquainted with the Welsh tale Culhwch and Olwen will find a character of

Olwen (Charlotte Brimble) instead of Guinevere.

21

There are interesting similarities between this film and some others, not necessarily from the Arthurian filmography. The visuals of Arthur & Merlin markedly resemble the Lord of the Rings saga directed by Peter Jackson. Not that it would contain that much Computer-Generated Imagery as LoTR does; on the contrary, Arthur &

Merlin’s effects could use a bit more editing or a higher budget. Marco van Belle seems to have been inspired by Jackson’s work with a lonely hero in the wilderness and the idea of a journey. That can be seen for example in the way Arthfael’s journey from the camp has been filmed, for this scene highly resembles the LoTR scene where Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are chasing the Uruk-Hai carrying two of the Hobbits. The director used long shots from heights, giving the audience space to “explore vistas” because “visual delight of […] films rendering landscapes arises from long shots that make huge spaces manifest”

(Bordwell 192). Bordwell also mentions the possibility of searching for abstract patterns, such as symbols recognizable only from a distance, in such longshots (192); however, the pattern arising from the long shots in Arthur & Merlin is just the recognition of Arthfael’s and Myrrdin’s way back through the same fields.

On the other hand, he puts an emphasis on objects and moments that are connected with magic or Celtic rituals. There is a close-up on Myrrdin when he translates the words on Excalibur, “Made by gods to kill gods,” followed by close-ups on the sword itself, on writings on the walls in Myrrdin’s cave, Aberthol’s objects of dark magic and inscription in books. The close-ups of written words are a strange emphasis of one of the films historical inaccuracies, since Celtic refused to write down any knowledge (Brunel

191). Perhaps, this omission of the druids’ tendency is an example of modernization of the medieval period which is done by the filmmakers for the sake of the audience (Mingo

61). One of the aspects of the past that is reliable in the film is, on the other hand, the connection with nature, which is shown by Merlin’s first demonstration of magical power,

22 when he makes flowers blossom. Later Merlin speaks with his teachers through a river, which is another example of a possible Celtic custom, since they “worshipped natural elements, such as trees and water, especially rivers and fountains” (Mingo 67).

1.6. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

One of the most recent blockbuster films directed by Guy Ritchie, King Arthur:

Legend of the Sword, was released in 2017. It combines aspects of almost all the previously introduced films, mostly when it comes to the question of characters of the legend, since the creators kept some characters from the legend, omitted others and added some new ones as well. A surprising omission is leaving out Merlin almost completely; furthermore; the filmmakers substituted many knights of the Round Table with a new group, which might rather be called “a crew.”

The film begins with the reign of Uther (Eric Bana) and an uprising of mage

Mordred who attacks Camelot. The King’s brother, Vortigern (Jude Law) tries to persuade Uther to discuss a possibility of capitulation with Mordred, but Uther wins the battle thanks to the sword Excalibur. Vortigern sacrifices his wife in order to obtain power to defeat Uther and kills him. Little Arthur manages to escape on a boat to

Londonium, where prostitutes take care of him as he grows up to a young “lad” controlling everything around him.

A rumour about the “born king” starts spreading among the common people as

Vortigern searches for Uther’s son since the sword in the stone revealed itself. Arthur

(Charlie Hunnam) is taken to try to draw the sword as many others, so there is the idea of testing the whole age group, however, not slaughtering them as in Malory. Arthur is seized by the guards, and Vortigern wants to behead him in front of the gathered commons. Nonetheless, a group of rebels saves him and works with him, so he can

23 accept his destiny and utilize the power hidden within the sword. Arthur finds out that it was Vortigern who killed his father and that the villain wants to gain power of the mages. Arthur then, unexpectedly, defeats him and takes his place as the rightful king.

1.7. King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table (2017)

There is one more film from 2017 that has been chosen for this study apart from

King Arthur the Legend of the Sword. The film in question is King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table, and despite the fact that the film bares a name which is not uncommon in this topic, the film’s treatment of the Arthurian legend is very distinct from all the other films. It is an example of those movies which take just parts of the original legend more like an inspiration than a model. Even though it starts in medieval

England, director Jared Cohn takes after the intro the audience to Thailand in the twenty first century.

At the beginning, the audience occurs in medieval England where Merlin

(Harold Diamond) entraps Morgana (Sara Malakul Lane) and Mordred (Russell

Geoffrey Banks) in a stone which he then casts to the space. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century the two castaways, Morgana and Mordred, return to Earth and land in Bangkok, where they search for Excalibur, which has been melted and reformed into the Holy Grail. They fight a group of dojo fighters who are said to be the descendants of the Knights of the Round Table, the legend proves true when Penn (Eoin

O’Brien), as the true descendant of King Arthur, draws Excalibur from the substance which formed when the newly introduced guide melted the Holy Grail in the pot of gold. Penn pierces Morgana with the sword and she transforms into a giant robot.

Mordred joins the modern “Knights of the Round Table” and together they defeat

Morgana. This version of Mordred dies in the final battle as is usual for the character;

24 however, he is not mortally wounded by Arthur as his enemy, but by shrapnel from the body of his mother which is falling apart.

This film has been chosen mainly as an example of bringing the legend into the modern world and its treatment of Mordred. It seems somehow ironical that a

“mockbuster”3 film made by the Asylum (a company which focuses on low budget versions or parodies of other films and is best known for the creation of the phenomenon of Sharknado) would be the only one where the character of Mordred has any personal development.

This chapter has introduced the films that shall be discussed further in the thesis.

The basic plotlines necessary to understand the characters that will be analysed in the following chapters were presented together with the directors, screen-writes, actors, and actresses who made the films possible. This chapter also analysed the films from the theoretical point of view of the motion picture creation, since there are various techniques used to film each of the films. Those techniques were influenced mainly by the time when the films were created, the accessible technology, and expectations of the target audience.

3 A mockbuster film is a movie with script or name similar to a blockbuster which it parodies or recreates 25

2. The Arthurian Men

This chapter is devoted to the most important male characters from the legend who appear in the films, even though they are, in some cases, omitted by the filmmakers for various reasons. The characters under discussion shall be Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, and Mordred. All of them carry specific archetypal traits and shape the perception of the audience. The questions answered in this chapter will demonstrate the masculine archetypes presented in the portrayal of these four characters.

As suggested in the previous chapter, sometimes they differ greatly and these differences, for example in the portrayal of Arthur in Knights of the Round Table,

Excalibur, and in First Knight, shape the ideas and perception of the audience in distinct ways. Even though King Arthur is usually expected to be the main character (as some of the titles suggest), he is occasionally subdued by the presence of Lancelot. Perhaps, this specific imbalance between the characters is unique to the treatment of the Arthurian legend by filmmakers and not necessarily present in the medieval romances that preceded the film-scripts.

One of the most frequently described archetypes is the “wise old man” which is in the Arthurian legend present in the form of the character of Merlin (Jung 196), the great magician without whom Arthur would not, in the traditional versions like Malory, even exist. However, besides leaving out his magic, some films even remove the character as such. One of the issues addressed on the following pages is whether (and if so, then how) the omission of Merlin reflects on the other characters of the particular films. The same question arises for Mordred and Lancelot.

In contrast, filmmakers never removed the character of King Arthur, so he is the most recurring image or symbol. When defining the concept of an archetype, there is a

26 definition slightly different from the Jungian invisible unconscious, presented by

Northrop Frye, who defines it as “a symbol, usually an image, which recurs often enough in literature to be recognizable as an element of one’s literary experience as a whole” (qtd. in McLuhan and Watson 118). Even though the excerpt speaks about literary contexts, it can be suggested that it is possible to apply the same claim to films.

Hence, this chapter aims to illustrate how the portrayals of Arthur in some of the discussed films create an archetype of the king. Another question is whether the suggested archetypal king character has any weaknesses and if so, how they reflect on the surrounding characters and the audience.

2.1. The King – Arthur, Artorius Castus, and Arthfael

As the legend’s name itself suggests, there always should be an Arthur.

Considering the discussed films, there is always a character of Arthur, the king of

Britain, someone who becomes the king thanks to the development of events, or someone who is his direct descendant. Notwithstanding the importance of Arthur’s position in the legend, the character is not always portrayed the same, neither with the same momentousness. The appropriation of Arthur’s character shall be discussed and compared chronologically when possible, as the movies in question were filmed, in order to track the development of the approach undertaken by filmmakers.

The 1953 Knights of the Round Table shows right from the beginning an adult

Arthur, aspiring to be the king. However, he is still ordered around by Merlin, as can be seen in one of the first scenes after Modred and Morgan Le Fay leave the chapel of the sword. Arthur exclaims like a zestful child that he is the King of England, yet Merlin almost scolds him, maintaining that he has “still to prove it by deeds, not words. Return

[the sword] to the anvil.” At the council at the ring of stones, Arthur speaks for himself

27 and starts to behave like the leading character who does not receive orders from Merlin.

Nonetheless, Lancelot appears no sooner than ten minutes into the film and he would make Arthur seem a minor character again.

Yet, Arthur of Knights of the Round Table possesses some archetypical traits out of which the most significant one is him being the symbol of unity and authority when he becomes the king. He also supports the Romantic ideals of chivalry, such as being loyal, brave, strong and defending the country, the poor and, the week. In contrast with what had been claimed in the previous paragraph about Lancelot, it is this particular knight who supports the aforementioned traits of the King. Even before he meets

Arthur, Lancelot considers himself one of Arthur’s men and he is proud to fight against those who want to ambush Arthur during his journey through a forest. Arthur sticks to the ideals until the end of the film, when he agrees with Modred’s conditions of peace just to save his people and the land from the sorrows of war. There is, however, a moment when his resignation could be understood reversely. The movement and the behaviour of the actor radiate different signals; his words agree with what has been said before about keeping up the ideals of kingship, yet his facial expression and posture suggest that he is unable to look his opponent proudly in the eye and thus proves right

Modred claim that he, Arthur, should not be the king. Arthur is looking to the ground when he says to Modred: “I agree with the terms”. Ideals of friendship can be taken from the relationship between Arthur and Lancelot, however, Lancelot’s existence seems to override Arthur and, therefore, it can be interpreted also differently, as shown in the next subchapter.

When one moves to the 1980s, John Boorman presents a character of Arthur which is similar to the one discussed above. In Excalibur, a is introduced to the audience, when he accidentally pulls the sword from the stone and deliberately

28 seeks Merlin’s help with all the challenges which he suddenly faces. As he ages, he earns the respect of his knights and Merlin has less to provide him with. A turning point comes when Arthur fights Lancelot and uses the power of Excalibur unfairly against his opponent. “My pride broke it, I am nothing” acknowledges Arthur after the sword was broken; yet he, as the wise king, realizes what has happened and when he grieves, the

Lady of the Lake gives him a new Excalibur. This incident is an example of another archetypal trait of Arthur’s – the ability to self-reflect and learn from his own mistakes.

There is also another instance that could be classifies as such trait – Arthur’s sense of duty to society, when he realizes that he has to put his persona of the king above his needs and feelings of a regular man, common for Excalibur and Malory. After

Guenevere is accused of adultery, he draws his sword and wants to react hastily, however he “checks himself and painfully states that he cannot place his personal will above his societal duty” (Blanch and Wasserman 18).

Among the films discussed, Excalibur is the only one where a completely mentally broken Arthur is portrayed. After finding about Lancelot’s and Guenevere’s consummated adultery, he is struck by a lightning and falls ill, which is the reason for the beginning of the Grail quest. In a way it is Arthur himself who has brought the decay on the land in Excalibur since it is his command the Merlin heals Lancelot

“whatever the cost.” When he finds Lancelot and Guenevere sleeping in the woods, “he digs Excalibur in the soil (which is the land, it is himself) between them” (Mingo 70), whilst figuratively wounding himself through the land. Thusly Boorman makes Arthur the Grail King and moves away from Malory again. It could be said that he makes

Arthur closer to common people, allowing him to show weakness, even though the episode is used to express the notion that the king and the land are one since, with

29

Arthur’s disease, the land also suffers. On the other hand, it is contradictory to the idea that Arthur is the King without any faults and weaknesses.

Even though Arthur in Excalibur is not flawless, Blanch and Wasserman say that

“he has a reason to sail off [to Avalon] to be healed” because he “has discovered what remains immutable—friendship and love” (19). They put it in contrast with the appropriation of Arthur in the film First Knight. as Arthur is a character full of the traits of the king archetype. He portrays a strong, matured and wise king, who would do everything to protect his people. His only weakness is the only woman of his life. As described in the first chapter, the plotline of First Knight revolves only around the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. Compared with one of the previous films, Knights of the Round Table, there is a strengthened generation gap between Arthur and Guinevere, since Sean Connery was sixty-five when he played

Arthur and his Guinevere was portrayed by the thirty-five years younger Julia Ormond.

Connery was opposed by Richard Gere, who is still older than J. Ormond but there was just a slight difference in age between them visible in the film. “Arthur can only act as father, perhaps grandfather to the younger man. The same is true of Arthur’s relationship with Guenevere … Arthur admits he knew her when she was a child,” therefore there is hardly a love-triangle formed as in other Arthurian films tackling this topic (Blanch and Wasserman 20).

Even though Connery’s Arthur bores himself with dignity, there is a moment when he reacts hastily and almost as a hysteric. And that moment comes when he witnesses Lancelot embrace the Queen. He portrays a completely opposite reaction to

Arthur in Excalibur who is able to calm down and behave himself after the first accusation and is distressed mainly when he finds out that Lancelot and Guenevere made love. On the other hand, Arthur in First Knight does not even give them the

30 chance, as he immediately calls for a trial. Showing such weakness is not a trait of a king, or as Blanch and Wasserman call him a ‘sensitive guy:’ “The kiss … is clearly trivial, so much so that the issue is less adultery than Arthur’s hurt feelings because he witnessed the embrace. A true 1990s’ ‘sensitive guy’ film, First Knight is more about wounded emotions than about entanglement or estrangement” (19).

Sean Connery as Arthur embodies not only the archetype of king, but also the archetype of the old wise man. This is possible mainly through the filmmaker’s omission of the character of Merlin. One of Arthur’s main characteristics in this film is basically Connery’s charisma. He appears to be a wise ruler, leading the country with respect for the law and God, as can be seen in his words before Lancelot and

Guinevere’s trial: “May God grant us the wisdom to discover the right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure.” There is no Merlin who would give him any advice; on the contrary, he is the one who gives advice to Lancelot. After Lancelot tells him that he fears nothing as he has nothing to lose, Arthur reacts with what he sees as a better way to live a life, “Here we believe that every life is precious, even the lives of strangers. If you must die, die serving something greater than yourself.” The characteristics of the wise old man serve two purposes in the film: it emphasizes the difference between Arthur and Lancelot and it shows the need, arguably shared by every Arthurian movie, to have a character of the old wise man archetype.

It was suggested in the previous chapter that David Franzoni intended the character of Arthur in Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur to be different from the Arthurs in other Arthurian films. He wanted to shift the character from being a symbol to being a full-fledged human, since “presuming that this great myth started with a human being, he must have been a hell of a human being. And that means of course, he had dirt under his fingernails, and probably didn’t wash very often. It doesn’t make him a great myth

31 but it does make him a great man” (Franzoni and Matthews 116). Such reasons for being a great man or becoming a great myth are dubious; however, Owen’s portrayal of

Arthur really is slightly different than others.

The audience gets a picture of young Arthur listening to his teacher, the wise old man in the character of Pelagius (Owen Teale). The situation is comparable, for example, to Guy Ritchie’s Legend of the Sword. In contrast to Arthur growing up as a bastard in a brothel, the 2004 Arthur, even though he has not been educated as a prince to rule a kingdom, has been raised to lead troops and given ethical education by

Pelagius’s teaching. His main character traits and most highly esteemed values, at least at the beginning of the film, are loyalty, truth, and respect of friendship. Merlin from

Excalibur would agree with him, as he notes that truth is the most important value of chivalry.

One of the differences from other Arthurs is the inner development of the character. Artorius is loyal to his ideal of Rome and obeys orders without hesitation.

However, when his ideals are crushed, his priorities change and he starts to act according to his own will and the morals of Pelagius’s teaching. This change could be suggested as the one thing that makes him a human being rather than a symbol. Even though there is a certain development in the character of Arthur from the classical versions of the legend, the changes are already expected and part of the myth. On the other hand, Artorius’s change of thinking could be perceived as closer and more understandable to the immediate experience of the audience. Artorius’s ideals are destroyed when he learns that Pelagius was killed, that Rome is a different place than he believes, and that people whom he is trying to save exploit their servants.

Nonetheless, he still embodies some of the archetypal characteristics of the strong leader and great authority. Among such traits is, for example, his ability to

32 persuade his subordinates to follow him to a seemingly impossible mission. On the other hand, by making him change his mind about Rome as described above, it might be suggested that Franzoni transformed the archetypal Arthur to a certain form of a human cliché. There have been many heroes who changed their minds after seeing someone disrespecting life and their idealized order of human life. For Arthur in this film, such realization, which might be considered a cliché and unoriginal plot-twist, comes when he encounters an unjust behaviour of a man who is high in the hierarchy of Rome.

Arthur cannot bare the sight of maltreatment of the Woads, despite his former fights with the inhabitants of Britain. Further he claims that Arthur “is not a greedy politician, or a charismatic hero–he’s just a guy” (Matthews and Franzoni 120). Even though such a claim may sound appealing to a modern audience, and it could be suggested that it has a portion of the American dream in it, it is not applicable to the archetypal representation of Arthur. One cannot claim that Artorius is just a guy when he is predestined to lead part of the Roman army and has a certain degree of power.

Jungian analysts Virginia Beane Rutter and Thomas Singer would perhaps disagree with the claim that Franzoni’s Arthur is no longer the archetypal Arthur, since they believe that “Archetypes evolve as culture evolves, [which is] and idea that to some will seem new and exciting and to others unacceptable, either because the whole notion of archetypes is suspect or because they are viewed as being fixed and eternal”

(Introduction, Archetypes evolving).4 I agree with the notion that archetypes evolve together with the culture, since if one interprets archetypes not only as prototypes, but also as ideal models and supreme types (Brunel 111-14), soon, the models would not be sufficient for the evolving society. However, Franzoni’s Arthur should not be considered an evolution of the archetype since his motivation in the change of opinion

4 The file does not include page numbers; the names of the chapter and subchapter are given instead. 33 about Rome is too predictable, perhaps rather a Hollywood cliché that any king of positive development.

Nevertheless, there is another important trait almost unique to Franzoni’s Arthur, and that is his hierarchical position. The audience does not face Arthur the King, but

Arthur the Commander. A similar approach has been chosen only by the makers of the

2015 Arthur & Merlin. Both films approach the character this way because of the reasons and prescriptions of the source material. Neither of the films is based on the medieval romances or any of the versions of the legend, as other films are. Apart from the Sarmatian theory in the case of King Arthur, the aim of the film Arthur & Merlin is to present the characters as in the older, Celtic versions. In both cases, the archetype which Arthur stands for is not the archetype of the king, even though, at the end of both films, he is crowned; Instead he is shown as a warrior. This substitution is even more significant in the latter film, since the filmmakers omitted the character of Lancelot, who usually embodies the archetype of the legendary warrior, as shall be discussed in the following subchapter.

Even though the filmmakers did not put Arthur in the position of the king for the majority of the length of the films, he serves as a leading figure even before his coronation. The suggestion is that the legend and its characters are always portrayed with someone representing the archetype of the king at least in the form of a leader. All the films under analysis in this thesis meet this restraint. There are always other warriors, knights or fighters who look up to the character of Arthur and who answer his orders or wishes. The same claim can even be applied to the last movie in this thesis,

King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, which was made as a parody. Penn does not actually lead the group of friends who become the new Knights of the Round

34

Table, he just stands out with his dojo abilities. However, he is charismatic and dominant; therefore, the audience can expect him to be the descendant of King Arthur.

The portrayal of Arthur in Guy Ritchie’s film King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a great example of an individualistic approach, which seems to be more popular in the recent appropriations in comparison with the films with Arthurian motifs from the previous years and decades. Even though the audience gets a picture of two kings, at the beginning of the film, neither of them is Arthur and they seem to be delineated simply as two opposites. Uther stands for the good king, while Vortigern, is at first sight depicted as pure evil, a trait usually ascribed to Mordred. The evil and lust for greater power which predominate in his character are emphasized in the eyes of the audience by

Vortigern sacrificing his wife and daughter, whom he deeply loves, or otherwise he would not gain magical power thanks for the sacrifices. His character is, therefore, not just plain evil as it is usual for the depiction of Mordred with whom Vortigern is inextricably tied in this film. Such a change in the villain’s personification suggests that the modern audience expects the villain to be more complex than the villainous characters used to be in the former movies. However, the representation of Mordred and

Vortigern in this film is a subject of one of the following subchapters.

Ritchie’s Arthur, on the other hand, does not have a clue that he is supposed to rule the country; however, he leads a group of companions. He embodies some of the aspects of the archetypal king figure, such as, for example, his strength, strong will, decisiveness, or being a caring, protective, and manly character. On the other hand, he is individualistic in the sense that, at first, he does not want to join Vortigern’s opposers and he wants to continue living his life instead. Nonetheless, he is persuaded by the

Mage and other members of the resistance, showing the same trait as, for example,

35

Arthur in the 1980s film Excalibur – the ability to self-reflect and change his behaviour for the benefit of his people, to suppress his ego for the benefit of the greater good.

A significant detail, in which Ritchie’s film differs from the others, is the role of magic and the role of the sword. Although it is a common practice that Excalibur provides Arthur with the proof that he was born to rule the country, the title of the film suggests that the sword is of greater importance than Arthur himself. There is a legend of the “Born King” in the film rather than the legend of the sword; however, it is not enough for Arthur to just pull the sword from the stone. The stone is technically the dead body of King Uther, which seems to make the bloodline bond even stronger.

Nonetheless, Arthur has to submit to the power of the sword, surrender his will which is struggling to accept his fate.

In contrast with the films that embrace the whole legend, such as Excalibur, or its specific features, like the love triangle in First Knight, Ritchie’s decision to concentrate on the issue of succession allows the character of Arthur to develop more than the parallel characters in the previous films. He is given more space and his character is not plain anymore or with just slight variations from the basic archetypical portrayal.

In conclusion, there is a general tendency to portray Arthur as one of the strongest characters of the film. Even though, at times, it happens that he is overshadowed by Lancelot, he always shares at least some of the characteristics that could be summarized into an archetypal type of the king. Mainly that means being intelligent, decisive, loyal, leading figure, charismatic, and willing to do anything for his people, willing to sacrifice himself or his needs for the greater good of the country or his beloved. Even if he is not a great warrior, he has to be able to fight his enemies, as he has been depicted in the recent movies. Apart from this shift from a great warrior to a

36 strong fighter, there is a modern tendency to portray the character more individualistically, at least at the beginning of the films, where he only later acknowledges his duty to the people before becoming the king.

2.2. The Warrior and the Lover – Mordred and Sir Lancelot

There are not many films that would omit the character of Arthur’s best knight,

Sir Lancelot; on the other hand, the same cannot be said about Mordred. The aim of this chapter is to explore the presence of these two characters in the films and the impact of the possible omission. The impact of omitting one or both of them is vital for the legend, since both characters represent, if not moral values as the character of Arthur, specific key features of the story. It could be suggested that there would be no love triangle were it not for Lancelot and there would be no conflict endangering Arthur’s life were it not for Mordred. Although the legend would suffer significant changes if the aforementioned features were not part of the plotline, some filmmakers faced the challenge and omitted Mordred or Lancelot. What impact it had on the legend presented by the films is discussed further in this subchapter.

It has been mentioned in the previous subchapter that, at times, Lancelot, seems to be more important than the King himself. Such an approach is most visible in the

1953 film Knights of the Round Table, where he even challenges Arthur in a fight at the beginning of the film. Before Lancelot finds out that he is fighting King Arthur, Arthur even kneels before him. It is a significant moment, since it marks the beginning of their friendship and Lancelot declares his loyalty when they exchange positions; however, there is certain presaging of Lancelot’s dominance in this moment. Further in the film, during the first civil war, Lancelot is shown in the camp, walking among soldiers and persuading two deserters to stay in the camp and fight for Arthur’s cause. It could be

37 said that it is the role of the king to encourage his men, but here it is done by one of his knights; however, even at this moment, Lancelot puts up front his high thoughts about

Arthur.

So far Lancelot holds the traits of the loyal warrior archetype; yet he does not behave accordingly when he opposes Arthur in front of all others after the war. Arthur, however, sticks to his position ascribed by the archetypal king and does not let their friendship affect his reaction. It appears only in this film that Morgan Le Fay and

Modred take advantage not only of Guenevere’s feelings for Lancelot, but also of the relationship of Lancelot and Arthur (plus, it is the only film where they are not mother and son, but husband and wife). When Arthur is put at odds with Lancelot after he finds out about the affection, Modred recognizes the right time to strike with the second civil war. His rhetorical question, “What is Arthur without Lancelot?”, is significant for the analysis of Lancelot’s role in the film, since it suggests that Arthur is nothing without his knight and, therefore, Lancelot is even more important than Arthur himself. This notion is emphasized after the final battle, in which Arthur dies and it is Lancelot who tosses Excalibur to water, then seeks Modred and kills him. Even the visual of the last scene of the film does not belong to Arthur as it is usual, but to Lancelot kneeling side by side with .

Lancelot was put on the same level as Arthur thanks to their friendship in

Knights of the Round Table, just as he is in First Knight. Although rather than their friendship in this film, it is the rivalry between him and Arthur over Guinevere, combined with Arthur’s appreciation of Lancelot’s skills. Robert Blanch and Julian

Wasserman argue that the title of the film “violates the spiritual and physical functionality of the Round table, exalting as it does one individual over the geometrically levelled band of Camelot” (16). They also mention the detail highlighted

38 by Chris Peachment that “nowhere on the poster of First Knight does it mention that this is a King Arthur story” (16). Some critics might on the other hand appreciate the immediate omission of mentioning King Arthur in the title, since it is at times argued, as for example by Norris J. Lacy, that there is a “filmmakers’ apparent belief that the very name of King Arthur will bring in the trade” (75).

Blanch and Wasserman further elaborate on the modern individualistic shaping of Lancelot in First Knight and compare the character to Chrétien’s chevalier, who

“agonizes over stepping into the cart because such an action would taint his knighthood and violate his institutional duty” (16). The archetypal traits of the knight’s loyalty to the king, and serving his sovereign to the death, are missing in First Knight. Lancelot of this film in contrast with, Chrétien’s depiction, pursues only his selfish goals, and just by the end of the film he hesitates and wants to leave Camelot in which he started believing. This expression of inclination to Camelot may be interpreted as Lancelot’s first acknowledgement of institutional hierarchy; however, he betrays it immediately by kissing the Queen and thus betraying his pledge to the King.

“There is no attachment or pain, no counterpoint to pull against the ‘I want’ directed at Guenevere” (Blanch and Wasserman 20), which is in great contrast with the

Lancelot in Excalibur. Even though Lancelot in Excalibur is, at the beginning, also presented as a fighter or warrior seeking challenges, later he subdues to Arthur completely as his loyal knight. It is Guenevere who follows him to the woods and he tries to persuade her not to seduce him. His first words when he finds out that Arthur knows about the adultery are: “The King without a sword! The land without a king!”

His exclamation expresses that he is well aware of the impact of their action not on himself, but on the society as a whole, because he has betrayed the institution (Blanch

39 and Wasserman 29). Such sense of duty to society has already been mentioned in the case of Arthur’s character in Excalibur in the previous subchapter.

The character of Lancelot in the other films in question is either missing or not given any special position. Even though in King Arthur (2004), he is the narrator at the beginning and later seems to be closer to Artorius than the other knights, even the love triangle is suppressed in the film. The absence of the love triangle is connected with the omission of Lancelot in the Legend of the Sword and Arthur & Merlin as well.

In the same way as Lancelot is connected with the positions of the warrior and lover, Mordred is inextricably linked with posing a threat to King Arthur and/or his realm. When the filmmakers omit Mordred, they still have to present someone or something which acquires the position of an opponent. A surprisingly different approach was carried out by the Asylum company in their parody King Arthur and

Knights of the Round Table. At first, Mordred opposes the descendants of the Knights of the Round Table as usually; however, later he joins them and fights against his mother. It is not one of the most elaborate modern innovations of the legend, nonetheless; it is interesting to find the only development of Mordred’s character in a parody of the legend.

A distinct approach to the character of Mordred has been chosen by the makers of the Legend of the Sword. Mordred is kept as a part of the threat to the realm; however, he is a magician of great power who studied with Vortigern and they made a pact to combine forces and bring down King Uther. Mordred had killed the Mage king and is rather an opponent of Merlin than of Arthur, finally killed by Uther. However, otherwise the character is active just at the beginning of the film, during the battle of the first minutes, therefore there is not enough of it for a proper analysis. Nonetheless, making Mordred one of the greatest mages and shifting his role in the legend to the

40 beginning, losing the connection with Arthur and not touching the controversial aspect of the incest, are examples of modernization and innovation in appropriating the legend.

The audience will automatically connect evil with the name Mordred and good with

Merlin, since the names are themselves bearers of these aspects. Therefore, the filmmakers are allowed to concentrate on developing other parts of the story, to make the film stand out and, perhaps, finally form a masterpiece at least loosely based on the legendary material.

In conclusion, Lancelot has been more popular than the other knights on the silver screen, even when the filmmakers started appropriating the Arthurian legend.

Already in Knights of the Round Table, Lancelot was given a lot of screen time and considering the script; he was as important as Arthur, yet still generally a loyal knight, respecting Arthur’s authority. However, there can be traced a certain inclination towards individualism and disrespect of hierarchy and institutions in the later films, mainly shown in the film First Knight. Even though is seems to be a common practice to substitute Mordred with a different villain, Lancelot is more likely to be omitted together with the love triangle, rather than substituted with someone else. A unique appropriation of Mordred appeared last year in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, where Mordred’s archetypal representation of the villain is kept, however he is moved to a different time of the legend. Such approach allowed the filmmakers to revolve the story around well-known name and connotation, without facing an obstacle of slowing down the dynamics and other features of the film.

2.3. The Magician, the Old Wise Man - Merlin

Were it not for Merlin, King Arthur would not even exist in the medieval versions of the legend. Yet, many films surprisingly do not work with the character,

41 who stands for one of the purest archetypal patterns – the old wise man. The suggestion is that even though some films omit the character of Merlin, they still present someone who stands for the archetype of the wise old man.

The most noticeable Merlin appears in the 1981 Excalibur. The reason behind such a thoroughly elaborated character might lie in the director’s intention to be faithful to the literary model, Malory, as much as possible. Merlin appears as a great magician, helping Uther seduce Igrayne, participating thus in the conception of Arthur. Excalibur is the only film from this selection which discusses this aspect of the legend. Merlin later functions as Arthur’s advisor and at times fulfils his wishes, as, for example, when he is asked to heal Lancelot, whose wounds seem fatal.

Merlin in Excalibur is not the old wise man helping only Arthur, but he also helps Arthur’s sister, Morgana, who wants to learn his magic. There is an interesting interaction between them, as at first Morgana looks up to Merlin, seeking his wisdom as his archetypal representation suggests. Later she is despised by him for learning only about basic potions, not the real magic, just to be outsmarted by her almost at the end.

Excalibur is also the only film which touches upon the incest between Morgana and

Arthur and the conception of Mordred, thanks to sticking to Merlin’s role in Malory.

Merlin, as the great protector of his protégé Arthur, influences also the final battle when he is basically the causal agent of Morgana’s death (apart from Mordred killing her because he does not recognize his mother in a, suddenly, old woman).

By beginning the analysis with Excalibur, there was the intention to emphasize

Merlin’s magic and his role in the events of the legend. The older film, Knights of the

Round Table, approaches Merlin in a similar way; yet, differently. There are only few allusions to him being a magician; he wears a pointed hat, which is a modern symbol of a witch, and Mordred once accuses him of practicing witchcraft when Arthur draws

42

Excalibur from the stone for the first time. His position of the advisor is rather substituted with the position of a father. Such change in the archetype has already been tackled in one of the previous chapters where the example of Merlin scolding Arthur for keeping the sword out of the stone has been used. The image of Merlin as a father is also emphasized by Arthur, when he acknowledges that “[Merlin has] always been more a father to [him] in wisdom and strength than he who sired [him]”. There is a significant difference between these two appropriations of Merlin and that is their importance and effect on the plotline. Merlin in Excalibur is rather active, even when Arthur becomes the king, since Arthur still actively seeks his advice. On the other hand, the former old wise man is not needed that much, and his absence does not have such an impact, as

Mordred implies that “Merlin is old. His death could easily look more natural”.

Concentrating only on the age of the old man, not even thinking about his magic.

There are also films that omit the character of Merlin altogether, leaving Arthur seemingly without the advisor in the form of the old wise man archetype. However, as shown in the discussion about Arthur, there is no need for another character of this archetype in First Knight, since Arthur bears its characteristic traits. A different approach was chosen by the makers of King Arthur (2004), who chose Merlin as the leader of the and father of Guinevere. Therefore, he changed from the archetype of an old wise man to representing an old warrior and leader, still keeping some traits of the old wise man, even though he does not share his wisdom with Arthur right from the beginning. Another variation appears in Arthur & Merlin (2015), where Merlin is roughly the same age as Arthur and has someone who gives him advice on his own.

However, Myrrdin and his knowledge play a crucial role in fighting the evil druid.

Hence, there is a certain aspect of the archetype of the old wise man; however, the spectator might rather mistake Merlin for the archetype of a jester. For example, after

43 the scene when his teachers persuade him to support Arthur who has been chosen to fight for the Celtic people, Myrrdin expresses the change of his mind by one of the few jokes and comical features of the film. It is also the only film which shows a doubting young Merlin, who is by his words “not ready” for the task of saving the Celtic people, since he believes that there are more things to learn.

Guy Ritchie, in the Legend of the Sword, decided for a yet different approach.

Merlin is not an active character; however, he functions as a part of the legend of the sword, since he is told to have forged the sword from the staff of the Mage King, who had been killed by Mordred. Therefore, Merlin does not stand for the archetype of the old wise man in this film. It could be suggested that the archetype was represented by the character of Sir Bevidere, who leads the group of the resistance. Bedivere introduces

Arthur to the new situation after the resistance saves him from Vortigern. Together with the role of Arthur’s mentor he functions as the guide of the hero’s journey theory. The role of the magician is left to the Mage, who shall be discussed in the next chapter.

Perhaps, Bedivere could be considered a magical negro, a term coined by Stan Lee in the theory of recent stereotypes of African Americans in films, since he is the helper of the main white protagonist.

This chapter has discussed the representation of the main male characters of the

Arthurian legend in films. It has been shown that the characters always share specific characteristic features, which were transformed into archetypes. Those archetypes are always represented in films, even thou the filmmakers sometimes omit the character.

As, for example, in the case of Merlin who represents the archetype of the old wise man. When Merlin is omitted in the story of the film, there is another character that bears the archetypal traits.

44

3. The Arthurian Women

It may seem that the Arthurian legend is mostly a male domain. Even though the most important characters are usually the knights, the king and the magician, there are significant female characters as well. It was part of the chivalric code to fight for the queen or an unreachable lady; yet some feminine characters had a rather negative aura.

Usually, it is Guinevere who is accused of bringing decay to the Round Table, who is responsible for the death or disappearance of Merlin, or Morgana who give birth to the child who becomes Arthur’s scourge. The more recent films, however, tend to bring these characters to a better light, even though it has not always been like this. For example, Excalibur keeps the portrayal of Morgana with her negative aspects.

On the other hand, many films omit Morgana, or they supply a new Mage (Legend of the Sword), who is undoubtedly a positive character.

As Jung speaks about the representation of the Self in the form of the “wise old man”, he also mentions the “wise old woman” (Jung 196), which should not be omitted as a counterpart of one of the archetypes discussed in the previous chapter. Therefore, the questions asked in this chapter are whether there is a counterpart to the wise old man in the films, as there is always, as we have seen in the previous chapter, a character with the traits of the old wise man. Another question is whether there is any development in the approach of the female characters of the legend when transformed to the film screen.

The question of the cinematic gaze has been touched in the first chapter of this thesis and, with the discussion of the female characters, comes the moment of elaborating on that topic as well. Laura Mulvey wrote her article “Visual Pleasure and

Narrative Cinema” in 1975, when one of the films discussed in this essay had already been produced. Therefore, Guinevere and Morgan Le Fay of Knights of the Round

45

Table will be considered from the point of view of the male gaze. Even though

Excalibur was produced in 1981, it can be approached with Mulvey’s ideas as well, perhaps as a threshold between her approach and a new way of approaching the voyeuristic gaze. Despite Mulvey’s argument that voyeurism is inherently masculine

(Taylor 153), the theory of the cinematic gaze has been further developed, and the concept of the female gaze has been introduced. Laura Mulvey started the notion that a film and the gaze are political, or as Jakub Morawski words it, “cinema is a politically active actor and affects not just the way we perceive cinematic images but above all the way we, as subjects, are perceived, experienced and structured through the cinematic mode of thinking” (36).

As will be analysed further in this chapter, there is a significant development of the way of portraying the female characters of the legend; therefore, the discussion of the later films in this thesis will take the female gaze into consideration. Perhaps, it could be suggested that the development of the theory of the cinematic gaze has influenced the way in which Guinevere’s character has been portrayed in films of last decades.

3.1. Guinevere

The first Arthurian woman to be discussed is King Arthur’s wife, Queen

Guinevere. Guinevere is undoubtedly one of the characters which are not easy to omit since she has a major role in the medieval stories that inspired modern filmmakers. In all films under discussion in this thesis, there is a woman which could be considered

Arthur’s counterpart. Even Arthur & Merlin, one of the films which omit the character of Guinevere, had to substitute the Queen with a woman that would feel affection for

Arthur.

46

The earlier films, Knights of the Round Table and Excalibur, do not focus on

Guinevere much of the screen time; however, she is an important character of both films mainly because of the role she has in the love triangle and the quarrel it causes between

Arthur and Lancelot. In Knights of the Round Table, she is warned by Merlin that

Morgana and Modred watch her interactions with Lancelot and they suspect the feelings she has for the knight; it may seem that Guinevere is allowed to actively participate and affect the events of the story. However, her actions are always determined by the male characters around her, since it is the “man’s role as the active one of forwarding the story, making things happen” (Mulvey 204). Mulvey further elaborated that “the man controls the film fantasy and also emerges as the representative of power in a further sense: as the bearer of the look of the spectator, transferring it behind the screen to neutralize the extradiegetic tendencies represented by woman as spectacle” (204).

A woman as spectacle, looked at by the main male protagonists is explicitly presented in Excalibur, where Guenevere is dancing at a celebration after Arthur’s first victory. This depiction is an allusion of the past, when, at the beginning of the film,

Cornwall mocks Uther that his queen will never be as good as his wife Igrayne.

Cornwall follows his claim by ordering Igrayne to dance for the hall full of men to their pleasure. This scene exquisitely illustrates Laura Mulvey’s thoughts on scopophilia, since, similarly in the films that she discussed, “the film opens with the woman as object of the combined gaze of spectator and all the male protagonists in the film. She is isolated, glamorous, on display, sexualized. But as the narrative progresses she falls in love with the main male protagonist and becomes his property” (204). Even though

Excalibur does not precisely open with the scene of the dancing Lady Igrayne, it is still the first time any female character is introduced. Guenevere is given more space than

47

Igrayne; however, there is a similar scene when she is dancing with various men on the aforementioned celebration while Arthur is planning to marry her.

Considering the archetypal representation of Guenevere’s character, she can be seen as a femme fatale (Brunel 110). At least considering the scenes from the films described above, the legend itself is partly based on the archetype of femme fatale, since also Arthur’s mother can be described as such as is apparent from Uther’s obsession with her. It could be said that Guenevere embodies this archetype traditionally because of her role of the wedge between Arthur and Lancelot. The majority of the analysed films keeps this image of the character, even if they shift other features of hers. Such shift is apparent in King Arthur, where she is presented more as a warrior than a queen, as shall be discussed further; yet, she still attracts both Arthur and Lancelot. On the other hand, she was ascribed this traditional role of femme fatale in Excalibur, First

Knight, and Knights of the Round Table, while she is not part of the rest of the films.

Gareth Knight notes that another archetype associated with Guinevere is connected to her position of the Queen and to the role of women in general. He claims that the Queen “must teach and inspire the ladies and maidens of the court in the women’s arts … [She] achieves this by beauty, courtesy and the quality of the home environment, which applies to all levels of the realm, for every cottage in the country, however humble, is an image of the same archetype as is expressed by the court” (57).

It may be said that such an image of Guinevere is given in The Knights of the Round

Table, where she is shown as the image of an elegant and always decent lady of the court. Nonetheless, such depiction is not true for all the mentioned films, mainly not for those produced after Excalibur, since, as Knight noted, “In recent times there is a certain antagonism to what may be regarded as sex-stereotyping. However, the traditional male and female functions, which are polarised into knights and ladies in the

48

Arthurian legends, remain valid theoretical patterns of the fabric of human civilization”

(58).

Even though it could be said that Guinevere in First Knight fits the description of the traditional role listed above as well, there is a significant difference between her and Guinevere in the previously produced films. She is rather active in the agenda of choosing her husband and she does not become a property of the main male character as would be the proceedings suggested by Laura Mulvey. Arthur even asks her if she wishes to marry him because of her free will, not because of her duty in order to secure protection of her home Leonesse. First Knight was produced in 1995, fourteen years after Excalibur, and there is a significant change in the approach to Guinevere. She is the centre of the film and the story revolves around her even when it comes to the attacks of prince Malagant.

As mentioned above, Guinevere is an illustration of the archetype of the femme fatale, even though she is not sexualized in the film as much as the characters of

Guenevere and Igrayne in Excalibur. Some features of the old wise woman might be found in her as well. Even though she is not old, her wisdom is the main article at this point. She is shown as someone who knows what to do in almost every situation, she behaves as the mind says what is right, she seems not to be listening to her heart and acting impulsively. On the other hand, she does not give advice to anyone as the counterpart of the old wise man should; therefore, it could be said that she rather represents again the archetype of the Queen.

Despite the leap between Guinevere in Excalibur and First Knight, the most unusual Guinevere appears in the presentation by Keira Knightley in King Arthur.

Knightley’s Guinevere is unusual at first because she is not aristocratic or of a similar position as Arthur; however, she is a daughter of Merlin, a “princess” of the Picts. She

49 is not a typical object of the male gaze, even though it might seem so at first, since she is saved by the main male character from another man who treated her as his property.

Nonetheless, as soon as her wounds are healed, she reverses the traditional male and female roles, for example the role of the protector. She is a skilled warrior rather than a representation of the archetypal elegant and modest lady of the high court. Virginia

Blanton even suggests that “the juxtaposition of images, the cunning Jezebel, the ultra- feminine protector and consoler, and the masculinized woman warrior, provides

Arthurian enthusiasts with a more complex Guinevere than we have ever seen” (100).

The film King Arthur does not challenge just the traditional female role, but also the traditional male role, as can be seen in the character of , who saves a little boy and then takes care of him on the journey towards the Hadrian’s wall. In the former films, Guinevere could be expected to take care of the boy instead of one of the Knights of the Round Table being the caregiver. Knightley takes care of the boy only a few moments and Blanton argues that the filmmakers used those moments to express indications of “a non-sexualised aspect of Guinevere’s femininity … that illustrate her as soft, as more womanly” (100).

Even though the film is supposed to be cherished for its historical accuracy, the same cannot be said in the case of the depiction of Guinevere. “This Guinevere is more about contemporary fantasies of ‘girl power’ than about historical truth” (Blanton 97).

Even though Virginia Blanton does not speak about the voyeuristic features of the cinematic gaze, her arguments support the theory that the gaze is an important aspect of the interpretation of the film. Instead of the gaze, she mentions “a cultural expectation that the girl who can play soccer in the afternoon with the boys must also be heterosexual and femininely pretty so that she can be attractive to boys after the game”

(97-98). Which is figuratively the 2004 Guinevere, who fights side by side with the

50

Knights of the Round Table and together they defeat the Saxons, yet later she goes to bed with Arthur.

According to Laura Mulvey’s theory, the spectator tends to identify with the main male protagonists; yet in this case, Guinevere’s role in the film is placed side by side with the main male protagonists, suggesting that there is a possibility to identify with her. It could be suggested that there is a development from the point of view of the cinematic gaze, that there is no longer the active male and the passive female. However, there is still the question of Guinevere’s femininity. It has been discussed above that she has characteristics of a caring female and femme fatale, yet she fights with men as their equal, at one point even showing superiority in this usually male archetype of the warrior when she mocks Lancelot’s expressed concern about her at the frozen lake.

Kevin J. Harty has noted that “the film alternately masculinizes Guinevere and then emasculates her” (qtd.in Blanton 104). Such a masculinization and emasculinization is apparent from the examples discussed above, when the portrayal of

Guinevere changes various times throughout the film. She is the only character approached in this way. Neither Lancelot, Arthur, nor the other knights show any signs of feminization. Although it might have been an interesting development if Guinevere’s role stayed masculinized till the end, the contrary becomes reality. Fuqua’s original script was overall darker, the knights hated Arthur, and the film ended after the battle with just the scene of horses running on the hills (Matthews and Franzoni 118, Blanton

103). Just because the American test audiences were not happy with such an ending,

“the filmmakers opted to return to the original Franzoni wedding scene … The ending serves an important need for American audiences: it resolves the problematic depiction of Guinevere as warrior, Guinevere as equal” (Blanton 103). The audiences were

51 looking for the traditional depiction of the King and the Queen in archetypal roles, so they were not satisfied by the innovatory approach of masculinizing Guinevere.

So, even if the passive female gaze transformed into an active female gaze during the film, in the end it is again the male who has the power to influence the ongoing events.

Blanton comments:

If we read the film carefully, we see that she cannot win her battle for Britain

without Arthur, nor can she rule without him; Guinevere’s agency, then, is

completely contingent on her ability to build an alliance with Arthur and the

Roman forces. … What is more, Guinevere is given in marriage by Merlin (and

here, she seems to be possibly exchanged among men). Only when she is

married to Arthur, moreover, can she become the leader of the Picts; in effect,

she rules only because Arthur rules. (103)

Without realizing it, or at least specifying it in the text, Blanton supports the idea that even though the film challenged the traditional forms of the cinematic gaze, the test audiences refused such innovation and the filmmakers were forced to re-establish the archetypal roles. Even though Laura Mulvey published her theory twenty-nine years before King Arthur was released, the audience demanded Guinevere to be passed between two men as property.

Considering the archetypes of the king and the queen in King Arthur, one cannot say much since Arthur and Guinevere get married as the climax of the film. On the other hand, it could be suspected that there are certain elements missing in their relationship that suggest that in the hypothetical future they would portray the ideal archetype of headship. Knight notes that “both King and Queen need to be fulfilled human beings to function properly in carrying the archetypes” (188). Knight

52 further elaborates what it means for these characters to be fulfilled human beings and why they do not accomplish that state in the traditional versions of the legend: “Arthur lacked in this because of the treacherous aspirations of Morgan le Fay, and he was thus a better warrior than he was a ruler. Similarly Guenevere lacked full humanity because of Arthur’s inability to relate fully to her, but this role was performed … by Lancelot”

(188). The case of Arthur is not as clear as it could be, since there is no hint whether anyone like Morgan Le Fay would appear in the future. On the contrary, there is no possibility that Lancelot would interfere with the relationship of Arthur and Guinevere in the future, since he died in the final battle. Perhaps, a similar situation is delineated in

First Knight, just with a shift of roles between Arthur and Lancelot. Arthur dies, thus allowing Guinevere and Lancelot’s relationship to flourish. Possibly Lancelot and

Guinevere could become Gareth Knight’s rightful archetype of kinship in this film.

In conclusion, the archetypal representation of Guinevere has covered the icons such as femme fatale, the queen, or even the warrior. These archetypes which she represents in the films are slightly connected with the cinematic gaze and with the expectations of the audiences. The earlier films, Knights of the Round Table, Excalibur, and First Knight, all show a gentle and feminine Guinevere who is the femme fatale of

Arthur and Lancelot, adored by the whole court. Such a representation on the screen is criticised by Laura Mulvey in her theory of the male gaze, since Guinevere is the passive female character, while the knights and the King around her are active male characters. An interesting shift regarding this theory was brought to the silver screen by

Keira Knightley’s portrayal of Guinevere in King Arthur. This Guinevere is a mix of all the aforementioned archetypes, with one surprisingly dominating – the archetype of warrior. Knightley is the first masculinized Guinevere, daughter of Merlin, fighting side by side with the Knights of the Round Table. However, she is still forced to keep her

53 feminine characteristics and the audience even demanded a happy ending with a wedding. Therefore, it was suggested that even though there has been some development of Guinevere’s character towards a more active power in the story, the audiences preferred the standard, traditional ending, thus putting Guinevere back to the passive position.

3.2. Morgan Le Fay and the Mage

Morgan Le Fay is one of the characters which seem to be easily omitted, since just four of the seven films discussed in this thesis include the character. Knights of the

Round Table does not focus on her much; she is just at the beginning presented side by side with Modred, her champion. In contrast, Excalibur and King Arthur and the

Knights of the Round Table propose Morgana as one of the most important characters.

However, Morgana in the 2017 parody is a rather flat evil character and will not be given much space in this subchapter. On the other hand, the makers of Excalibur worked with her more. Yet there is one more character that should be included in this subchapter, and that is the Mage from King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. It could be said that, just as Prince Malagant in First Knight was a combination of several characters, the Mage is a merge of Merlin and Morgana, quite the opposite of what was the case in Excalibur.

In Excalibur, little Morgana witnesses Uther’s arrival at her mother’s chambers in place of her father and senses that something is wrong. This scene determines

Morgana’s future in the film, as she later becomes an enchantress, begging Merlin to teach her his knowledge, only to subsequently become his opponent. The rivalry of the two is not only determined by the supposed source of the film, but also by Boorman’s choosing of the actors (Nicol Williamson and Helen Mirren), since “both actors had

54 performed together in the 70’s in Shakespeare’s play and developed a deep dislike for each other. Boorman thought that this hatred would be good for the roles they played, as they are enemies in the film” (Mingo 65). It can be admitted that there is a certain chemistry between the actors on the screen. Even though the two characters are inextricably tied, there is a distinction of good and evil between them. Merlin, as discussed in one of the previous chapters, is the good old wise man archetype and, even though Morgana wants to obtain his power, she cannot possess his archetypal traits.

In contrast, Morgana is a classical representation of an archetype of a witch. The majority of her magic consists of brewing potions, and one sees her in her cave surrounded by snake skins and other possible ingredients. Morgana is also a portrayal of the female manipulator, which has been her traditional trait. Mingo elaborates that

“Boorman’s Morgana is more complex than Malory’s Morgan. … [She] is not the direct heiress of the literary counterpart, even though they share some characteristics:

Morgana hates Arthur because his father killed her father … she hates Merlin as the agent provocateur of the action” (74). The emphasized hatred of Arthur and Merlin and blaming them for the death of her father makes Morgana more understandably motivated in the eyes of a modern spectator than one of the medieval legend, where magic and unexplained events are more common (Mingo 74).

From the point of view of the cinematic gaze, her whole life has been dependent on men around her. Starting with the death of her father, Uther begetting Arthur on her mother, Merlin refusing to teach her his knowledge and, finally, her revenge depending on her son Mordred. It is not probable that any spectator would identify himself or herself with the character of the, ultimately pitiful witch Morgana.

Considering the dependence on men, one can find a contradictory case in 2017

Guy Ritchie’s Legend of the Sword. Merlin is a minor character in this film, as

55 discussed in chapter 2.3 of this thesis, but there is another magician crucial to the story.

Previous paragraphs could suggest that it might be Morgana, however, the filmmakers do not include her in the story, but they introduce a new, partially nameless character of the Mage. Partially nameless, since she belongs to the film’s people called Mages, as for example Merlin or Mordred, and no one calls he by any other name than Mage.

There is a nice referential moment when the resistance is bringing Arthur to their shelter after they saved him from the King. Arthur is talking to the Mage and makes a reference to the traditional interpretation of the magician in the legend: “Never met one of you in the flesh. I thought you’d be taller. And have a beard.” It was a traditionally male role of the old wise man who helped Arthur in the legend. Despite including such a gender shift in the position of the magician, the filmmakers did not force it as much as the emasculinization of Guinevere in King Arthur. There is no need to sexualize her position as in the case of for example Igrayne and Guinevere in Excalibur, since she is not supposed to be anyone’s love interest in the film. Therefore, there is no need to search for the femme fatale archetypal traits in her portrayal.

From the point of view of Laura Mulvey’s ideas on the male gaze, the Mage is a unique female character, since, apart from the features discussed in the previous paragraph, she is not owned by any man. The only moment when that could be suggested is the first time she appears and Bedivere realizes that she was sent by

Merlin. However, the audience knows that Merlin is probably someone who leads the resistance against Mordred’s evil, so it should not be compared with Guinevere passed by as property of men. So, she is a rather independent female character who has a great impact on the development of events of the film, respected by the others. As shown for example in a scene in the shelter, where the Mage discussed with Bedivere the necessity of throwing Arthur to the Dark lands in order for him to stop resisting the sword.

56

Bedivere does not agree, yet there is a cutscene after a long silent look of the Mage with

Bedivere saying to Arthur “Welcome to the Dark lands” on a boat.

Even though the Mage is not a pleasant, courtly, and lovable female character as used to be the style of positive female characters in the previously analysed films, she is undoubtedly not a villain in this case. Therefore, it could be suggested that there is a certain positive development in the portrayal of female characters in films with

Arthurian motifs which drift away from the traditional and stereotypical.

This chapter has introduced the theory of the male gaze, a term of feminist film theory coined by Laura Mulvey in 1975. The theory has been later approached as the cinematic gaze and the female gaze has been added. Yet, as showed in this chapter,

Mulvey’s theory is still relevant for recent Arthurian films which work with the traditional female archetypes. There are expectations which the audiences have from the

Arthurian legend and it has been discussed that in the case of King Arthur the traditional interpretation of female and male roles in the legend are preferred. Such traditional roles were illustrated on the examples of the earlier films. While in contrast, a different approach has been introduced in the form of the portrayal of the Mage in the Legend of the Sword, suggesting that the theory of expectations does not work for newly introduced characters.

57

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to analyse the development of the main characters of the Arthurian legend as they have been portrayed in films. The analysis was based on seven movies from 1953 till the most recent from 2017. The idea was to track the development and portrayal of characters that are supposed to reflect the medieval versions of the legend. Because the characters that have been parts of the legend since the beginnings, represent specific archetypes that were one of the subjects of this thesis.

There are many films based on recent literary adaptations of the legend, and such films were not considered relevant for this thesis for they could contain characters influenced by the modern authors, not only the filmmakers’ versions of the medieval characters.

The films in question are discussed in the first chapter. The reasons why they were included in the discussion are various. The earliest movies Knights of the Round

Table (1953) and Excalibur (1981) were chosen for their reinterpretation of the legend according to Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur. Even though the films are not as true to the medieval versions as were the intentions of their makers, especially in the case of Excalibur, they represent two of the earliest versions of the legend on the silver screen in colour. Further there is First Knight (1995) which functions as an example of films which take just parts of the legendary material and revolve their story around them. In this case it is the love triangle. The focus on various motifs only brings several limitations as well as it provides filmmakers with freedom as shall be summarized below. Next category of films covered suggests a different appropriation of the legend according to what the makers claim to be the true historical roots. One of the films was

King Arthur (2004) which is based on the Sarmatian theory, which says that Arthur was a Roman commander in Britain who lead a group of Sarmatian warriors. On the other

58 hand, makers of the second film in this category, Arthur & Merlin (2015), based the movie on and Celtic stories, including Myrrdin marked by the Tuatha Dé

Dannan or the beautiful Olwen. Just slightly touched was the category of films transforming the traditional medieval version of the legend into a new story. This category included a parody of modern film appropriations King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (2017) which includes a group of new knights in the twenty-first century who fight Morgana and Mordred. More importantly, Guy Ritchie’s King

Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) was introduced in this category, since it takes features of the legend but modernizes the story, making it more individualistic and focused on details.

The focus of the second chapter was on the portrayal of male characters of the legend and the archetypes which they represent or embrace. It has been shown that

Arthur traditionally stands for the archetype of the king, the strong leading figure, respected and undoubted by his followers, just at times showing any weakness, as

Arthur in Excalibur and Knights of the Round Table. Even if Arthur is not the king, he always portrays a leading figure in the film, someone who has his followers even if they are not knights. Such followers appear, for example, in Legend of the Sword in the form of Arthur’s crew.

It was a bit striking to find Arthur overshadowed by Lancelot in Knights of the

Round Table. Even though it seems not intentional from Lancelot’s part, since he keeps on expressing his loyalty to the King. Otherwise, Lancelot in the films keeps the traits of the archetype of the warrior, combined with a lover when the film includes the love story. However, with the character of Lancelot, come the first omissions of important characters of the Medieval versions of the legend. Yet, even if films omit Lancelot, they keep archetype of the warrior or fighter in other characters. Just the lover stays omitted,

59 since usually the reason for omitting Lancelot is the absence of the love triangle in the story.

Next character analysed was Mordred who stands for the archetypal villain in the legend. On the other hand, he is often substituted with some other character, as for example Prince Malagant or King Vortigern who pose the ultimate danger for Arthur.

Such substitution showed that all the films needed a villain even if it was not Mordred.

Only one of the films approached the character of Mordred differently. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (2017) is the only film where Mordred has a certain development, since he turns into one of the fighters on Arthur’s side, since he has had enough of listening to his mother’s commands.

Another archetype which has been found always present in the films, is the archetype of the old wise man. The old wise man is usually portrayed by Merlin, at the traditional versions suggest. Surprisingly, Merlin is at times omitted by the filmmakers.

However, as shown on the example of First Knight, it has been found that there is someone with the traits of the old wise man even if there is no Merlin. In this case it is

Arthur, who combines the archetypal traits of the ruler and of the old wise man, giving advice to Lancelot. A gender shift was suggested by Guy Ritchie in the embodiment of the great magician; however, rather than the Mage it is Sir Bedivere who represents the old wise man in Legend of the Sword.

Next issue addressed in this thesis is the portrayal of female characters,

Guinevere, Igrayne and Morgan Le Fay. The theory of the cinematic gaze has been implemented apart from the question of archetypes. The Queen usually portrays the chivalric archetype of a young and elegant woman who can be adored by the court.

Nonetheless, there are often indications of Guinevere being passed from man to man, be it from her father to Arthur, from Merlin to Arthur, or from Arthur to Lancelot. Laura

60

Mulvey criticizes this approach of the male gaze, where the male protagonist is dominant and active, while the female is passive. There has been some development in the theory and the female gaze has been incorporated since the approach of filmmakers has changed significantly since the beginnings of the initially feminist theory of the cinematic gaze in 1975. However, it seems not to be the case of Arthurian films, as suggested on the example of King Arthur. The filmmakers created an unusual

Guinevere, who, despite few moments of portraying a gentle woman, represents the archetype of the warrior. This Guinevere is a mix of male and female features, which suggests an innovative and open approach by the filmmakers.

Nonetheless, Guinevere in King Arthur was rejected by the test audiences, who demanded a more traditional ending. Therefore, the filmmakers changed the end of the film and added a wedding scene, where Guinevere is passed from her father to Arthur.

This suggests that despite the emancipation and feminist movements reflecting on films, the audiences still tend to prefer traditional versions of the legend. Even if the film presented an alternative version of the legend, it still had to include some typical features. A slightly different approach was chosen by the makers of King Arthur:

Legend of the Sword, who substituted the traditional role of Merlin with a female magician called the Mage. Since she is not a traditional member of the Arthurian cast, the audience does not seem to have any problem with her non-archetypal portrayal.

These findings answer one of the research questions of this thesis about the critical reception of the variations in typical portrayal of the characters.

In general, it seems that the modern tendencies of appropriating the legend have turned from adapting the whole story to concentrating only on specific features. Such shift allows the filmmakers to concentrate more on details and the mise-en-scène. As can be seen in comparison of the older films and the last year’s production of Guy

61

Ritchie; since Ritchie’s Legend of the Sword pleases the audience by the auditory and visual side more than by the portrayal of the medieval legend itself. One of the questions asked in the introduction was whether the change towards individualism and selective features of the legend influence the portrayal of the characters. This change was most influential in the case of the female characters, the mix of archetypes in the portrayal of Guinevere in King Arthur and in the Mage of Legend of the Sword. It served the purposes of the films, however, just these variations have not changed the legend itself.

Further research may be conducted on films produced in other countries than the

US and UK, together with a study of archetypal reception of other cultures, for example reception of these films in Asia.

62

Works Cited

Arthur & Merlin. Dir. Marco van Belle. Movie Works, 2015. Film.

Beatie, Bruce. “Arthurian Films and Arthurian Texts: Problems of Reception and

Comprehension.” Arthurian Interpretations, 2.2 (1988): 65-78. JSTOR. PDF

file.

Blanch, J. Robert and Julian N. Wasserman. “Fear of Flyting: The Absence of Internal

Tension in ‘Sword of the Valiant’ and ‘First Knight’.” Arthuriana, 10.4 (2000):

15-32. JSTOR. PDF file.

Blanton, Virginia. “‘Don’t worry, I won’t let them rape you’: Guinevere’s Agency in

Jetty Bruckheimer’s “King Arthur.”’ Arthuriana, 15.3 (2005): 91-111. JSTOR.

PDF file.

Bordwell, David, et al. Film Art: An Introduction. 11th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill Education, 2017. Print.

Brunel, Pierre. Companion to Literary Myths, Heroes and Archetypes. :

Routledge, 1996. Print.

Cardulo, Bert, ed. Stage and Screen: Adaptation Theory from 1916 to 2000. New York:

Continuum, 2012. Print.

“Cowboy.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 3 Apr. 2018.

Excalibur. Dir. John Boorman. Orion Pictures, 1981. Film.

First Knight. Dir. Jerry Zucker. Colombia Pictures Co., 1995. Film.

Franzoni, David, and John Matthews. “An Interview with David Franzoni.” Arthuriana,

14.3 (2004): 115-120. JSTOR. PDF file.

Harty, Kevin. “Cinema Arthuriana: A Filmography.” Quondam et Futurus, 7.3 (1987):

5-8. JSTOR. PDF file.

63

---. “Cinema Arthuriana: Translations of the Arthurian Legend to the Screen.” Arthurian

Interpretations, 2.1 (1987): 95-113. JSTOR. PDF file.

Jung, Carl Gustav. Man and His Symbols. New York: Laurel edition, 1968. Print.

King Arthur: Director’s Cut. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Touchstone Pictures, 2004. Film.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Dir. Guy Ritchie. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2017. Film.

King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Dir. Jared Cohn. Asylum, 2017. Film.

Knights of the Round Table. Dir. Richard Thrope. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1953. Film.

Knight, Gareth. The Secret Tradition in Arthurian Legend. Cheltenham: Skylight P,

2012. Google Books. Web. 24 Apr. 2018.

Lacy, J. Norris. “Arthurian Film and the Tyranny of Tradition.” Arthurian

Interpretations, 4.1 (1989): 75-85. JSTOR. PDF file.

Matthews, John. “A Knightly endeavour: The Making of Jerry Bruckheimer’s ‘King

Arthur’.” Arthuriana, 14.3 (2004): 112-115. JSTOR. PDF file.

McLuhan, Marshall, and Wilfred Watson. From Cliché to Archetype. New York:

Viking Press, 1970. Print.

Mingo, Carlos Sanz. “The Adventures of King Arthur and the Noble Knights of the

Silver Screen.” Read on Screen: Film Adaptations of Literature in English.

Klára Kolinská, Carlos Mingo, eds. Prague: Metropolitan U Prague P, 2015.

Print.

Moynihan, Martin. “The Idea of Arthur: Has it a Meaning for today’s world?”

Quondam et Futurus, 5.1 (1984): 1-8. JSTOR. PDF file.

Morawski, Jakub. “The Cinematic Gaze of the Other: How Are Images Watching

You?” The International Journal of the Image, 7.4 (2016): 35-41. EBSCOhost.

PDF file.

64

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Narrative, Apparatus,

Ideology: A Film Theory reader. Philip Rosen ed. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1986. Print.

Rutter, Virginia Beane, and Thomas Singer, ed. “Introduction.” Ancient Greece,

Modern Psyche: Archetypes Evolving.” NY: Routledge, 2015. Google Books.

Web. 24 Apr. 2018.

Taylor, Lisa. “From Psychoanalytic Feminism to Popular Feminism.” Approaches to

Popular Film. Hollows, Joanne, and Mark Jancovich eds. Manchester:

Manchester UP, 1995. Print.

65

Resumé (English)

The subject of this thesis is the representation of the most important characters of the Arthurian legend, as approached by filmmakers sin the 1950’s up till 2017. Only specific films which are not adaptations of recent novels have been chosen. The films studied are based on the medieval versions of the legend, use some of its features or suggest a different approach to the legendary story. Namely the analysed films are:

Knights of the Round Table (1953), Excalibur (1981), First Knight (1995), King Arthur

(2004), Arthur & Merlin (2015), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017), and King

Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (2017). The aims of the thesis are to track the development of the characters and to see whether there have been any specific tendencies to change the story of the legend recently.

The thesis is divided into three sections in which different aspects are discussed.

In the first section, the films chosen for the analysis are introduced one by one. The process of making the films and their specifications considering the art of film are stated and the reasons for their involvement are suggested. The second section concentrates on the analysis of the male characters of the legend, mainly King Arthur, Merlin, Lancelot and Mordred. The archetypes which they represent are discussed. The third section is devoted to the female characters and the theory of the cinematic gaze. Most of the chapter is discussed with references to Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze, which is found still relevant for the films with Arthurian motifs.

66

Resumé (Czech)

Předmětem této diplomové práce je pojetí nejdůležitějších postav legendy o

Králi Artušovi, a to v pojetí filmařů od roku 1953 do 2017. Pro analýzu byly vybrány pouze ty filmy, které nepředstavují adaptaci románů, či jiných literárních děl, vydaných v blízké minulosti. Některé zde analyzované filmy byly natočeny podle středověkých verzí legendy, jiné používají pouze některé její části nebo vznáší nový pohled na kořeny legendy. Konkrétně jsou analyzovány tyto filmy: Knights of the Round Table (1953),

Excalibur (1981), First Knight (1995), King Arthur (2004), Arthur & Merlin (2015),

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017), and King Arthur and the Knights of the

Round Table (2017). Účelem této práce je vysledovat vývoj jednotlivých postav a zjistit, zda se v posledních letech objevily pro film specifické tendence měnit příběh legendy a přístup k ní.

Práce je rozdělena do tří sekcí, z nichž probírá jiné aspekty. V první části jsou postupně představeny filmy vybrané pro analýzu společně s důvody k jejich zastoupení a poznámkami o procesu vytváření jednotlivých filmů. Druhá část práce je zaměřena na mužské postavy, hlavně na krále Artuše, Merlina, Lancelota a Mordreda. Kapitola pojednává o archetypech, které tyto postavy ztvárňují. Třetí část je věnována naopak postavám ženským a jejich interpretaci z pohledu filmové teorie Laury Mulvey.

67