|
Star-cross'd lovers? Ends in tears? It's clear that Tristan & Isolde is trying to tap into the teen market that swooned over Romeo + Juliet. But why aren't there more films based on Arthurian legends? Knights, damsels and questing beasts should have added up to a major cinematic genre, a repository of heroic myth to rival the Western, and there has long been a ready-made audience of Enya fans willing to embrace anything that's even remotely Merlin-related.
Predictably, movies such as Knights of the Round Table (Ava Gardner in pointy hat), Camelot (all-singing, all-soporific) and First Knight (entire army disguised as flock of sheep) concentrate on the tabloid-style love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, though I've always thought this the dullest part of the canon. I'm still waiting for films about the Siege Perilous, the Dolorous
|
|
  |
 |
|
 |
|
anne billson hopes Tristan & Isolde will usher in a new age of cinematic chivalry |
|
|
|
Stroke and lesser-known knights such as Sir Geraint, tricked into decapitating his own sister.
King Arthur was a plodding attempt at demystification in which the truth behind the legend turns out to be Keira Knightley in a Dark Age bikini. But it's more fun when there's magic involved, such as the cracking wizard duel in The Sword in the Stone, or Nicol Williamson casting spells in a silly accent in the maddening yet intermittently fabulous Excalibur - second-best Arthur movie ever made, and especially memorable for the bit where Uther Pendragon has sex without removing his armour.
And the best Arthur film? It has to be Robert Bresson's Lancelot du Lac (1974). No, I'm kidding, I prefer a film that brilliantly captures the spirit of an ancient land steeped in enchantment. Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no contest. 
FIRST POSTED APRIL 20, 2006
Film Three View: American Dreamz
Last week: American Film
|
