(6) FANTASY: EXCALIBUR

(1981)

 

“Forged by a god

Foretold by a wizard

Found by a king…

Excalibur!”

 

Yes – that’s the cheesy blurb from the theatrical release poster.

Yes – the film itself can be cheesy at points, or messy, reflected by Roger Ebert calling it both a wondrous vision and a mess.

Yes – it conflates various elements of Arthurian legend, although perhaps necessarily so for adaptation to film and not unlike the adaptations made by the various texts of Arthurian legend. In particular Perceval does some heavy lifting here, conflating in his character (at least) the roles of Galahad and Bedivere in Arthurian legend. He’s not the only one – the film also conflates Morgana and Morgause.

I know all these things but I still love it anyway. I can trace my fascination for and love of Arthurian legend directly to this one film.

 

For mine is the grail quest –

round table & siege perilous

fisher king & waste land

bleeding lance & dolorous stroke

adventurous bed & questing beast

 

And most of it is here. Well, except for the questing beast. Arthur Pendragon himself, the once and future king. His flawed father Uther. The wizard Merlin, played by Nicol Williamson in arguably the film’s best performance. The Lady in the Lake. The titular Excalibur, conflated here with the sword in the stone. Queen Guinevere. The enchantress Morgan Le Fay, conflated with Morgause as the mother of usurper Mordred. The knights of the Round Table – most famously Lancelot but also Gawain and Perceval. The Holy Grail. Avalon – and so on.

That’s of course just the characters – despite its limited budget, the film’s cast is a veritable who’s who of actors who would rise to stardom. Helen Mirren. Liam Neeson. Patrick Stewart. Gabriel Byrne. Ciaran Hinds.

Then there’s its visual style and lighting, used to best effect to convey the ethereal nature of the mythic (and mystical) otherworld that overlaps with our own throughout Arthurian legend. Apparently there’s a study by Jean-Marc Elsholz that “demonstrates how closely the film Excalibur was inspired by the Arthurian romance tradition and its intersections with medieval theories of light, most particularly in the aesthetic/visual narrative of Boorman’s film” – and I’d say it shows.

And the music! It’s again used to much the same effect for the ethereal otherworld, but also for the heroic scenes of battle – I can trace my love of Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana to this film, even if I was disappointed to subsequently learn that work is essentially about drunk monks singing.

Intriguingly, the film apparently started as an unproduced adaptation of The Lord of the Rings – and it makes me wonder what director John Boorman might have done with that property. Perhaps not quite as good as the Jackson film trilogy but I’d be prepared to bet it would have been the next best thing.

As it is, the film is still the single best cinematic or screen adaptation of Arthurian legend, although Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes in a close second. Although that may also say something about the adaptability of Arthurian legend, particularly to the sensibilities of modern directors or producers of film and television – and that it takes something like lightning in a bottle for a director such as Boorman (who after all made films such as Zardoz) to make it work.

 

FANTASY OR SF?

 

Fantasy obviously. The film that is most fantasy in my top ten fantasy or SF films – not a shred of SF to be seen here.

 

HORROR

 

As with much mythology or legend, there’s elements reminiscent of horror, although perhaps less so than in the Arthurian legend from which it was adapted. .

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)