Subject: Retrospective: Excalibur (1980)

From: Ted Prigge <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 1997 04:27:14 GMT

EXCALIBUR (1980)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1997 Ted Prigge

Director: John Boorman
Writer
Starring: Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Cheri Lungi,
Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne

In most films, the Knights of the Round Table are mainly seen as always
getting along, always trying to do right, and then having tragedy strike
in an almost obvious sense.  It's almost corny.  But with John Boorman's
("Deliverance") adaptation, the tales take a kind of multi-layered,
almost deep, if not sometimes too surreal, stance on the classic, which
was made around the time when making graphic movies was still considered
"inovative."

We all know about King Arthur (Nigel Terry) and the Knights.  We know
all about Merlin (Nicol Williamson) and his bizarre wizardry.  We also
know about how the best knight, Sir Lancelot, fell in love with the
Queen, Guinevere (Cheri Lungi), bringing down the whole establishment
known as Camelot.  And, mostly thanks to Monty Python, we all know about
the quest for the Holy Grail.  This film also covers the early days of
Arhur, including his father, Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne), but it
covers it with a kind of original atmosphere, which isn't as fun as the
other films, but in many ways, more rewarding.

The film goes in chronological order, starting with his father's lust
for his enemy's wife, who thinks is sexy (questionable).  With the help
of Merlin, in a twisted Rumpelstilskin type pact, the result of their
one night is their child, who turns out to be Arthur.  Of course, then
there's the eponomysly named sword, which Merlin gets from the Lady of
the Lake in the beginning, and which, before Uther's brutal death, he
drives into the stone (much like that Disney flick).

The film then zips up to Arthur's adolescence, where, at a jousting
competition where he's his brother's squire (or so he thinks...), he
accidentally removes the sword from the stone, meets Merlin, and
eventually gains not only an army of Knights (soon to be of the Round
Table), but the love of Guinevere, daughter of one of his Knights
(played by a very pre-Picard Patrick Stewart).

But something something rots in the state of Camelot once Arthur
befriends Sir Lancelot, a french knight (with no accent), who just rocks
at everything, and soon takes quite a liking to Guinivere, who soon
begins to return the favor.  Meanwhile, Arthur's half-sister, the
magician Morganna (Helen Mirren, with blond hair), comes out of nowhere,
and begins touching Merlin's other side which he turns from the rest of
the world.

Soon, everything's topsy-turvy, Guinivere is sleeping with Lancelot,
Merlin has disappeared, and Morganna tricks Arthur into this disgusting
incestual sex scene where she conceives their child (yuck), who turns
out to be this little blond bastard named Mordred (who is born in the
second most disgusting birth scene, behind that one commercial in
"Boomerang") who has a sadistic additude.  As Arthur sits in his castle,
mourning his life, he sends them out on the quest for the Holy Grail to
restore the kingdom, which in turn brings about the final confrontation
between Mordred and his father.

The film is kind of simple in its plotting, but what's cool is the
design.  The film is never bright, even if in another film we'd be
seeing it as happy since everything's supposed to Camelot-brand
wonderful.  Merlin says at one point that evil is always present because
otherwise there'd be no good.  John Boorman knows that there's darkness
lying within, that even while all the knights are happy, there's
something horrible lurking within that could tear down the whole system.

We also get several original ideas with the story.  One, which I still
don't understand, is the concept of the "Dragon," which is a magical
thing Merlin conjures up sporadically.  Also, in respect to this and the
style, Merlin is given an original look.  Instead of the long-bearded,
slightly incompetent old man from Disney's "Sword in the Stone," we get
a kind of ominous and respectable man in a long black cape and with an
interesting silver plate on his head.  The film also spews out
intellectual lines like it was some daily calendar with an intellectual
phrase each and every day.

Merlin is the most interesting of all the characters, as he is almost
the center-point of the film, even if he's taken out halfway through. 
He's a symbol of the last instance of purity in the world, as he says,
in a world where men have overcome their gods.  When he disappears,
everything goes to hell, and the men try desperately to find some piece
of purity (i.e. the Holy Grail).  Arthur is also interesting, as a man
who's in love with Guinivere (or at least thinks he is), and is
shattered when she strays, since she only loves him as a king, not as a
man.  And Morganna's an almost dual-identity, or just a really cool
femme fatale.  She sneaks into the court, seduces the only last god
(Merlin), and then ditches him in a stream of vengeance.

The film is deep in its respect to that of Camelot, the mystery of
Merlin and Morganna, the lust/love of Uther and Arthur, the adultery of
Guinevere with Lancelot, and, of course, that of Excalibur, which is a
symbol of purity.

That and all, this film is still kind of hokey.  The dialogue is almost
mechanical most of the time, and a lot of the actors are not
exactly...good.  Granted, the performances by Nicol Williamson as the
bizarre Merlin, who gives him a bit of humanity towards his waning; and
that of Helen Mirren, as the equally bizarre Morganna, are great.  And
you get to see some cool performances from future stars Liam Neeson,
Gabriel Byrne, and Patrick Stewart.

But Nigel Terry as Arthur is simply not very good.  He talks very fast,
and sometimes seems to be a star in an Ed Wood film.  He's just not up
to the task of performing one of the most enigmatic characters in all of
folklore, although he's very good after he discovers Guinivere and
Lancelot.  But perhaps it was just the gray hairs.  And a lot of the
supporting characters are just kind of...crap.

The film is also very graphically violent (this isn't a negative
thing).  We get to see a lot of carnage, blood, nudity, and a bunch of
other stuff you wouldn't expect in an Arthurian tale.  I mean, apart
from the child birth scene (and the incest scene), there's a scene where
a bird pulls an eyeball from a corpses's socket.

Still, the film is a very excellently made film, with a great
surrealistic style that is not usually akin to this legend.  The choice
of music is also pretty fab, with "O Fortuna" from Orff's "Carmina
Burana" used a couple times to wonderful effects, and a great tune by
Wagner used in the titles and some other places.

"Excalibur" is a pretty underrated film.  I mean, yes, it's pretty hokey
in a lot of places, but with its cool style, great scenes, gorgeous
cinematography, and the overall deepness it applies to the classic, this
a very, very good film.

MY RATING (out of 4): ***

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/