A magic sword, a king rising to his throne, and a wizard back on his bullshit.
Honestly, isn't that just the quintessential Sword and Sorcery flick right there?
Excalibur is a product of the 1980's. I say this without it being a mockery this time. Arthurian lore deserves as much credit for the medieval fantasy genre as the likes of Tolkien, and this film is basically a gigantic reminder of that fact. What better way to drive the point home than to open with knights in battle against one another with a wizard looking over it all?
Merlin (Nicol Williamson - who you might remember as one of the priests from Exorcist III) oversees a battle that Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Bryne - yes, that one) is participating in. Merlin has promised him a sword, but only if he uses it to heal, not to hack. Merlin does indeed retrieve the sword, Excalibur, and Uther uses it to form an alliance with the Duke of Cornwall (Corin Redgrave). Then, because Uther is Uther, he requires help in seducing the wife of the Duke (Katrine Boorman, daughter of co-writer and director of the film John Boorman).
Classy!
Granted, she does an extended dance sequence that feels more in place in something set in Arabia than in whatevereth century England, but you'd expect he'd have. . .nah, I'm just kidding, I know enough of Arthurian lore to know it's hilariously accurate.
Merlin agrees to this because the plot needs to happen and a bit of magic lets him take on the Duke's appearance - Merlin's only caveat being that any child born of Uther's bangaranging with her will belong to him. He agrees because he must tap ye olde ass and following a smoke machine and a jump cut, Uther takes on the appearance of the Duke of Cornwall.
As Uther rapes the Duke's wife, the truth of him is seen by the Duke's daughter Morgana (who grows up to be Helen Mirren), something that I'm certain will bring only good to the life of Uther's son. It's also an incredibly uncomfortable scene beyond just that, with the Duke's wife making what are most definitely not sex noises in front of a roaring fire while the Duke bleeds to death out on the battlefield.
Again, classy!
Like the weasel he is, though, Uther tries to welch on his deal with Merlin. Merlin, being a wizard, takes the child and Uther gets his just deserts at the end of the blades of Cornwall's knights. He throws Excalibur into a stone, declaring that only he shall be king. Merlin retorts by declaring that whoever can draw the sword from the stone can be king. I don't know about you, but my money is definitely on that Arthur kid that Merlin's carrying around.
Arthur (Nigel Terry) grows up to be a 35 year old man that John Boorman really wants you to believe is a teenager...and yeah, we're basically getting the story of Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory.
There are the iconic moments throughout - Arthur pulling Excalibur by mistake when needing a replacement for his adoptive brother Kay, the wedding of Arthur and Guinevere, the founding of the Knights of the Round Table and the quest for the Holy Grail, Lancelot's betrayal and later redemption, Arthur being tricked by Morgana to conceive Mordred, etc.
Are all of these accurate to the original lore? No. Does that matter? No.
Why? Because said stories are well-told.
Let me get this out of the way immediately - Nicol Williamson absolutely slays it as Merlin. Honestly, I put him right up there with Sam Neill in terms of effectiveness as a live-action portrayal. His scene in the forest with Arthur, after Arthur first draws the sword, by his voice alone he convinces you that he's a wizard while also making the lack of special effects to render the dragon seem like the most natural thing.
Dragons are part of everything in existence, right? That's totally how they work.
As much as I raise a brow at the casting of a 35 year old man as a teenager, Nigel Terry does such a good job that if I didn't know that fact from doing research for this film, I might have had no real idea. Unlike his father, having an inability to be discriminatory with who he dipped his wick into, Arthur is courageous, but smart enough to know that he knows next to nothing about being a king and is willing to learn, rather than Uther who even Merlin admits was a good night but far too rash to be a good king.
Also, the whole rape thing docks him a few thousand points, but anyway.
Yes, I'm sure you're wondering why I'm harping on this point. I'm actually not besides finding it unpleasant in general. However, unlike let's say Deathstalker, the rape was 1) in service of the plot/comes from the original lore (also, Excalibur actually has a plot, unlike Deathstalker), 2) Uther got exactly what he deserved for it, and 3) Merlin gives Arthur the medieval equivalent of "OH HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO!" when he tries to pull that same crap to get with Guinevere shortly after becoming King.
As much as I can rib on the special effects they are, for the time at least, really good. Yes, even the smoke machine dragon. The glowing green effect that Excalibur has in certain scenes when it's power is called upon is really cool. I even like Merlin's flamethrower staff that you definitely can't see the feed tubes snaking offscreen between Arthur's knights that are conveniently circled around him in one scene. Given that most of the $11 million budget most likely went into the costuming and weaponry used (all of which looks like authentic medieval kit to me, for all that I know about it), I'm more than willing to let it slide.
Yes, even Mordred's golden armor with the literal helmet hair.
Roger Ebert described the film as "arbitrary, inconsistent, shadowy figures who are not heroes but simply giants run amok", but even he said it was "wonderful to look at", and I have to agree with him on the second point and even on the first point, but not for the reason he probably thought. It is indeed wonderful to look at. The entire affair is very well designed and presented, from the armor of the knights to the robes of Merlin and Morgana to the locations where the production was shot out - several places on location in Ireland. They were going with 100% almost authenticity - in that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which also has England as part of its membership.
Whoops!
My jab earlier about the costuming is accurate - it's supposed to be anachronistic. John Boorman himself said during production that he was going for mythical truth, rather than historical truth. Considering that Arthurian myth is just that - myth - I'd consider that a nobel aspiration and I would say that he succeeded in that admirably. It's also mythically long - almost two and a half hours in length as opposed to the usual ninety minutes or even less that most of the flicks of this kind have.
Excalibur is a classic of the genre - an epic adventure in both presentation and in scale. We see Arthurian myth in a way that has never been seen before and has rarely been come close to being matched ever again. This is the genre at its height in the 1980's, some of the best it had to offer. Honestly, it's probably the best film I've reviewed in Sword and Sorcery 2020.
No, I'm not joking. I absolutely love it.
No performance is too over the top. Nothing to really harp on that's hokey or ridiculous despite all my ribbing. The production design is exquisite. Even the music that isn't stolen from Richard Wagner is great. Done by Trevor Jones, who would go on to score The Dark Crystal and From Hell, the score is definitely a cut above the rest in terms of setting the right mood and feel for the triumphs and toils of Arthur and his knights.
There's really nothing more that I can say about it without feeling like I'm getting into a gigantic ramble, which I already feel like I'm doing upon looking over this review again. Worst of all, I still don't feel like I'm doing it justice. It's just too good for words and a fantastic film both in spite of and because of its subject matter. Go watch it, right now. It's worth it, I promise!
Excalibur is brought to us by Orion Pictures and Warner Brothers.
For the latest from the MadCapMunchkin, be sure to follow him on Twitter @MadCapMunchkin.
No comments:
Post a Comment