"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword", a film by cult British director Guy Ritchie, rethought the legend of King Arthur. Hooligan humor, martial arts, and a modern, dynamic installation appeared in the picture, but knights, swords and sorcerers remained.
What changed:
Arthur himself
This is the main innovation of Guy Ritchie. His idea is that the king in arturovskih screen versions always turned out too blissful, perfect, and as a result a pale character. Here he became a big-bouncer, raised without parents by compassionate prostitutes and working in a medieval brothel. He is an egoist and a loner, who thinks more about profit than morality. He has no messianic ambitions. At least at first.
The role of Arthur is taken by the British artist Charlie Hunnam, best known to the public for his courageous characters in "Pacific Rim" and "Sons of Anarchy". In addition, another picture featuring Hunnam - "The Lost City of Z".
Power Fight
In all versions of the legend, King Arthur comes to power as a result of anarchy established in Britain in the absence of the legitimate heir to the throne. Guy Ritchie made him the leader of the opposition, which is fighting the tyranny of the dictator who seized power. For at least half of the film, Arthur and his accomplices are more like not the future king with the faithful knights, but Robin Hood and his shooters (they use their bows very actively). Yes, and are based in the forest, though not Sherwood.
The main villain
The legendary Vortigern king, they say, was ruled by Britain after the Roman legions left it. According to one version, he was the granduncle of the future King Arthur. In addition, at Guy Ritchie he became just an uncle, a treacherous younger brother of the legitimate ruler, a kind of John Lackland - a usurper and a scoundrel. For this role, Ritchie took his pet Jude Law, with whom he fruitfully collaborated in two episodes of his "Sherlock Holmes". Well, the villain from Jude Law turned out to be impressive.
London
Guy Ritchie would not have been himself if he had not transferred the action to his beloved London, sung by him in so many films. Before us, in essence, is the same city: a disorderly, dirty, vital metropolis, where opposites collide, and everyday horrors do not interfere with miracles. The central conflict of the film is between the imperious feudal Vortigern and the democratic townsman Arthur, who does not recognize any authority.
Multiculturalism
London would not have been without Londoners, and Ritchie knows how they should look. A motley company rallies around Arthur. In addition, if someone is called Bedivere, Tristan or Percival, then why are such names bad for clear (perhaps black) kids from the outskirts? Without Asiatic, who teaches them all kung fu, also not done. On the other hand, several Vikings were invited. What fun without the Vikings.
What has left almost the same:
Camelot
The castle is quite spectacular. Nearby, for some reason, the Dark Tower has grown - either a quote from Stephen King, or a Hi from Sauron from "The Lord of the Rings". Still, Guy Ritchie filmed fantasy.
Magic
The world of "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" would only have won if it had gained a naturalistic outline in the spirit of the early Ritchie films. However, the director (or his producers?) Could not or did not want to do without the ancient curses and prophecies. Something they did well: for example, the three prophetess with tentacles patronizing Vortigern are pure witches from "Macbeth." In addition, something with regret makes you recall the "Game of Thrones", where the same tasks were solved not as an example more elegantly.
By the way, there was no Merlin. Rather, he seems to be there, but this is not Merlin - the usual gray-bearded sage magician, who rescues Arthur as a baby, brings up a boy, then brings him to power, and later directs his actions as a faithful adviser. Instead, the young beauty of mysterious origin, no less possessing magic. Suppose by the name of Guinevere (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, a mermaid from "Pirates of the Caribbean"). Not a bad replacement.
Sword in stone
Excalibur is not only in the title of the film, it is really in the center of events - and this is not just a symbolic sign of royal power, but also a magical artifact. Also curious (but causes a number of technical questions) is the new version of the origin of the stone, in which the cherished sword is thrust.
Uther Pendragon
Here Arthur's father is here - quite canonical, noble and angry king, dying in the fight against the rebels. Deliberately confusing the chronology of the Arthur cycle, Guy Ritchie forced him to fight with Mordred (in fact, he was Arthur's nephew). The role of Uther was invited to Eric Bana.
Round table
Very funny: when in the final Arthur, by this time already the king, is making the famous table with his own hands, his knights cannot understand what kind of a round thing it is. In addition, the truth is not very clear what she does in such a film. Probably made for a sequel.
The illustrations are used in agreement with the Depositphotos photobank
Liked the article? Please click here for follow and don't forget to Upvote...