Most film directors spend available time watching well regarded films made by other directors; both learning from them and, equally valuable, considering how they could have been improved. Often the director concerned develops a strong urge to re-make a film which he or she feels could have been created much more effectively. Conversely established studios may reward in-house directors for exceptionally financially successful films by providing full support to make any film of the director's choice. In this way James Cameron's success with Titanic gave him the opportunity to create Avatar, and Peter Jackson, after directing the Lord of the Rings trilogy, became able to create the 2005 version of King Kong. John Boorman had long wanted to make his own film of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, but was beaten to the post by Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated film - now overshadowed by Peter Jackson's award winning trilogy but still a remarkable film which has just earned a new lease of life as a Blueray release. Film enthusiasts must be grateful that Boorman sought the opportunity to film the Arthurian legends instead. Although never accurately dated, these relate to the period immediately following the withdrawal of Roman forces from Britain in the first half of the fifth century. In AD 379 Christianity had became the official Roman religion and these legends have it that Arthur battled to preserve both Christianity and Roman civilization from Barbarian invaders. Although his name is found in some Roman records, there is no record of his exact status, or even any convincing proof that he ever lived. Despite prolific legends, other written records all date from a much later period so historians still put them in the unproven category. Clearly all the written accounts of battles between armies of knights in the type of shining armour only developed in the twelfth century must date from this period or later and, if not fictional, can only be reporting verbal traditions. This situation is similar to that with Troy, which, until archaeologists finally unearthed the remains of the city, was long regarded as a legend to be found only in the pages of Homer's Illiad. There have been many attempts to unearth remains proving the Arthurian legends in this way, but to date nothing totally convincing has been found. Many feel that such a mass of detailed stories is unlikely to have arisen without any foundation, but as with Troy this would not confirm the individual tales which have been passed down for so many centuries. We may never know whether Achilles or Hector really existed but even if this is one day proved we will still not accept the legends linking them to the immortals of Mount Olympus. Similarly with Arthur, archaeological discoveries confirming his participation in some of his legendary battles would not even prove that he was a legitimately crowned monarch, let alone support the stories of magical interventions on his behalf by Merlin. .
Historically, Arthur is a Celtic hero and these legends appear to have emanated from the Celtic refuges in Cornwall, Wales and Brittany. This might point to a slightly later historical period when the Celts had been driven far to the west by the invading Saxons. But the legends speak of Arthur's conquests, at their peak, extending over most of Britain and parts of both France and Scandinavia so it is equally easy to understand why oral legends of past greatness would have become increasingly important a few centuries later when his people had been forced into a smaller and less hospitable area. Early written records come mainly from Wales where Geoffrey of Monmouth incorporated many of the legends into a history of the Celtic kings. These and other similar works were used by Sir Thomas Malory to create his major work -:"Le Morte d'Arthur", printed by Caxton in 1485. Prepared as eight books covering the entire life of Arthur, this was perhaps the most important work he printed. An excellent summary of the contents of each book can be found on line in Wikipedia. Four hundred years later Tennyson, using considerable poetic licence, converted them into the soaring blank verse of "Idylls of the King" which so naturally complemented Victorian concepts of Christian morality. John Boorman clearly knew and loved the works of both Malory and Tennyson. Perhaps more important this was also true of his scriptwriter Rosco Pallenberg. For them, history was uncertain, this was to be the film of a legend; and I believe they produced the most atmospheric film of legends almost lost in the mists of time ever to have been created, a film which deserves a place in any list of the hundred best films.
But both critics and the public have been split on this. This is one of the films that is either loved or hated. The problem I think was that many who saw it were expecting a fictional reconstruction of the life of the great King Arthur. This could make a good film but it should be called King Arthur, not Excalibur; and it was not Boorman's film. He did what he set out to do incredibly brilliantly and I find it hard to criticise his great work. However, disappointed with its reception, he is now in the process of filming it again with an IMDb expected release date of 2012. Boorman is a director capable of creating an even more outstanding film, but because re-makes have a history of so often falling short of the original I am writing these comments now to urge fellow film lovers to buy the DVD of the existing film before it is withdrawn and becomes a very elusive masterpiece to track down. I rate it at a rare but well deserved nine stars.
Historically, Arthur is a Celtic hero and these legends appear to have emanated from the Celtic refuges in Cornwall, Wales and Brittany. This might point to a slightly later historical period when the Celts had been driven far to the west by the invading Saxons. But the legends speak of Arthur's conquests, at their peak, extending over most of Britain and parts of both France and Scandinavia so it is equally easy to understand why oral legends of past greatness would have become increasingly important a few centuries later when his people had been forced into a smaller and less hospitable area. Early written records come mainly from Wales where Geoffrey of Monmouth incorporated many of the legends into a history of the Celtic kings. These and other similar works were used by Sir Thomas Malory to create his major work -:"Le Morte d'Arthur", printed by Caxton in 1485. Prepared as eight books covering the entire life of Arthur, this was perhaps the most important work he printed. An excellent summary of the contents of each book can be found on line in Wikipedia. Four hundred years later Tennyson, using considerable poetic licence, converted them into the soaring blank verse of "Idylls of the King" which so naturally complemented Victorian concepts of Christian morality. John Boorman clearly knew and loved the works of both Malory and Tennyson. Perhaps more important this was also true of his scriptwriter Rosco Pallenberg. For them, history was uncertain, this was to be the film of a legend; and I believe they produced the most atmospheric film of legends almost lost in the mists of time ever to have been created, a film which deserves a place in any list of the hundred best films.
But both critics and the public have been split on this. This is one of the films that is either loved or hated. The problem I think was that many who saw it were expecting a fictional reconstruction of the life of the great King Arthur. This could make a good film but it should be called King Arthur, not Excalibur; and it was not Boorman's film. He did what he set out to do incredibly brilliantly and I find it hard to criticise his great work. However, disappointed with its reception, he is now in the process of filming it again with an IMDb expected release date of 2012. Boorman is a director capable of creating an even more outstanding film, but because re-makes have a history of so often falling short of the original I am writing these comments now to urge fellow film lovers to buy the DVD of the existing film before it is withdrawn and becomes a very elusive masterpiece to track down. I rate it at a rare but well deserved nine stars.