Mergana

You have watched it? She played old Briony, near the end of the movie.

sum1

I vaguely remember something like that.

Mergana

Best part of the film.

sum1

If you say so.

Mergana

Didn't you enjoy it?

sum1

I don't remember.

Mergana

Alzheimer's is a bitch.

sum1

lol I don't think you'd like my opinion on who's a bitch.

malaguetta

I wanted to re-watch Camelot before commenting on the dislike some people seem to have for it. Personally, I like it, and do find it, perhaps, the best film version of the Arthurian legends. It certainly has, in Richard Harris, the most believable Arthur. My only complaint with Harris's Arthur would be about his make-up. What was up with that blue eyeshadow? Despite the eye make-up, Harris was still a commandingly virile presence as Arthur. Vanessa Redgrave is a credible Guinevere and Franco Nero is quite good as Lancelot. I saw the movie on TV when I was a child, and was quite surprised when I read The Once and Future King to find that in the book Lancelot was ugly. In the novel Mordred is also something of populist socialist. That really doesn't come through in the movie, or the stage musical for that matter.

The big problem the film's detractors have with it is that it's not a verbatim version of the stage musical. They whine on about Richard Burton, Julie Andrews, and Robert Goulet weren't cast; instead, Jack Warner and Joshua Logan opted to stress drama over music and choice to hire for acting ability, not the ability to sing. Although, Burton wasn't much of a singer, plus he had turned down playing Arthur in the film version. Another problem some people had was that the movie stressed drama, causing five songs to be cut and comedy excised from the script in favor of developing more drama in the script. The movie is generally dismissed by fans of musical theater who basically think that the musical is one of the greatest of all musical comedies. They love Camelot for being a pretty standard book musical, full of songs and comedy.

sum1

Yes, the eyeshadow was a bit much and totally unnecessary. But I found it easy enough to ignore, thanks to Harris's performance.

Thanks for that. It sounds like people's reasons for not liking the film are stupid indeed. They should try to take it as a film on its own, rather than just a version of the musical. The film is superior to the musical.

malaguetta

Colin Farrell in talks for 'Arthur and Lancelot'
WB restarts David Dobkin pic after postponement

Colin Farrell is in talks to star in Warner Bros.' "Arthur and Lancelot."

David Dobkin is writing and directing the pic, which was expected to go into production in January but wound up postponed due to budget and other concerns. Charles Roven will produce.

At the time Kit Harington was set to play King Arthur and Joel Kinniman was on board to play Lancelot, but when Warners pulled the plug both actors fell out due to scheduling conflicts.

With Farrell the film not only looks to be up and running, but the studio now has a more recognizable star in place. Some sources said the lack of that star was part of the reason Warners was wary about moving forward in January.

Plot details are vague. Though Dobkin is known more for his comedies like "The Wedding Crashers" and "The Change-Up," insiders said this pic will be more of an action pic in in the vein of "Braveheart."

Dobkin will also produce with Roven, Richard Suckle and Lionel Wigram.

CAA-repped Farrell will be seen next in Sony's reboot of "Total Recall."


ttp://www.variety.com/article/VR1118051454.html?cmpid=RSS|News|FilmNews

sum1

Now that's good news! Colin Farrell is much better. I wonder which role he'll play? This film is looking hopeful. I hope it gets made. I wonder is Gary Oldman still planning to play Merlin?

malaguetta

I don't know about the status of Gary Oldman with this project. It would be great if they could get him for it, as he could bring a level of gravity and prestige to the movie.


. . . And now for, er, something else:

Controversial New Book Portrays King Arthur As Gay Icon

Adding fuel to the recent firestorm about gay marriage a new fantasy series, published by the indie company Mirador Publishing, threatens to overturn everything we thought we knew about England's favourite monarch, King Arthur. The Knights of Camelot series dares to challenge the almost sacred legends and asks, "Were King Arthur and his greatest knight, Lancelot lovers?"

Best Selling author Sarah Luddington is a medieval historian and martial artist, she also lives only a few sword's lengths from the mythic Isle of Avalon where Arthur and Guinevere lie buried, so she should know her subject.

But was King Arthur really gay? "After spending many years researching the works of Mallory and the French romances I realised there was a very strong sub text to the relationships between the Knights of Camelot," said Sarah. "I believe that sexuality was more fluid in those times and that is the way I've portrayed it in this series."

"It's likely that the writers of the day understood the deeper bond between these characters but the morals of the period would not allow them to be expressed. I felt it was time we looked again at the heart behind these tales."
Lancelot and the Wolf was the first in the series and was published in June 2011. It was met with instant critical acclaim. Book two, Lancelot and the Sword followed shortly after and now the third, Lancelot and The Grail has just been published completing the first part of the series.

But isn't she afraid of upsetting those who hold The Knights of The Round Table up as moral vanguards? "To be honest, the most vehement criticism I've received so far has been from some elements of the Gay Community who complain that Lancelot is actually bisexual rather than Gay!"

The Knights of Camelot series struggled to find a publisher at first with several of the big publishing houses clearly unwilling to risk the potential backlash. Eventually it was picked up by Mirador Publishing.

"I'd like to thank the guys at Mirador Publishing for getting behind this," said Sarah. "I realised it was a brave move for a small company and they have been fantastic."

Never one to hide from controversy, Sarah is also in danger of upsetting another group, this time the Fantasy purists. Deliberately choosing to write in a modern style and avoiding the traditional High Fantasy language is sure to alienate many genre fans.

"The tales of Camelot were written in the language of the times," Sarah explains. "I am just doing the same. The bastardised Shakespearian that fills many fantasy novels was never actually spoken. The common man of the era spoke Anglo Saxon and the nobility mostly medieval French."

The Knights of Camelot series is available now in both paperback and all ebook formats.

Controversial New Book Portrays King Arthur As Gay Icon

sum1

Thanks for the article, Cheryl.

Of what era exactly? The nobility didn't speak French when Arthur was around and when the French Arthurian romances developed the common people spoke Middle English, not Anglo-Saxon, while in Malory's time both the common people and the nobility spoke Middle English going on Early Modern English. And in what country? That was the situation in England, but there were multiple countries where the stories developed, not just England (Germany, France and Wales, to name a few). The people weren't speaking English or Anglo-Saxon in those other countries. If she claims to be a historian she should know her subject better.

The point of using archaic language in fantasy is not to use language as it was spoken, but rather to give a feel of the setting not being the modern world. I fear she may have failed in that. A lot of modern fantasy works are written in modern langauge and it doesn't always work so well. Ursula LeGuin has something to say about that in her book The Language of the Night. A work doesn't have to be written in Shakespearean English to be not entirely modern in language. Tolkien's works are a good example.

There was a subtextual gay relationship between Lancelot and Galehaut in the French romances, but I think it's stretching it to see one between Arthur and Lancelot. Friendship between men was seen differently in earlier times and can be read mistakenly as gay subtext when seen through modern eyes, though there were of course times when homosexuality was really involved. People see gay subtext everywhere these days. Sometimes it's real and sometimes it's not. Of course, there are different Arthurian works and they don't all portray the characters the same way. Also, a gay relationship between Arthur and Lancelot isn't especially original. It's been done before in fantasy fiction.

What does she mean by that? Does she mean she made Lancelot bisexual and some in the gay community wanted him gay? Or does she mean she made him gay and they wanted him bisexual? I would assume the former, but she doesn't make it clear.

On a final note, do we really need another book series focusing on Lancelot?

sum1

Anybody want to discusss this any further?