Dev Patel and David Lowery give Arthurian legend a new tint of A24 dread in The Green Knight
The director of A Ghost Story turns the English-lit classic into a spectacular mood piece
Film Reviews David Lowery
Rich with atmosphere and metaphor, propelled by a soundtrack of hollow strums and whispering strings, David Lowery’s The Green Knight is a kind of artisanal fantasy epic, whittling Arthurian legend into the rough shape of one of distributor A24’s arty horror mood pieces. Over two-plus hours, the film never stops dazzling the viewer with mythic imagery. During one interlude, which may be real or a vision brought on by mushrooms (the whole movie has the vibe of a psychotropic trip), pale, naked giants of almost extraterrestrial wonder lumber across the landscape. They’re amazing, in their scale and otherworldliness. Yet so is just about everything captured by Andrew Droz Palermo’s camera, affording the natural world of this medieval setting the same storybook awe framing its supernatural intrusions.
Among the film’s most remarkable attractions is its title one, who arrives like a weed bursting from cracked tile, bringing a primordial Earth-god power through the gates of Camelot. Lowery first exercises his creative liberty in the transformation of this villain of classic literature into a menace of vegetative viridescence, with a face as rough as bark and an axe that sprouts flowers when laid in the dirt. He looks fearsome, and sounds even scarier, limbs creaking and groaning with every movement, as though they were the branches of an ancient oak swayed by high winds. Brought to life with help from Peter Jackson’s Weta effects house, the Knight is a creature of uncommon tactility; you feel like you could reach out and run a hand across his corklike skin. Even the film’s digital wizardry has a handmade quality.
On paper, the Knight was green only in hue. That’s how the author, unknown to this day, described the towering challenger of his Sir Gawain And The Green Knight, and how everyone from J.R.R. Tolkien to Simon Arbitage have described him too, when translating the 14th-century poem from Middle English into modern verse. What did he represent? Whole college curriculums have been filled with theories on the matter. A staple of academic study, Sir Gawain And The Green Knight has inspired endless interpretations and thematic readings over the ages. It’s also spawned stage productions, operas, and two prior cinematic adaptations (both written and directed by Stephen Weeks, neither well remembered nor well regarded). Lowery seems drawn to the story mainly as a symbolic text. He revels in its mysteries and ambiguities and internal conflicts, like the collision of an older natural world (represented by the Knight) with the new one of the New Testament.
In shortening the title, Lowery lends it a dual meaning: The other “green” knight here is Gawain himself, played by reigning authority on plucky young strivers Dev Patel. Introduced waking in a whorehouse on Christmas morning, his Gawain is a shiftless teenage libertine caught between the implicitly pagan values of his mother (Sarita Choudhury, doing a revisionist take on the enchantress Morgan le Fay) and the explicitly Christian values of his uncle (Sean Harris, as the film’s aged, thoughtful King Arthur). It’s the young man’s insecurity about his own lack of accomplishments that inspires him to accept the challenge of the Green Knight, landing a blow that the hulking visitor will return in kind one year later. When Gawain ends up decapitating the knight, who gallops off with his own cackling noggin under one arm like the Headless Horseman, the gravity of the quid pro quo begins to sink in.
The following Christmas, Gawain nervously sets out on a journey to find his mysterious sparring partner and uphold his end of the bargain. Like its source material, The Green Knight has an episodic structure, but most of the episodes don’t resolve in simple or reductively instructive ways. An encounter with a deceptive thief (Barry Keoghan) on a body-strewn battlefield, for example, offers no “satisfying” closure, only the shame of defeat. Later, Gawain’s journey brings him to a castle and a hospitable host (Joel Edgerton)—one of the more significant chapters from the original text. The Green Knight complicates it, however, by casting Alicia Vikander in a dual role as both the stranger’s flirtatious wife and Gawain’s sweetheart back in Camelot. The addition of a romance in the modern sense of the word to this classic chivalric romance hints at the film’s priorities as a kind of coming-of-age story for a feckless scion. It also intrinsically ties his grasp for honor, the driving motive of the young man’s quest, to his relationship with the kind of character who rarely makes the final draft of stories bound for the libraries of history.
Legends have always been of paramount interest to Lowery, who mounted an extended tribute to a one-man Hollywood history in his last film, The Old Man And The Gun, and reached for eternity itself in his eccentric A Ghost Story. Here, the Texas writer-director revels in the opportunity to create image after image worthy of immortalization: The Green Knight is his most purely striking achievement, offering sprawling forests bathed in ghostly orange light and overhead shots that suggest the surveying eye of a curious god. Lowery shot much of the film in County Wicklow in Ireland, with scenes in a castle previously glimpsed in John Boorman’s take on Arthurian legend, Excalibur, and in another tale of a young man fumbling his way forward, Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon. Lowery, never shy about wearing influences on his sleeve, borrows a little from both, while nodding also to the controversial revisionism of Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation Of Christ and to the allegorical dread (and talking fox!) of Lars von Trier’s Antichrist.
This is, in the end, a spectacle of contradictions: as grandiose as the canon of tales to which it belongs but also oddly intimate in focus, with a modern psychology that clashes productively with its squalid evocation of the far bygone yesteryear. Ultimately, the film’s commitment to a sustained note of woozy, remote astonishment begins to wear a little thin; one could not be blamed for desiring an Arthurian adventure that didn’t unfold in such an unbroken state of art-movie portentousness. But though Lowery resists committing to any one popular take on this anonymously penned cornerstone of world literature, instead riffing on its key motifs (that green girdle) and the centuries of discussion they’ve provoked, he does ultimately locate a relatable subversion of legend in his depiction of Gawain as a young man wrestling mightily with the consequences and responsibilities of delayed manhood. The film opens, elegantly and significantly, with a house on fire in the distance, then pulls back in the same shot, through a doorway, to find Patel slumbering in close-up, asleep while the world literally burns. Watching him finally wake up is the payoff waiting at the end of The Green Knight’s long road.
243 Comments
I hope the movie has the time to explain why strange women lying in ponds and distributing sword is not the basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power comes from the mandate of the masses; not some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t just expect to weird supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint threw a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
I just hope they secretly resurrected Sean Connery so he can secretly play the Green Knight
Because there can be only one?
I mean, the way he probably looks now they’d save a fortune on the green makeup.
I would like to argue against this based entirely on the fact that swords are cool and if a naked lady in a lake throws a sword at you then you have an obligation to tell everyone about it.
With that kind of endorsement, I would listen to what that person has to say.
It’s called symbojism
I’d like to argue against Laserface1242’s entire argument for its inherent misogyny.
Uh… no one said the lady was naked. That’s all you.
No one said the lady was naked. That’s all you.
Telling people they live in a democracy and then selecting leaders by a minority vote also seems like a terrible system of governing.
Honestly, after the last ~5 years, I’m not at all sure that a strange woman lying in a pond distributing a sword would be worse than what we have now. Who knows what factors she takes into consideration? She may be picking the best person for the job.
Arthur was not the best person for the job.
Did he bring aquaducts, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, sanitation and public health?
Bloody peasant!(I do find it remarkable how Monty Python’s obvious right-wing beliefs were never questioned at the time given that scene is more mocking lefties and the entirety of Life of Brian is a mocking of the left and surprisingly pro-Empire)
I always thought of Python as an equal opportunity offender, as their many many skits on the rich and powerful clearly show.I mean, upper class Twit alone…
Except go back and look at while the “upper classes” are mocked slightly for being pompous by the time they were doing the films the left is always depicted as thick as shit, unclean, and being incapable of even the most basic tasks.
but that’s true in most cases tho 😉
Right wing? WTF? You’ve extrapolated from the People’s Front of Judea sketch as proof that they’re right wing? It’s a dead-on joke about the European far left who really do have a hilarious history of party splits over ideology. Your ‘pro-Empire’ movie involves the Romans crucifying our hero!
I find it hilarious that Americans are mocking Brits – or anyone else – for not doing leftism correctly. Next they’ll be paying out Europeans for their poor health care or violence in schools.Since there’s no practical leftist political force in America, they’re not familiar with rampant, self-defeating Balkanisation that leftist groups tend to undergo – so they assume everyone approaches it the same they approach politics, which is basically treat the parties as football teams you simply use as a sort of loose piece of social jewellery, not as a genuine political force. Christ, in Australia, in my protest days, I remember the groups that used to rock up, and that “SPLITTERS!!!!” joke is indeed sniper-accurate. The Anarchists staring daggers at the Socialists, the Socialists glaring at the Communists, the Communists glaring at the Asexual Radical Lesbian Separatists, the Asexual Radical Lesbian Separatists bitching about the Trade Unionists, the Trade Unionists spitting at the Greens, the Greens seething at the Anarchists…and me fucking thinking “Hang on. Aren’t we all here for the same fucking reason?”
You’ve got it exactly. ‘Splitters’ is a real aspect of far left political parties and it was an obvious target for the Pythons. But zealots at either end of the political spectrum have no sense of humor. The Pythons took the piss out of everything. But when you demand ideological purity you just can’t tolerate ‘your side’ getting laughed at, even if just the nuttier fringe of your side.
The Pythons took the piss out of everything. But when you demand ideological purity you just can’t tolerate ‘your side’ getting laughed at, even if just the nuttier fringe of your side. Except it’s noting how they took the piss out of one side far more and to a much harsher degree. It’s not exactly fair treatment where one is given a slap on the wrist and the other treated as a serial criminal is it?Didn’t say it wasn’t a funny film, just that it’s clear even back then many of the Pythons were rather right-wing (that aspect of their beliefs having become extremely clear the last few years as two of them in particular do nothing but whinge about “political correctness” and transpeople) and I found it surprising how that’s never really been noted over the years in regards to the contents of the film, instead it was largely banned here for being “Blasphemous”.Meanwhile the other contemporary comedy film series, Carry On, saw mass public boycott for their film Carry On At Your Convenience when the otherwise solidly left-wing politically series had a film mocking trade unionists as lazy.
“Carry On” was “solidly left-wing”? I think I’d like to see evidence of that. Likewise I’m not convinced that noted LibDem supporter John Cleese’s views on political correctness really justify classing Python as right-wing.
“Carry On” was “solidly left-wing”? I think I’d like to see evidence of that.Their films typically focused entirely on people in authority not having earnt it and being completely incompetent while it’s the trade union/old left working-class characters who are depicted as being the brains of the bunch. Many of them do however also include the xenophobia/racism of the day too though which was also seen on the left at the time.Just compare and contrast say Up The Khyber with Life of Brian where the former sees the rulers the focus of the show being depicted as out of touch, incompetent, uncaring of their own subjects, and only interested in maintaining their “cushy job” while the latter puts far more focus on how dirty, thick, and ungrateful the common subjects are of enlightened rule. I’m not convinced that noted LibDem supporter John Cleese’s views on political correctness really justify classing Python as right-wing.John Cleese literally talked about how London isn’t “English” anymore. Sorry to burst your bubble but the guy’s a xenophobic brexiteer mate, quite a few former LibDems have turned out to be that way (https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/may/29/john-cleese-criticised-for-saying-london-is-no-longer-an-english-city). Terry Gilliam also has a real problem with transpeople and women reporting sexual abuse in Hollywood (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/monty-pythons-terry-gilliam-im-tired-as-a-white-male-of-being-blamed-for-everything-135104842.html?guccounter=1)
Terry Gilliam being (checks notes) American, Chief.
Again, I point to multiple Python sketches, The Meaning of Life (I think the pirate opening can give you an idea of how they felt about Wall Street) and multiple other posts by Cleese et all that are clearly fairly liberal.
You’re trying to make it sound as if they’re the equivalent of a Fox News movie, and it’s a bit ridiculous. Why, maybe even silly…
The Meaning of Life (I think the pirate opening can give you an idea of how they felt about Wall Street)It’s almost like in the UK culture there are different areas of the right and one of the biggest disagreements for a long-time was between Thatcher’s beliefs of extreme free market enterprise and those who wanted to keep social and economic traditionalism but abolish the “nanny state” of post-War Labour.The “liberals” of the day in the UK were centred around what was then the “Alliance” between the Liberal Party, which was still rather wedded to the expected social order but more generously paternalistic, and the SDP, a faction who split from the Labour Party over disputes with then leader Michael Foot and were particularly hostile to trade unionism. You’re trying to make it sound as if they’re the equivalent of a Fox News movieIf you think noting that their beliefs and content was somewhat right-wing and it being funny how that was never really talked about at the time but only their blasphemy was is saying they’re Tucker Carlson then you’re the one who’s a bit off his rocker I’m afraid. Terry Gilliam being (checks notes) American, ChiefWell your notes are 15 years out of date “chief” given he gave up his American citizenship in 2006 and has been a British citizen since 1968.
It’s funny, my wife and I were just reminiscing the other day about that bit in The Meaning of Life where the Catholic family is living in a filthy hovel literally spouting babies on the floor and the Protestant family is a bit priggish.
Thanks “Mate” for making me realize you’re the English Recognitions. I love that you’re THIS obsessed with trying to prove guys who clearly were not hard core conservatives into them. You’re so fucking earnest it’s ridiculous.
It’s okay though: I remember freshman year in college.
“Wall Street”Now who’s being America-centric?
LOL – that’s your best take? Keep straw grasping Ace.Also, say hello to the English version of yourself. You both should converse for hours on how impeccable your views are. Although…he IS English and views it differently: why, he might think you’re not a 100 percent pure!
Oh, the horror…the horror…
Cleese is wrong on PC (I have no bubble to burst, thank you) but I still wouldn’t class him as “right wing” just a bit “small c” conservative. Likewise Gilliam (who actually went public in challenging Cleese’s views). Idle is a vocal critic of Johnson in particular, and Palin would not have been cast as the personification of the traditional British left by Alan Bleasdale in GBH if he’d been right leaning in real life.
I still wouldn’t class him as “right wing” just a bit “small c” conservative.Yeah that in the UK is right-wing.Gilliam didn’t agree with his views on Brexit but is culturally right-wing and Eric Idle doesn’t express many views beyond being pro-Scottish Independence these days which doesn’t reveal much given that’s rather unrelated to left v right and criticising Johnson doesn’t exactly say much given even many Conservatives can’t stand him if spoken to away from a recording device while Michael Palin is even more silent and prefers to stick to being a rather harmless and lovely sounding voice talking about going around on trains.All we have to go on is their body of work and frankly when it does comment on politics it tends to reflect that era’s right wing talking points far more forcefully than any other. Their most famous political sketch, Ministry of Silly Walks, is a pisstake of government overburdened bureaucracy that seemed to have a department in charge of everything and gave out grants for nothing that aired only months after Harold Wilson’s Labour government was voted out which was one that had expanded social security and state subsidies.
Terry Gilliam left the US and renounced his US citizenship because of his leftist politics.
No it wasn’t any leftist stand but the most self-interested reason many did at the time, he just didn’t want to pay tax. How do I know this? Why he said so to this very website in 2006 (https://www.avclub.com/terry-gilliam-1798210272):
You realise America’s pretty much the only country that taxes citizens that live outside its borders, right? It’s a form protectionism.The fact that you’re trying to defend that is bizarre.
In that paragraph he says he’s unhappy with what America has been recently. And in another interview he said the reason was George W. Bush.https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/kopflos-am-potsdamer-platz/683306.html
“At a press conference, Gilliam revealed that he surrendered his US passport a month ago after years of paying taxes in both countries. “The reason is the man at the top of the USA,” said Gilliam the online service of the “Stern”. But there was also a little surprise for him: For the next ten years he will only be allowed to spend 30 days a year in the USA, “less than any European”.”That’s the full translation. He didn’t like Bush for being too overtaxing…
He didn’t say anything about Bush raising taxes.
Two sources have him blaming taxes and your preferred one literally places the reason is he didn’t like how the taxes worked under “the man at the top”.
The US taxation of expatriates predates Bush. In fact it was in 2004 that the US started more harshly treating people who gave up their citizenship under the assumption it was to avoid taxes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States
And that is mentioned in the source you chose. You insisted he left as part of a leftist political protest but haven’t shown any evidence other than him saying he doesn’t like Bush (which is a hardly leftist stance).Instead he himself has said he renounced it because of tax reasons. So you seem to be insisting you know Gilliam’s reasons better than the man himself…
The Carry-On films also focus on men leering at women’s tits, and “poofs=funny”.
I think it was more likely people didn’t want a film about people installing and repairing toilets
in America, they’re not familiar with rampant, self-defeating Balkanisation that leftist groups tend to undergo HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAoh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh harder.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABut on a less laughable note, from a progressive American to an Aussie – just because our left is not effective and a small minority, doesn’t mean they’re not rampantly self-defeating, taking every opportunity to eat their own when they can.
But on a less laughable note, from a progressive American“Progressive American” is a contradiction in terms.What it really means is “White Americans who believe that everyone else on the planet, regardless of colour, creed, sexuality, gender, or anything else can (and should) act exactly like Americans”.Conservative Americans just get violent at the idea of non-whites being able to act like Americans. For instance: watch the self-immolation of the Bernie Sanders vs Elizabeth Warren camps in the 2020 Democratic primaries, instead of joining forces.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAoh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh harder.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAIt’s so cute you think that the Democracts are left wing! Look at it! It thinks it’s progressive!What’s the Democrat’s political platform again? They’re all for ramming Hellfires up the arse of brown people in the Middle East – except they believe that white women should also be allowed to do the ramming?
If you think either Sanders, or Warren (or the newer progressive members of Congress like Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, etc.) support, or otherwise are for doing anything but ending the American misadventures in the Middle East, then I don’t know what to tell you. You obviously have some deep ignorant misconceptions that you need to work out. :shrug:You seem to fall into the same trap as a lot of non-voting leftists in America, that everyone in politics in America is the same so might as well sit on the couch, bitch about everyone, and let the Republicans win.
I like how you tried to use a specifically American insult to try to insult me. Again, like I said: progressives in American seem to think that the greatest privilege of all is to let everyone be able to act like an American progressive…or be insulted like how an American progressive would hate to be insulted.Of course I’m like an American who doesn’t vote in American elections. I’m not an American citizen, you cloth-headed chucklefuck (that’s a universal insult, by the way – not Amerocentric). If you think either Sanders, or Warren (or the newer progressive members of Congress like Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, etc.) support, or otherwise are for doing anything but ending the American misadventures in the Middle East, then I don’t know what to tell you. How expensive are those guys’ ice cream freezers? See. Fatal mistake Americans always make: they assume that their ignorance of the rest of the world is somehow mirrored with the rest of the world being just as ignorant of their own. Trust me: we watch you cunts very, very, very closely.
Oh, and call me when they actually stop fucking up the Middle East.
There’s a specifically American insult in that person’s posts?
You seem to be doing great holding up great strawmen and knocking them down! So kudos, your smug flailing is going magnificently.“I like how you tried to use a specifically American insult to try to insult me.”Not just try, you are clearly off your rocker, continuing to rant away on a thread that started over 24 hours ago with me not disagreeing with you at all in spirit. I’m just amused as all hell in the original reply that you think that American leftists won’t Balkanize and eat their own just because they have a sliver of the power they think they do. But since you lack a functional sense of humor, you took the use of a Futurama Bender quote as some sort of personal attack, and you’re off to the races, because you’re a git. Not just a git, but one that’s doing their best “I’m not angry, you’re angry, I’m just disappointed” routine. “Again, like I said: progressives in American seem to think that the greatest privilege of all is to let everyone be able to act like an American progressive”For something you claim so loudly to be against, “being and acting American”, it is uproariously funny that you later use,
“How expensive are those guys’ ice cream freezers?”Which, of course, is aping verbatim an inane Republican attack on Democrats to make them seem like they’re part of some “coastal elite”, because some of them enjoy a nice ice cream. I mean, seriously, what the fuck, Cough? You’re trying to burnish your not-American leftist bonafides, and you choose to fall back on using a Republican attack that even American Republicans admitted was stupid and landed with a dull thud?
Your entire reply is full of inconsistencies like this, but I’ll save it for later, because I’m 100% sure you’ll be back. Do you know how I know? Because just like American Republicans, it eats at your very core to be shown you’re wrong. And because of that deep-seated insecurity, you will spend the rest of your eternity spinning your own reality to others trying to show that You’re Rubber, and I’m Glue.
You’ve extrapolated from the People’s Front of Judea sketch as proof that they’re right wing? There’s also the sketch where they claim their Roman masters haven’t done anything for them only to realise actually how great they are and in fact all these rebels are just entitled (trade unionists).The sketch where the rebels all kill each other over who had the idea first.The sketch where his rescue squad just kill themselves for no reason for “symbolism” rather than help.The sketch where a beggar is upset at being helped as it’s ruined his begging trade (lazy scrounger stereotype).The sketch where the masses are shown as delusional and sheep who follow anyone for no reason as a saviour rather than help themselves.Meanwhile the Romans are depicted as competent if bureaucratic and the fact they use capital punishment isn’t a negative given it’s only in the last half decade that people have stopped being a majority in favour of its reintroduction in the UK. This film was written as Thatcher was ahead in the polls and came out just after she’d won the 1979 General Election on the back of a campaign that demonised the left and the unions and Life of Brian in particular does the same.
All this is fascinating, but so blatantly viewed through a lens of the purest Americanism.Oh, and the joke about his rescue party killing themselves was because they were a suicide squad and wanted to demonstrate their abilities…which is basically that they die. The sketch where the masses are shown as delusional and sheep who follow anyone for no reason as a saviour rather than help themselves.Could be worse. They could be buffalo.
All this is fascinating, but so blatantly viewed through a lens of the purest Americanism.Except for the part where I’m British, live in Britain, and actively study British political history.
I never said you were (or weren’t) American.I said you were viewing all this through a lens of the purest Americanism.You seem to have appropriated their reading comprehension standards as well.
Not that I disagree with your knowledge (I’ve read you posts for years and always enjoyed your British politics updates even as they confounded my American senses), but I’ve seen endless cases were being [insert ethnic group/nationality/religion] doesn’t make you an expert on [insert ethnic group/nationality/religion]. Like, I know Canadians who are way more well-versed in US politics then the average American.
There’s also the sketch where they claim their Roman masters haven’t done anything for them only to realise actually how (sic) great they are and in fact all these rebels are just entitled (trade unionists).Another proud graduate of the Lindsay Graham School of Everything Favors the Right If You Watch Enough Fox News
This film was written as Thatcher was ahead in the polls and came out just after she’d won the 1979 General Election on the back of a campaign that demonised the left and the unions and Life of Brian in particular does the same.For further context, though, it was also written around about the time of the Winter of Discontent, in which those same unions had been engaging in large-scale industrial action targeting a Labour government, some of which resulted from local elements going rogue and splitting off from the larger movement, in ways that had often brought large-scale disruption to British life which coincided around one of the harshest winters in British memory. While I don’t know enough about 1970s British political and economic history to comment on whether or not all of these actions were justified or well-advised, I know enough to get the general idea that the way the union movement is treated in Life of Brian doesn’t seem to have been a wholly unfair and completely inaccurate right-wing strawman created out of nothing; it doesn’t seem as if anyone had to work overly hard to paint a picture of the contemporary British left as being fractious, uncaring and too hampered by infighting and internal tensions to focus on the bigger picture.I think you’re also perhaps overlooking the fact that Brian, our viewpoint character and easily the most sympathetic and sensible character in the movie, is consistently depicted as a supporter of Judean liberation (i.e., according to this reading, the trade union movement) and consistently argues that the various infighting factions have to put their comparatively minor differences aside to focus on the bigger threat (i.e. the Romans / Conservatives). An equally valid reading of the movie is less “lefties = absolutely wholly utterly bad with no merit whatsoever, OMG I can’t wait till Maggie gets in” and more “hey, lefties, get your shit together or the Conservatives are going to walk all over you”. Meanwhile the Romans are depicted as competent if bureaucratic“Competent if bureaucratic”? You mean the bungling, elitist, out-of-touch morons with ridiculous speech impediments who completely lack any sort of self-awareness? The people who are too stupid and cloistered in their own bubbles to realise that everyone is obviously laughing in their faces? Have to say, I think you’re skewing things to fit your reading a little bit here. The centurion and some of the soldiers might have their heads screwed on comparatively well but the Roman leadership (i.e. the Conservative Party, if we follow your own logic) don’t exactly come out of the movie looking like people you’d want to have in charge. There’s also the scene where the soldiers catch Brian writing anti-Roman propaganda and get caught up in his grammar, to the end that they pettily throw their weight around and in doing so force him to write anti-Roman propaganda over a massive wall repeatedly. The Romans might have built aquaducts, but they’re also petty authoritarians who shoot themselves in their own foot as well. The sketch where the masses are shown as delusional and sheep who follow anyone for no reason as a saviour rather than help themselves.Seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that this is attacking the trade union movement here, in a movie which is clearly largely focussed around satirising organised religion, which is a far more likely target here. This is clearly making a broader point about critical thinking in general and not deluding yourself into seeing things that aren’t there, not just “those dumb unions”. Again, I think you’re skewing things to fit your chosen reading a bit here.
While I don’t know enough about 1970s British political and economic history to comment on whether or not all of these actions were justified or well-advised, I know enough to get the general idea that the way the union movement is treated in Life of Brian doesn’t seem to have been a wholly unfair and completely inaccurate right-wing strawman created out of nothingIt was written and filmed before the Winter of Discontent however. The thing is the strikes of the time were being more and more led by working-class members who were also important to note increasingly non-white and non-male. Meanwhile here we have this film commenting on the left and trade unionism where every 5/6 of the troupe all went to Oxford or Cambridge university, the very centre of the British political establishment and the film’s mocking comes far more harshly down on that diverse working-class than it does the Roman leadership. I mean for crying out loud this is a 1979 film that managed to feature a recurring “gag” about how ridiculous the idea of being trans is. I think you’re also perhaps overlooking the fact that Brian, our viewpoint character and easily the most sympathetic and sensible character in the movie, is consistently depicted as a supporter of Judean liberation (i.e., according to this reading, the trade union movement) That’s not the reading. The reading is that Judeans (the working class) live under the rule of “The Establishment” (which isn’t simply the Conservative Party) and that the people supposedly fighting to liberate them (trade unionists) are ineffectual whingers who don’t achieve anything and even when admitting that The Establishment has done all these wonderful things for them still pointlessly has a problem with them. This is a right-wing talking point of the day and doesn’t connect with reality, during the period the film was made trade unions were at their most powerful and competent where they repeatedly won not just power for the Labour Party electorally but also through industrial action. We’re talking a time here where it was a failure to get pay rises of only 10-20%.Brian is sympathetic where he’s positioned as someone who wants to help working people but his entire arc is basically falling into a “bad crowd” of trade unionists and then dying because they fail to easily rescue him and loses his pardon because of government bureaucracy ( that last bit something that feels like it came from Terry Gilliam’s mind). “Competent if bureaucratic”? You mean the bungling, elitist, out-of-touch morons with ridiculous speech impediments who completely lack any sort of self-awareness? The people who are too stupid and cloistered in their own bubbles to realise that everyone is obviously laughing in their faces? You’ve just pointed out how the standard of mocking is a lot lesser. They have funny accents and speech patterns and the longest scene is them being too soft on crime (writing lines rather than any actual consequence in that sketch). At the end of the film they’re still shown to be in a lot more control and get things done compared to how every other target of the film is demonstrated as completely incapable of anything whatsoever. It reads like a typical aspect of UK public life where smarmy toffs are treated better for major mistakes because of their social rank compared to the general person who puts a single foot wrong.The sketch where the masses are shown as delusional and sheep who follow anyone for no reason as a saviour rather than help themselves.
No I’m reading that as typical paternalism you see in the UK, where the working-class are viewed as too stupid to know what’s good for them or help themselves. An equally valid reading of the movie is less “lefties = absolutely wholly utterly bad with no merit whatsoever, OMG I can’t wait till Maggie gets in” and more “hey, lefties, get your shit together or the Conservatives are going to walk all over you”.Didn’t even say it was that pro right-wing, just that it is tinged in right-wing talking points of the day. Not so much necessarily cheering her on but almost as if they’re of the “well would it be so bad” type stuff.
So UK Recognitions – cause it’s ‘tinged’ with right wing thoughts, that instantly erases any and all other work that maybe left wing?Holy shit but you really ARE the UK Recognitions.
the film’s mocking comes far more harshly down on that diverse working-class than it does the Roman leadership.I’d dispute that a bit. I mean, yes, the “Stan/Loretta” stuff hasn’t really aged well (though it should be noted that while trans-issues are certainly played for laughs, Loretta herself is treated fairly sympathetically for, as you say, a movie of the late 1970s) and Judith is a bit of a feminist stereotype (though, again, not treated entirely unsympathetically). But the film aims most of its mockery of the union movement squarely at Reg, a straight white man — as were a fairly sizeable portion of the leaders and higher echelons of the British union movement at the time.You’ve just pointed out how the standard of mocking is a lot lesser. Well, no, I’m questioning your assertion that they are depicted as being “competent if bureaucratic”. Bureaucratic, yes, but they are clearly not depicted as competent. the longest scene is them being too soft on crimeWell, surely the longest scene involving the Romans is actually Pontius Pilate failing to understand why anyone might find the name “Biggus Dickus” funny — possibly one of the most obvious funny names ever. Thus reinforcing what an unbelievable idiot he is. At the end of the film they’re still shown to be in a lot more control and get things done compared to how every other target of the film is demonstrated as completely incapable of anything whatsoever.They’re shown to be in control primarily because the opposition cannot get its act together enough to effectively oppose them, not because they actually are in a lot more control or are preferable or better. Yes, there is a scene in which actual historical Roman accomplishments are discussed and are suggested to not be entirely bad things. But outside of this discussion, the one thing we actually see the Romans actually accomplish within this film is to rescue the completely wrong person to the one they’ve been actually assigned to rescue. By no standard or definition is that ‘getting things done’. The movie clearly depicts the Romans as looking a lot more in control rather than actually being a lot more in control.It reads like a typical aspect of UK public life where smarmy toffs are treated better for major mistakes because of their social rank compared to the general person who puts a single foot wrong.But they’re not treated as better by the film! Pontius Pilate and Biggus Dickus (and, I mean, that name alone should suggest something about how favourably we’re supposed to see them…) are complete idiots who shouldn’t be in charge, and only are because they are examples of the aforementioned smarmy toffs. The Centurion fails to accomplish pretty much any task he is assigned to complete, up to and including preventing his bosses from utterly humiliating themselves or stopping the correct person from being executed (someone who he has already met at that). He doesn’t even succeed in intimidating someone with the threat of crucifixion. At one point an entire platoon of soldiers searches a small apartment filled with barely hidden revolutionaries and fails to find anything more significant than a spoon. Yes, the movie depicts the “left-wing” revolutionaries as incompetents, but it also depicts the “right-wing” Romans as incompetents; they’re just the incompetents who happen to be in charge. Frankly, you are simply wrong to describe the Romans as ‘competent’ in this movie; they are clearly anything but. I mean, granted, you’re not exactly wrong when you point out that the movie draws upon stereotypes of factionalism and petty bickering in order to mock the left, but you seem to overlook the fact that it also draws upon stereotypes of the right — that they are a bunch of half-witted incompetent bullies and probable inbreds who, despite their delusions and pretensions, only enjoy the positions they do because of the inbuilt privileges the system gives them, not because of any actual merit — in order to mock them as well. You seem to suggest that because the movie doesn’t end with the violent overthrow of the establishment that it is being endorsed, when I’d argue that this is pretty clearly not the case.
No I’m reading that as typical paternalism you see in the UK, where the working-class are viewed as too stupid to know what’s good for them or help themselves.To be honest, I think that’s again because you’re looking at the movie from a limited single perspective and are finding reasons to support that perspective. Not least because from what I recall, not every person who flocks towards Brian in those scenes is working class. Several of them clearly aren’t. In fact, for one example, the scene in which a whole bunch of people start hyper-analysing and reinterpreting the sandal which accidentally falls off Brian’s foot is surely targeting middle-class intellectualism more than working class credulity. The movie is making a broader point about ideology and religion but, while it’s the opiate of the masses, it is not merely speaking about the working class section of those masses.Didn’t even say it was that pro right-wingI mean, it has to be said; if you’re not saying this, then you certainly seem to be thinking it quite loudly. You’ve consistently accused the film of strongly targeting the left and weakly targeting the right, to the point where you’ve suggested that the movie actually depicts the right fairly positively (which, as I’m sure my two lengthy posts would suggest at this point, I disagree with); that would certainly seem to suggest that you feel the movie has a pretty solid if not clear pro right-wing bias.
I’d dispute that a bit. I mean, yes, the “Stan/Loretta” stuff hasn’t really aged well (though it should be noted that while trans-issues are certainly played for laughs, Loretta herself is treated fairly sympathetically for, as you say, a movie of the late 1970s)She’s really not though. Every scene featuring that gag has Cleese’s character becoming visibly more and more put off until she finally asks to have a child with the intended joke being how these groups would tolerate such “mental illness”. Judith is as you say treated more sympathetically and does try to initially free Brian but in the end, like the rest, just let him die from crucifixion when he was unguarded and could easily be saved at that time. Well, surely the longest scene is actually Pontius Pilate failing to understand why anyone might find the name “Biggus Dickus” funny — possibly one of the most obvious funny names ever. Thus reinforcing what an unbelievable idiot he is.The joke is that the names sound like fake names but they’re all real people in the universe of the film. It’s a scene showing that the average Roman soldier don’t hold Pontius in high regard to stop laughing at his friend’s name and not that Pontius is an “unbelievable idiot” because he is shown to understand why they’re laughing.
Both of them are shown to have serious speech impediments in later scenes but they’re never actually shown as incompetent at their jobs, only being mocked for their speech impediments. At one point Pontius straight up catches they’re probably mocking him but is lied to by the Centurion who then proceeds to list who they have in the prison, the joke being they have so many prisoners they can’t even remember them anymore. It’s Biggus Dickus who’s the one who goes “was it something I said” as Pontius gets angrier at the mocking because he’s trying to be pretend to be merciful but they won’t give him that PR win.We don’t see say like Pontius trying to organise the mass crucifixion and they all escape or tries to get a new wonder to him built and it collapses because he hired shoddy workers that’s the key different in what I got in the film. Groups like JPF are mocked for their actions and views while mocking of the named Roman characters is down to basically giving them disabilities and shaming those. The Centurion fails to accomplish pretty much any task he is assigned to complete, up to and including preventing his bosses from utterly humiliating themselves or stopping the correct person from being executed (someone who he has already met at that). He doesn’t even succeed in intimidating someone with the threat of crucifixion. At one point an entire platoon of soldiers searches a small apartment filled with barely hidden revolutionaries and fails to find anything more significant than a spoon. Really, because Cleese’s Centurion character is typically the straight man in any scene he’s in. He can’t stop Pontius from speaking because of his rank but he does try briefly to stop Biggus Dickus from adding to crowd’s mocking. And yes he does fail to save our Brian but he is sent to save “Brian of Nazareth” which our Brian is never identified as such when previously caught by the Centurion so given the running gag being they all have common English names like Reg it’s not unlikely they had several Brians meant to be killed and just assumed the first one was Brian of Nazareth and all the others were lying. Even just the search scene where his men try to pass off a spoon as a significant find you see his incredulous look and rather forced, “right, well done,” where he knows his men failed to find Brian but won’t say so in front of the old man.Also just of general interest in the original script the soldier who gives him lines to write earlier in the film is meant to be a different character to the later Centurion despite being the same actor.
Not least because from what I recall, not every person who flocks towards Brian in those scenes is working class.Really because the all look like the below while we see their depictions of the better off later on amongst the crucified. It’s quite clear that his “followers” are rather simple and low down the social order. The only one with any seemingly valuable belongings is Gilliam’s character on the left but it’s some kind of incense burner.The hyper-analysing isn’t mocking “middle-class intellectualism”, it’s mocking religious orthodoxists who attempt to see a “sign” in anything and the three who do the “debating” are three of the most simply-dressed. You’ve consistently accused the film of strongly targeting the left and weakly targeting the right, to the point where you’d suggested that the movie actually depicts the right fairly positively Well it does personally. Its targets on the left are more forcefully targeted specifically for their beliefs and how crap they are in action. The Romans, especially the high-office ones, are instead given physical disabilities and mocked via that which is a weaker form of targeting (this film really has a problem with people with stammers). So when the film does do political commentary it is therefore more harsh on left-wing politics of the day than those of the right.It doesn’t make it a bad film nor am I saying they should all be boycotted. I watch the film every now and then because I find it overall rather funny, just not as much as Holy Grail which I find far more entertaining due to the absurdist nature of the plot.
She’s really not though. Every scene featuring that gag has Cleese’s character becoming visibly more and more put offTo clarify, I’m not going to try and defend the Loretta stuff as being a perfect representation of trans issues; I’m suggesting that it’s relatively sympathetic for 1979, a time when trans- issues were far from the mainstream (I mean, heck, it’s only relatively recently that trans issues have entered the mainstream, I’m not sure how positive we should expect them to be treated in something from 1979) and attitudes were less than progressive. Cleese’s character reacts with annoyance and disdain, yes, and the idea of a person born as a man deciding they are a woman is treated as absurd, yes, I won’t argue that. But Reg is clearly established the least likable and sympathetic of those in that particular group. The others are perfectly willing to allow Loretta to identify how she wishes and live her life in a way that makes her happy, even if they clearly don’t really get it (and even Reg seems to come around later in the film), and she herself is characterised as dim and deluded but well-meaning and pleasant.Again, it’d be far from acceptable if the film was being made in 2021, but it’s less horrible than representations of trans people, such as they were, usually would be in the late 1970s.they’re never actually shown as incompetent at their jobsIt’s a scene showing that the average Roman soldier don’t hold Pontius in high regardIt’s Biggus Dickus who’s the one who goes “was it something I said” as Pontius gets angrier at the mocking because he’s trying to be pretend to be mercifulFailing to gain respect and obedience from subordinates is a pretty big sign of incompetence in a leader since that’s, well, pretty much the main thing they need to be a leader. Pontius can’t stop his own soldiers from laughing at him and his friends; ergo, he is a weak, incompetent leader. He can’t stop the people of Judea from laughing at him and his friends, despite his soldiers; ergo, he is a weak, incompetent leader. Either way, the movie makes it clear; this guy is weak, incompetent and shouldn’t be a leader. And the fact that Pontius and Biggus Dickus have to ask why people might be laughing at them is also a pretty big clue that they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed. Okay, yes, they work it out eventually — but if they were halfway smart they wouldn’t need to work it out at all, they’d realize immediately, because it’s incredibly obvious.We don’t see say like Pontius trying to organise the mass crucifixion and they all escape or tries to get a new wonder to him built and it collapses because he hired shoddy workersBecause the movie’s not about him. Really, for all our talk it’s not even about the trade union movement; that’s pretty much just a subplot that we’re kind of blowing up out of proportion and fixating on. The movie is primarily about organised religion and its failings and hypocrisies, and on a broader level it’s about the importance of questioning what you’re told and not being beholden or trapped to single-minded adherence to a single worldview or ideology, regardless of where it comes from. The movie doesn’t focus on all the ways that Pontius is a terrible incompetent because it’s not Life of Pontius and he is merely a side-character, and he wouldn’t ordinary interact with the main character because they are from completely different strata. He shows up briefly, but each time he does the movie makes sure to highlight how weak and inept he is. Really, because Cleese’s Centurion character is typically the straight man in any scene he’s in.Yes, he’s the straight man reacting to the incompetence of those around him. Including his fellow Romans.That also does not make him himself competent since he still fails at accomplishing pretty much any tasks he is given. He tries to prevent Pontius from embarrassing himself and fails. He tries to prevent Biggus from embarrassing himself and fails. He tries to collect the correct Brian and fails (even if he doesn’t realise it). He tries to intimidate the old man with crucifixion and fails. He tries to marshal his men to find the rebels and fails, and has to make do with a spoon. In short, the fact that he is a straight man does not mean he is not incompetent; it just means he is more aware of his incompetence and those around him. However, it still means that the Romans are clearly depicted as incompetent. Your earlier assertion that they were “competent if bureaucratic” is, well, still pretty wrong. So when the film does do political commentary it is therefore more harsh on left-wing politics of the day than those of the right.To the extent that this is true (and I don’t fully concede this, but am willing to go with it for the purposes of discussion; certainly I disagree with ‘harsh’), it is also perhaps a simple result of the fact that the left-wing were in power at the time and, well, like it or not left-wing politics aren’t entirely immune or exempt from satire and criticism. Like you yourself said, the trade union movement was experiencing its peak of influence and power in Britain; that means it had a lot of influence, not always necessarily for the positive, but nevertheless worthy of commentary. There was a Labour government in office (led by a former trade unionist at that) at the time which was, again, worthy of commentary. The Conservatives were in opposition and relatively lacking in direct power. So if you’re a satirist, you’re likely going to be drawn to those who are currently in power because the actions of those who are currently in power have more direct influence and ability to enact their ideas and programs, and more significant potential effects and, well, they’re doing more so there’s more potentially funny stuff to mine. It’s why during the 80s there were countless parodies of Thatcher and why during the New Labour years satirists focussed more on Tony Blair than Michael Howard. That doesn’t automatically make you right-wing — it just means that the left-wing is currently giving you more material to work with. That said, it’s kind of hard when setting a story in the days of the Roman Empire to make the Romans anything like the modern unions because, well, they weren’t really that similar. So they had to make the unionists the rebels instead.In short; why waste your ammo on the opposition when the government’s the one with the power and is right there?
Like you yourself said, the trade union movement was experiencing its peak of influence and power in Britain; that means it had a lot of influence, not always necessarily for the positive, but nevertheless worthy of commentary. There was a Labour government in office (led by a former trade unionist at that) at the time which was, again, worthy of commentary. But that’s one of the bits I found odd because they aren’t commenting on or satirising the realities of trade unionism at the time but rather just play out invented right-wing talking points of them being weak and useless. To go back to something I said a long time ago now Carry On at Your Convenience is infamous amongst that series for how it satirised trade unions as a pain. It did this by showing them as having stoppages for every little thing, bullying other staff into industrial action who didn’t want it, and deliberately refusing to take up modern work practices to avoid losing any staff (things that still happen in the UK in places like the RMT and their opposition to “driver operated only” trains).So to your final line I’d say why waste ammo on the made up when there were things to mock easily. Again, it’d be far from acceptable if the film was being made in 2021, but it’s less horrible than representations of trans people, such as they were, usually would be in the late 1970s.But think about who it’s put in with, the PFJ. The film as we’ve said is mocking their setup over and over and quite frankly given how anti-LGBT+ the UK was at the time I can’t help but see this as part of that mocking of trade unions for even tolerating a transperson, in the same way later on they’re mocked for obsessions over “splitters”, formalised meetings, and other niche clauses that have no impact such as how members wanted to discuss taking over the Eastern Med rather than stop Brian dying.So part of the horribleness comes indirectly from only being “accepted” by trade unionists who at the end of the film finally snap at her for being “mad”. Failing to gain respect and obedience from subordinates is a pretty big sign of incompetence in a leader since that’s, well, pretty much the main thing they need to be a leader. I’d very much disagree that a lack of respect equals incompetence. They’re two separate qualities and I’ve known people who are loved and respected while being crap at the job and people who are mocked despite being good at it. And the fact that Pontius and Biggus Dickus have to ask why people might be laughing at them is also a pretty big clue that they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed. Pontius questions it because he genuinely doesn’t know if they have prisoners of that name or not, which is a commentary on how many he’s arbitrarily had imprisoned. This is the problem because they could’ve shown he was incompetent but instead they just show he is effective at being cruel.Again he’s mocked for his disability and not his job, which is the difference. They needed to, in the same way as the PFJ, show him being actually crap in his duties.And think about how you’re saying they don’t respect them and their power but then you used examples of how the Centurion didn’t stop Pontius or BD from saying things through their impediments, which shows that clearly the Centurion knows there’d be horrible consequences if he disobeyed them. Because the movie’s not about him. Really, for all our talk it’s not even about the trade union movement; that’s pretty much just a subplot that we’re kind of blowing up out of proportion and fixating on. But are they just a tiny subplot though, because it comes up over and over almost as often as the critique of religion and hardline followers of it. By the end we see IIRC 3-4 different meetings of the PFJ in particular in an only 90 minute film. However, it still means that the Romans are clearly depicted as incompetent.But apart from that one search scene are they? Brian is still captured multiple times and while they are mocked by their subjects we get the infamous long scene where we are told all the brilliant things they’re doing and in fact the Judeans did a shit job looking after themselves.If the scene where Judith runs to the square had her shouting “save Brian of Nazareth” and he was pointed out and they still failed I’d agree but given part of the film’s absurdism is having English names like Brian and Reg as common in Judea it doesn’t really come across as incompetence that they picked the wrong Brian.I guess there’s also the scene where they run away from the “crack suicide squad” but then that’s outdone by the fact it’s revealed all along that the “crack suicide squad” didn’t mean badass soldiers who’d go on impossible missions but just killing themselves for no reason and no effect.
(to the entire back and forth, not just to the last response)So uh…… that People’s Liberation Front of Judea joke starting to make more and more sense to anybody else, or is that just me
I’d very much disagree that a lack of respect equals incompetence. They’re two separate qualities and I’ve known people who are loved and respected while being crap at the job and people who are mocked despite being good at it.
This isn’t your real life workplace though, it’s a film. In a film, the filmmakers only show the audience the necessary information to convey the point they’re trying to make. Had the filmmakers wanted us to come away with the impression that Pontius is competent but gets no respect, they would have also shown us scenes of him doing things competently and being good at his job. Instead, all we see him do is failing to get respect from his troops and failing to get respect from his subjects — two key things that a good leader needs to do. Ergo, the filmmakers clearly want us to come away with the impression that this man is not a good leader and is not worthy of respect.quite frankly given how anti-LGBT+ the UK was at the timeI feel it’s perhaps worth noting here that while the UK as a whole might have been fairly anti-LGBT+, the Monty Python troupe itself had an openly gay member. Homosexuality and transgenderism aren’t exactly the same of course, and it’s possible to support one but not the other but I still feel this complicates your reading of “unions = bad because they tolerate LGBT+ people” somewhat, since the Pythons by all accounts were pretty tolerant of LGBT+ individuals, at least (again) by the standards of the 1970s. (And before you go there, yes, I’m aware that Cleese and Gilliam are clearly pretty anti-trans these days, I acknowledge that this isn’t perfect evidence for my side either, but they’re also not the only members of the group and the others, so far as I can tell, don’t appear to have or have had any excessive anti-trans feelings that they’ve expressed publicly. My point isn’t and hasn’t been that the Pythons are perfect on this issue, just that as with many things it may be more complicated than it appears on the surface.)In any case, you seem to be using this as evidence that the Pythons are in some way hateful or intractably opposed towards the union movement, when I don’t think that’s a fair reading at all; I’d say they’re arguably merely lampooning what they feel are some of the absurdities of the trade union movement. Again, I’d suggest that this is perhaps you reading into things based on your clear irritation (and, well, what appears to be a certain amount of defensiveness) towards this aspect of the film rather than anything the Pythons may have intended; I don’t think they’re passionately anti-union in the way you seem to be suggesting, I think they’re just finding elements of the union movement to laugh at because, well, they’re comedians and satirists. In any case, I think I’ve probably said all I have to say on the subject of Loretta. I don’t think she’s necessarily treated as intractably awful as you seem to be suggesting, but we may have to agree to differ on this one.think about how you’re saying they don’t respect them and their power but then you used examples of how the Centurion didn’t stop Pontius or BD from saying things through their impediments, which shows that clearly the Centurion knows there’d be horrible consequences if he disobeyed them.Because he’s still a petty tyrant! They’re mocking a tyrant as ultimately incompetent and weak and disrespected. It’s an age-old trope for satirising the powerful. The fact that the other characters are laughing at him doesn’t mean he can’t still have them all killed if he wants to, it just means that for all that he’s still not very good at his job because he still can’t stop them laughing at him. They’re clearly showing Pontius to be a hapless idiot who nevertheless has life-or-death power over the people around him.But are they just a tiny subplot though, because it comes up over and over almost as often as the critique of religion and hardline followers of it. Yes, it’s just a subplot. The fact that we see only them about three-four times is what makes it a subplot, because those three-four times are counterbalanced by the dozens of other scenes involving Brian getting involved in stuff which doesn’t involve parodying trade unionists whatsoever. It is a fairly significant subplot, I grant you, but still just a subplot. Again, I’d respectfully suggest that the reason it seems to loom so large for you is perhaps because you appear to be somewhat disproportionately annoyed by it compared to the rest of the film. we get the infamous long scene where we are told all the brilliant things they’re doing and in fact the Judeans did a shit job looking after themselves.You’ve brought this up a few times, but the thing is — this is basic show vs tell stuff. Yes, the Pythons tell us that the Romans have done some impressive stuff, but then they juxtapose this by showing us them being less impressive than merely focussing on the historical record would suggest. The telling is merely a nod to historical fact — like it or not, the Romans genuinely did introduce a lot of useful infrastructure into the regions they conquered. The Pythons are using this for a laugh both by showing the rebels actually conceding this in the scene itself and by showing the Romans to be more incompetent in person than you’d think if you just focussed on the impressiveness of aqueducts and stuff. It’s showing them to be, well, just people.it doesn’t really come across as incompetence that they picked the wrong Brian.Of course it does! They fuck it up! They kill the wrong person! They go by the first chancer who calls themselves Brian instead, you know, doing almost anything else to check that they’ve got the right man! If that genuinely “doesn’t really come across as incompetence” to you, then frankly you have some appallingly low standards. Ironically, you now appear to be defending the Romans more than the Pythons did. I guess there’s also the scene where they run away from the “crack suicide squad” but then that’s outdone by the fact it’s revealed all along that the “crack suicide squad” didn’t mean badass soldiers who’d go on impossible missions but just killing themselves for no reason and no effect.You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this joke (you’ve brought it up before in a somewhat disapproving fashion), but leaving aside that when we see them the “crack suicide squad” aren’t really anything to do with the trade union parody beyond being previously discussed as “splitters” (they’re clearly more terrorists / fanatics), this is just absurdism. It’s still Monty Python. They’re presenting us with the kind of kamikaze fanatics who would willingly blow themselves up to take the enemy with them — except they live in a period where there are no bombs, so they have to do the next best thing and stab themselves, which ends up making them utterly useless. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a joke. The terror with which everyone regards them probably would be somewhat justified if they had bombs and guns and such — but they don’t, which is where the joke comes in.
Instead, all we see him do is failing to get respect from his troops and failing to get respect from his subjects — two key things that a good leader needs to do. They’re clearly showing Pontius to be a hapless idiot who nevertheless has life-or-death power over the people around him.See you keep insisting he’s a “hapless idiot” and can’t say how he is other than they mock him for having a disability. You seem to keep jumping past that bit where the only level of “satire” that the Python troupe could come up with was inventing a disability for him. He’s never shown scheming and failing or not getting what he wants (in both his major scenes he does get what he wants). Meanwhile for the JPF they have:- How they insult and later kill people with similar beliefs but not pure enough for stupid ideology reasons
– Hold pointless meetings even when there’s an emergency.
– Have them tolerate transpeople even as the trans person’s demands for respect become more and more “ridiculous”, going so far as to ban “brothers and sisters” as words and to give birth to a child (a common attack on the trade union movement in that time as being infested by the “Gay Agenda”, go watch the film Pride for context).They have all this time and talent to explicitly show how the stand in for trade unions and the left are crap (even though it doesn’t match the reality of the day) yet can’t show that in actions or deeds for Pontius and instead just use a speech impediment? I feel it’s perhaps worth noting here that while the UK as a whole might have been fairly anti-LGBT+, the Monty Python troupe itself had an openly gay member.Are you seriously doing the “they have a Gay friend” routine to defend the likes of Gilliam and Cleese, the latter a man who very recently referred to Chapman as a “poof”, a homophobic slur both in his day and now, before using him as a prop in a joke about how actually MP was diverse because they have ‘a black lesbian and a dead homosexual’?Just because he worked with Chapman and may have even considered him a friend doesn’t mean he accepted his homosexuality in the same way there are plenty of people who are perfectly polite to people of colour yet are horrifically racist. I’d say they’re arguably merely lampooning what they feel are some of the absurdities of the trade union movement. Yeah that “absurdity”, in 1979, being those trade unionists not in favour of beating up LGBT+ in the street and instead treating them as human beings…They quite literally use support of LGBT+ people as a way of depicting the JPF as useless and worth mocking. It is a fairly significant subplot, I grant you, but still just a subplot. It’s not “just a subplot” though. It has a larger through line over the course of the film than the supposed main focus of religion. There’s only really one long extended sequence that is entirely focused on the ridiculousness of orthodox religion and that is then tied back into the PFJ subplot when Reg tries to greedily take advantage of his new found Messiah-hood. The Pythons are using this for a laugh both by showing the rebels actually conceding this in the scene itselfHave you even seen the film, because that scene ends with them refusing to concede it. They basically list all the most basic aspects of civilisation as having only been installed because of the occupation (basic water access, sanitation, law and order, roads, education etc) and then ends with Reg angrily refusing to acknowledge it which is the point of the joke they’re taking that trade unions/the left can’t accept that the authorities they’re opposed to are actually competent and not the monster they painted them as. Of course it does! They fuck it up! They kill the wrong person! They go by the first chancer who calls themselves Brian instead, you know, doing almost anything else to check that they’ve got the right man!Except you’re coming from the perspective that they really wanted to save the right Brian. They didn’t give a shit because the whole thing was just a PR exercise showing how merciful as rulers they are (hence the whole bit about Wodger and Woderick). it’s brutal and cruel but in their desired aims they were competent. They were asked to free “Brian of Nazareth”, who none of them know is our Brian, and freed the person who claimed he was and can claim they’re merciful. You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this joke (you’ve brought it up before in a somewhat disapproving fashion)It’s not a bee in the bonnet so much as it’s a great example of how even when they make a joke that looks to be at the expense of the Romans it’s still in the end twisted to more aim once again at trade unionists/the left. The one time they seem to get one over on the cruel Romans and… oh they do literally just kill themselves and leave Brian to die needlessly.Personally it’s just how after how many jokes where that is the punchline it would’ve been nice to see something completely different to have it where they actually succeed just once but instead it’s part of a scene that features multiple punches of how trade unionists are useless (just after Reg shows up with the JPF to praise his martyrdom for their advantage rather than save him).It’s just a bit disappointing, and why I don’t rate it as highly as Holy Grail, that they do repeatedly bang that same joke over and over while never really doing that in the same way for other targets in the film. Just compare and contrast how authority figures in HG are mocked compared to Pontius. The latter, again, is just mocked for his speech impediment but gets what he wants while in HG even the only briefly appearing knights are shown as lazy, cowardly, unnecessarily violent, and incompetent.Basically HG punches upwards a lot better than LoB and is better for it.
See you keep insisting he’s a “hapless idiot” and can’t say how he is other than they mock him for having a disability. No, I’ve repeatedly pointed out Pontius is a “hapless idiot” because he clearly can’t get his own men to respect him. If he could, his speech impediment wouldn’t matter at all. Are you seriously doing the “they have a Gay friend” routine to defend the likes of Gilliam and Cleese, the latter a man who very recently referred to Chapman as a “poof”, a homophobic slur both in his day and now, before using him as a prop in a joke about how actually MP was diverse because they have ‘a black lesbian and a dead homosexual’?Actually no, as I pretty outright stated in my very next paragraph when I acknowledged that Cleese and Gilliam’s stated views make their treatment of LGBT+ issues more complex than simply the “gay best friend makes everything okay”. I merely suggested that Chapman’s homosexuality maybe made the treatment of Loretta a mite more complicated than the rather simplistic “Haha, unions are dumb because they advocate respect for LGBT+ people” point you were suggesting it was. Especially since, well, Chapman himself was involved in writing and creating the movie. Again: Cleese and Gilliam were not the only members of the group. Yeah that “absurdity”, in 1979, being those trade unionists not in favour of beating up LGBT+ in the street and instead treating them as human beings…You know, I have to say; I think you might be overstating just how progressive the trade union movement was in the 1970s just a little bit. Yes, there were inroads being made for minority communities, but it was still wasn’t exactly a mecca for progressive values. They were still dominated by fairly traditional straight white men, especially in the higher-up leadership, with a lot of what that might suggest regarding traditional straight white male attitudes towards minority communities in the 1970s. It’s not “just a subplot” though. It has a larger through line over the course of the film than the supposed main focus of religion. … I mean, the fact that you then go on to accuse me of not having seen the film is, frankly, a little bit galling in light of this comment. Because whether you watched it or not, if you can’t see this then you appear to have completely missed the whole point of the film. The whole narrative is a parodic skewing of the life of one of the most important religious figures in history. The whole point of the film is to put a spotlight on how the teachings of Christ have been twisted and skewed, often by those in power. It is deliberately structured as a parody of epic Bible films. It literally begins with a parody of the birth of Jesus! The first scene of the film proper is people mishearing and mangling the Sermon on the Mount! The stoning scene! Pretty much the entire last half involves Brian being taken to be the goddamn Messiah and then crucified! And I could go on! Almost every single frame is immersed in a fairly broad and unsubtle parody of organised religion, and Christianity in general. So in what universe, may I ask, did you watch this film in where the focus on religion is merely “supposed” and has less of a “through line”?I mean… those people picketing cinemas weren’t just annoyed trade unionists!So yes. I will confidently reassert that the parody of 1970s trade unionism is a subplot to the film’s broader parody of organised religion and, to a degree, organisations in general. And I will repeat my suggestion that the fact that you apparently cannot see all of this is again suggestive of you again inflating the significance of this subplot to fit your chosen, rather limited interpretation rather than viewing the film as a whole. The film is not simply a parody of 1970s trade unionism, and it is frankly wrong to suggest that it is.Honestly, there doesn’t really seem to be much point in going on after that, since it’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re talking at crossed purposes and, well, at the end of the day if you ultimately prefer Holy Grail I’ve no real argument with that. You do you. However: because that scene ends with them refusing to concede it. I mean, this is a bit petty, I concede that, and I normally wouldn’t nitpick it, but then again you started it by — slightly snottily — accusing me of not actually watching the film, so I’m not letting you get away with it:No it doesn’t. You’re wrong. The scene actually goes like this:- Reg rhetorically asks what the Romans have done for them to try and rouse the troops.- Someone points out the aqueduct.- Reg, a bit surprised, concedes that the Romans have done that for them. (“Oh. Right. Yeah, they did give us that.”)- Everyone then starts listing more things the Romans have done for them.- And then Reg does concede the lengthy list of everything the Romans have done for them. He literally says “Alright — but apart from… [etc etc]”. That is how you phrase a concession; he’s acknowledging that yes, even if it doesn’t fit the point he’s trying to make, the Romans have done all those things. If he wasn’t going to concede it, he wouldn’t bother listing them as exceptions; he would simply say something along the lines of “No, you’re wrong, the Romans still haven’t done anything for us.” He then finishes by rhetorically asks what (else) the Romans have done for them, clearly anticipating that everyone is finished and he can get back on track.- Someone pipes up with “Brought peace.”- Reg, frustrated, tells the person to shut up.That’s how the scene goes. Like it or not, Reg does concede the point, albeit reluctantly and somewhat gracelessly. Watch it again if you don’t believe me. Yes, I have seen the film.
No, I’ve repeatedly pointed out Pontius is a “hapless idiot” because he clearly can’t get his own men to respect him. If he could, his speech impediment wouldn’t matter at all.His men laugh at the name Biggus Dickus and his speech impediment. Meanwhile we see soldiers like the Centurion following his commands and not interrupting him. He isn’t a “hapless idiot”, the film never shows us that. We do see him as a cruel man with a speech impediment. And then Reg does concede the lengthy list of everything the Romans have done for them. He literally says “Alright — but apart from… [etc etc]”. That is how you phrase a concessionBut listen to his tone throughout the scene where he’s making this “concession”. He’s flippant and increasingly angry, tapping his finger on the desk that slows to nothing as other members start praising the Romans, and his long list at the end is funny because he’s still attempting to downplay all these basic things as minor or insignificant so he can still refuse to concede the idea that the Romans have been of benefit and at the end sits back triumphantly as though he’s made some brilliant point.It wouldn’t be funny if he’d just spent the scene saying “the Romans have done nothing”, instead the humour comes from his increasingly ridiculous ideological attempt to refuse to concede that in fact the Romans have been a beneficial force in the face of all evidence. It’s like how anti-vaxxers will say “vaccines are dangerous because of mercury” and then when told they don’t have mercury will now say that doesn’t matter but they’re still dangerous. Especially since, well, Chapman himself was involved in writing and creating the movie. Except for that when this was written his alcoholism, that had increasingly saw him failing to perform or write material over the years, was at its worst. In fact his alcoholism and non-existent work ethic was one of the reasons Cleese left Flying Circus and it was only as filming was getting ready to go for LoB that Chapman finally kicked the habit and became sober.Gilliam and Cleese may not have been the only ones in the group but they were by far the strongest writing forces in it. You only have to look at the post troupe stuff to see that. I think you might be overstating just how progressive the trade union movement was in the 1970s just a little bit.No they weren’t all in favour, but the point was it was a common thing in wider society as an attack used at the time to discredit trade unions by highlighting those in the movement who were LGBT+ accepting and present all trade unionists as supporting perverts and even paedophiles (a still easy to find belief in the UK that homosexuality was the same as that). Pretty much the entire last half involves Brian being taken to be the goddamn Messiah and then crucified!The film’s first ~18 minutes is the birth scene, Jesus in the distance (highlighting despite religious anger it wasn’t a mocking of Jesus), and then the stoning scene. All only really targeting religion.The next ~18 minutes are the colosseum, two separate meetings of the PFJ, the palace break in, and then Brian captured. This section only really targets trade unionism/left-wing politics.Next ~18 minutes are the escape, aliens scene, haggling scene, and then another PFJ meeting.At the 52 minute mark you get Brian falling from the balcony which starts the Messiah segment and then the final capture and crucifixion but this still features a prominent scene of Reg and the PFJ co-opting the nascent religious movement for their own ends by trying to get Brian to fake miracles for political favours and monetary gain, more meetings of the PFJ, and both the PFJ and the JPF failing to easily save Brian.The main theme through the film is their lampooning/mocking of dogmatic belief and organised ideological groups but for all the cultural emphasis on the religious aspect of this if you go through scene by scene you’ll see that they target trade unions/the left for almost the same amount of prominence. It’s just that being released in a time where Blasphemy was still a taboo subject in the UK the claim it’s a film that mocked Jesus is what stuck.
Okay, look. To be honest, I’m losing energy and aren’t really up to getting into the full minute-by-minute breakdown of the movie’s runtime that we appear to be careering towards (and that I have admittedly contributed towards myself), so I was just going to bail out and leave it there with an “agree to disagree”, but I’ve seen you refer to this a couple of times:but this still features a prominent scene of Reg and the PFJ co-opting the nascent religious movement for their own endsAnd I honestly couldn’t remember what you were talking about, and it seemed like a pretty significant rebuttal, so I chased down a copy of the script so I could refresh my memory, and then I cued up the film to check it out.This scene is barely a minute long, is barely fifteen lines of scripted dialogue, and most of that minute and dialogue is people generally shouting at and jostling Brian. It’s hardly what I’d call ‘prominent’ (it’s certainly far from the most memorable scene in the movie), and does not draw on any specific leftist / trade unionist themes at all. It merely re-enforces the theme of how religion gets coopted and exploited by politicians for their own purposes. Outside of the presence of the PFJ, there is nothing about that scene that’s specifically about trade unionism or leftism, and it could be about any generic political figure; while it is the PFJ who are used here, granted, I suspect that’s mainly because they’re the ‘political’ characters in the film we’ve already been introduced to and it would be too much trouble to create and introduce new ones solely to make what is, ultimately, a fairly broad satirical point in one minute.Honestly, this example really does once again seem like blowing things out of proportion a little bit to support your preconceptions.And now, I am going to bail out. Agree to disagree.
Small doesn’t make it non-prominent. People have been debating the sound of a door opening and Tony Soprano looking up for 15 years now. It is prominent in where it’s located in the film as the culmination of the film’s portrayal of Reg and the PFJ going from increasingly incompetent to now, just after Brian’s mum disperses the crowd, being completely corrupt for their own gain (again, another common attack on trade union leadership in the UK).
The scene from The Sopranos is the final-ever shot of one of the most popular and influential series in television history. That’s why it’s prominent.The scene from Life of Brian you are referring to is pretty much a transition from one location to another with some generic political satire added in. That’s why it’s less prominent. It certainly has no more prominence than any other scene in the movie, despite what you were implying.And now, I am done.
Doesn’t matter, it’s still a clear example of how even a short scene can display important developments. In LoB we see Reg and the PFJ having completely sold out and revealed themselves as corrupt, an important judgement on them and their beliefs. Doesn’t matter if it’s 1 minute or 10, it still shows how key characters in the film who have appeared for almost the entire length have fallen to the level they claim their opponents occupy.
Fair enough. Whatever. You win. I’m done.
It’s funny that’s he’s aching in the bunghole about the “SPLITTERS” joke in LOB, and now we know why: he’s the butt of that joke, because he’s acting exactly like the groups that were being lampooned are.“I’m leftist!”“Oh yeah? I’m more leftist than you!”“No you’re not!”“Yes I am! I’m leaving, gonna go form my OWN group with REAL leftists!”
Him and Recognitions can at least bond together, I guess…
“obvious right wing beliefs…”Uhh, what?! I have doubts. Big, serious doubts about your interpretation.
that’s cause emprires are better and last longer than any democracy 😉
I do recall Cleese or one of the other Pythons explicitly saying that the point of the Constitutional Peasant sketch was to mock leftists in a commentary to the movie.
Life of Brian was more mocking the ineffectiveness of leftist groups rather than their ideals, though. The way that as soon as a group gets to be of any size one splinter group breaks off because they disagree with some minor point of the leadership, and they end up fighting more among themselves than with the right wing.
I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough
wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and
your father smelt of elderberries.
“moistened bint” is a good band name. “watery tart” isn’t bad either.
“Mandate of the masses” is not only explicitly what is being resisted by all good forms of government, it is explicitly NOT how the US is governed and certainly not the “supreme executive power.”People without families and people without property should have remained disenfranchised. The government should be directed by people who actually have a stake in the future, namely, people with biological children and property to pass on to descendants. The barista class can remain as wage slaves for everyone’s benefit, including their own.
This post seems like spam. Lovely spam, wonderful spam, but still spam.
So glad you find these words humorous. They were wrong in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and they’re wrong today. Patent misogynists like Cleese and company don’t need to be celebrated.
But you’re the kind of person that probably quotes Blazing Saddles so you can feel like you’re getting away with dropping the n-bomb
I’m so disappointed that no one responded better to this.
You basically just described Trump’s next futile attempt to get back into the presidency.
I still want to live in an autonomous collective with a rotating executive officer as opposed to a pseudo-democracy where people invest cultish devoting into someone running for what should be a boring, administrative job.
I hope the movie has the time to explain why strange women lying in ponds and distributing sword is not the basis for a system of government.
I’m willing to experiment with a Laissez Fey economy.
I hope it invites us to see the violence inherent in the system and the repression of bloody peasants.
LOLOL, classic.
I’m not sure that what the US currently labels as a “democracy” has much power to critique naked sorceresses in lakes distributing swords to prospective leaders.
if enough people believe you, you can call it a religion.
It’s worth mentioning that there is precedent in Arthurian lore for some of the Knights of the Round Table to be PoC. Percival had a half brother name Feirefiz who’s mother was black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feirefiz). Though whoever wrote the poem didn’t seem to know what a biracial person looks like so he just looks like Percival but with black patches on his skin.
While it’s fun to shut racists up and point out that some of the knights of Arthurian legend were Saracens and other PoC, I think a stronger point of order is that this movie clearly isn’t intended to be a “historically accurate” movie featuring a giant, a talking fox, and a tree dude, and everyone is speaking modern English as opposed to Latin or ancient Welsh or whatever, where somehow the only thing that is upsetting a certain set of neckbeards is the realism of Dev Patel being a knight of the round table. The Green Knight, like all legends Arthurian or otherwise, is a metaphor for the universal truths and values that unite most if not all cultures — What is ambition? What is honor? What is pride? What is loyalty? And so forth. It helps that this is an A24 film from the director of A Ghost Story. Spoiler: It’s about more than just ghosts.
So…Ghouls ‘n ghosts?
If they made a Ghouls ‘n Ghosts movie, nobody would ever see the ending.
Oh my!
Also, the historicity of King Arthur is dubious at best and, best case scenario, he’s basically just a pre-Christian mythological figure that got plastered over with Jesus iconography with later writers adding in their own fan fic to the lore.
Britain was conquered by the Romans, and got Christianized along with much of the empire (Saint Padraig was one such Christian Briton who was kidnapped and thus spread Christianity to Ireland). When the Roman empire receded, pagan Germanic tribes invaded the island, and it is from that period that the legend of Arthur (leader of a war-band if not a king) began. Arthur as representative of Christianity against the pagans is there at the foundation. A whole lot of Arthurian mythos sprang up later after the Normans conquered England and took it up themselves, and they had different interests than the Britons who hated the Anglo-Saxons for destroying their civilization. So the sequence is sort of the opposite of your version.
The point isn’t historicity, it’s cultural myths. If Disney released Mulan and a blonde Swede played her, people would lose their shit despite the questionable historical merit of the character.To be clear, I have no issue with an Indian guy playing the titular character here, sounds like he was great.
I don’t care that Dev Patel is playing Gawain as a person of color. I’m just wondering how and why a 31 year old man is playing a teenager.
are you sure that “honor, loyalty” are universal truths and values in all cultures ?
I have more of a problem with Dev being 31 and playing a teenager, but whatevs.
My mind didn’t even process that he was supposed to be a teenager so for half the movie I was puzzling over the opening exchange of “You a knight yet?”, “I’ve got plenty of time.” No, Gawain. No, you don’t. Shouldn’t you have learned a trade about 15 years ago? (Although I guess being the nephew of the king and son of a powerful sorceress has its advantages.)To be fair, he did read to me as younger than his actual age, so if they would have made him a young knight who had yet to prove himself, maybe because the older ones had already killed all the monsters and subdues all the saxons, that would have worked. Just not a teenage layabout. Also [SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER] he looked great in the Last Temptation of Christ segment, wordlessly portraying a world-weariness that I’m not sure an actual teenager could have pulled off.
I didn’t even process that Gawain was supposed to be a teenager (he wasn’t in the source material), so for half the movie I was puzzling over the opening exchange. (“You a knight yet?” “I have plenty of time.” No, Gawain. No, you don’t. You should have learned a trade 15 years ago. But I guess being the nephew of the king and the son of a powerful sorceress has its advantages.)To be fair, Dev Patel does read as younger than his actual age to me, so I could have bought him as a younger knight who hadn’t yet proved himself, especially given the older knights have slain all the monsters and subdued all the saxons, so the decision to make him a teenage layabout seems odd. Also [SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER] in the Last Temptation of Christ sequence he wordlessly conveys a world-weariness that might have been out of reach for an actual teenager. (That’s what the header image is from, so he’s not even supposed to look anything like a teenager there.)
(Sorry if this is a duplicate. I can’t tell if my previously posted comments are disappearing or Kinja is just hiding them from me.)I totally missed that he was supposed to be in his teens and spent most of the movie why on earth a medieval man in his late 20s (which is how Patel reads to me) would ever say he had “plenty of time” to become a knight and show now signs of having a trade other than whoring. (Although I suppose being nephew to the king and son of a powerful sorceress comes with certain advantages.) Honestly, it’s a weird choice because the movie easily could have been about a 20-something knight who hadn’t had the chance to prove himself because his older colleagues had already slain all the monsters and vanquished all the saxons.To be fair though [SPOILER], that header image is from a sequence in the film in which Patel plays an older version of Gawain, one a don’t think a teen actor would have been able to pull off as well.
I wonder if they explain how Arthur and Gawain’s mother are brother and sister.
Also that the Green Knight was basically an elaborate scheme by Morgan Le Fey to scare Guinevere to death.
Fuckit, why can’t we get a Hallmark Homewrecker movie of that?!
King Lot/Lothian isn’t Morgause’s/Morgan’s brother, at least in nothing I have read or read of.
A.V. Club isn’t letting me reply to greyed comments (Argh, fix Kinja!) but it sounds like the review is saying that in this story, Gawain’s mother is Morgan le Fay and Arthur is his uncle, reflecting some versions of the story where she is Arthur’s sister. Maybe they don’t share both parents, or one is adopted, or maybe we’re meant not to think about the genetics in this movie, I don’t know!
Man, I fucking hate how Kinja shows me greyed comments in my notifications, but I can’t actually see them on the actual page to reply……but I can see other greyed comments that aren’t replies to me. Jesus Christ.
They also made it impossible to actually search your old comments unless it’s past a certain amount of paragraphs and removed the ability to see the usernames of the profiles you star.
Imagine the excitement of being gray, publishing a comment, and then never seeing it again. Do I consider it vanished and post again, or assume that somehow it will be visible to others and I shouldn’t risk duplicate posting? Or do I just stop caring?Then there’s the thrill of seeing that people have replied to you but not being able to find your original comment, much less the replies (of which only the first few words appear in your feed).Apparently I’m a masochist because I keep trying to participate anyway.
CW: Sexual Violence
Even in the original stories, Morgan and Morgause are the children of Igraine and her first husband, Goloris, Duke of Tingatel, while Arthur is the son of Uther Pendragon and Igraine (via magic costume rape – Merlin disguises Uther as Goloris to cause the conception of Arthur). That makes them half-siblings and voila, no matter which sister is Gawain’s mother, Arthur is his (half)uncle.
I don’t think we need to sweat the genetics of it all, though, just enjoy wonderful actors in their roles.
I tried to respond through kinja but it’s not letting me – which is weird…. But Arthur is always Gawain’s uncle in the stories. Gawain’s mother Morgase is Arthur’s half sister. And Morgase and Arthur also have a son, Mordred (Gawain’s half brother).
IIRC later texts would make Mordred Arthur’s son and Morgase and Morgan Le Fey are usually amalgamated into a single character
I guess it depends on what you mean by “later,” but Mordred is portrayed as Arthur and Morgause’s son (born of incest) in at least the 13th century. And Morgana and Morgause are usually separate characters, unless you’re talking about the 20th century adaptions.
Do they need to explain it? Arthur is Gawains’s uncle in all the stories. Now Mordred (Gawain’s half brother) being the son of Arthur and his half-sister is significantly less appropriate…
On a related note, I like that this film has not had to defend or explain the casting choice at least in any circles I follow. This comment is actually the first mention I’ve seen of it.
I like that the movie is not being touted as some type of leap forward for racial equality or being actively hated on for “SJWs ruing the film” etc. There are some people saying that I’m sure, but if so it’s been notably quieter.
More than anything I like that there doesn’t seem to be a desire to make a big “fictional” justification. Perhaps the film contains that but it’s not present in any pre-release materials.
I hope that’s a trend that continues, where casting can be diverse without a film having to “be” about that diverse casting; to justify or defend a choice that is (hopefully) just based on who is the best actor.
Big deal being made about an Indian lead, but honestly he looks Spanish or even Italian.
You’re citing Wikipedia? Any other source, like a reputable one?
There is also the issue that most of these legends appear to be awfully similar to legends from North Africa, to the extent that they are probably the same legends, just modified for a different place.
I mean there’s also the fact that The King in the Mountain is just a very common trope throughout various mythologies.
Easily one of my most anticipated movies of the year, and I’m actually reassured to hear it sticks to the “dreamlike weirdness” vibe I was getting from some of the trailers. Can’t wait to see it.
I’m excited by this, too. I was hoping it would be more like “Excaibur” and less like “modern actors in Arthurian cosplay with heaps of CGI.”
I was hoping it would be more like “Excaibur”I have to say… I wanted to make this comparison too, but chickened out, as I wasn’t sure how people would react (remarkably polarising movie!). I’m glad you said it.
I guess I’m just oblivious. I thought Excalibur was pretty universally beloved, at least in the pantheon of Arthurian movies!
I love it!
Yeah, I loved Excalibur and had no idea it was polarizing.
It seems to be highly rated now, but it was panned by several high-profile critics when it was realized. Fantasy that took itself seriously wasn’t as readily accepted as entertainment suitable for adults then. I remember one highly regarded critic in particular fussing about the armor not being historically accurate (as if everything else was?).
I do think A24’s “thing” could eventually grow tiresome, but I’m happy to see it didn’t happen with this one.
Sweet, a kickass Arthurian action movie! Can’t wait to see this.
Looking forward to this. The best class I ever took in college was a seminar on Tolkien’s non-LOTR materials and a big chunk covered his adaptation of the green knight and his lectures about the story. Got me super interested in Arthurian legend and made me appreciate LOTR a lot more
Where’d you take it? Not at Saint Louis with Tom Shippey, was it?
“one could not be blamed for desiring an Arthurian adventure that didn’t unfold in such an unbroken state of art-movie portentousness”Good news! George Romero’s Knightriders, which brings Arthurian adventure and melancholy to modern times and also fucking rules, is available on many streaming channels!
Every time I see that film I’m shocked to remember Ed Harris is the “king” and not only that, he’s in the film.
He is so good, virtuous but brittle. His realization of what he has to give up really lands.
There’s also Kill List from some years back that’s a pretty bitchin’ and harrowing take on Arthurian lore.
The Ben Wheatley movie? I love Kill List and have never heard that it’s related to Arthurian lore.
it boggles my mind that Ben Wheatley didnt direct this movie.
wait. Kill List was Arthurian retelling?? Loved it but did not pick up on that at all
Fairly loosely, but there are parallels. Wheatley clues us in with the mock sword fight at the beginning, then having Jay read a King Arthur story to his son. The ending also mirrors Arthur’s doomsday confrontation with Mordred, in some traditions.
Somebody needs to review the difference between portentousness and pretentiousness
1: of, relating to, or constituting a portent
2: eliciting amazement or wonder : PRODIGIOUS3a: being a grave or serious matterb: self-consciously solemn or important : POMPOUSc: ponderously excessive(Merriam-Webster.com)Seems to me all of these arguably apply.(ETA: My bad for thinking a simple Ctrl-V would work. Hopefully it’s not completely unintelligible.)
(Sorry if this is a duplicate. I can’t tell if my previously posted comments are disappearing or Kinja is just hiding them from me.)It can be both. This film is objectively portentous in multiple senses of the weird. “Pretentious” is a subjective value judgment and is sometimes unfairly used to dismiss art that is seen to be attempting to be anything more than popular entertainment.
Knightriders gets overlooked in Romero’s canon and that’s too bad. It’s epic storytelling with a flawed hero and some pretty spectacular practical motorcycle stunts. Great work from Tom Savini and Ed Harris among others.
Any movie that casts Tom Savini as The Hot Guy gets an A+ from me!
This is one of the reviews I’ll save till after I see the movie, since I can’t wait. B+ and the first paragraph are enough to keep me excited!
Stephen Weeks also wrote and directed a movie called Ghost Story.
There’s also the Ghost Story (1981) directed by John Irvin, starring Fred Astaire, John Houseman, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Melvyn Douglas and Alice Krige. Would recommend.
If John Irvin directed a film about the Green Knight then there’s sumthink funny going on.
Really? I loved the Peter Straub novel but found the movie a pretty big failure – though I have always kind of wanted to see it again, so you may be on to something.
The novel was good; thanks for the reminder.
Probably my most anticipated film of the year. Can’t wait to feast my eyes on this one. Everything—from the trailer to the marketing materials—have seemed tailor made for me, even if I occasionally find A24’s formula a little staid. I’m glad it seems to work here.
Also, been binging these myth summaries on YouTube as like, background noise. Watched this one just last night. Fortuitous.
Overly Sarcastic is such a fun channel with such an unfitting name.
I was extremely disappointed by this movie. The visuals were nice but there was not enough plot to flesh out 2+ hours. The first 1.5 hours were plodding and I would not recommend paying theater prices to see it.
Same, it’s a mess of disparate events that don’t seem to matter in the end.
I respectfully disagree, I mean there is plenty of plot there. It’s certainly not exciting, but I felt like the ending more than paid off the time spent. It’s not one that must be seen in a theatre for the full effect.
What is embroidery digitizing?Digitizing is transforming pre-existing artwork into an embroidery file, which can run on your embroidery machine, by applying stitches to that artwork in your embroidery software. In other words, embroidery digitizing is using software to create a series of commands which tell your embroidery machine how to stitch out a design.Although this explanation is rather simple, I assure you that there is a lot more to embroidery digitizing than meets the eye. Embroidery digitizing is like painting with stitches, and just like painting, certain rules apply. Digitizing is all about the physical attributes of machine embroidery and learning how to use digitizing software to get the results you want. Choosing the appropriate stitch type & stitch directions is where the real learning curve is involved.Website http://www.finesttechsolutions.comEmail: [email protected]: +1 424-389-5019
I’m so jazzed for this I can’t see straight. Hopefully A24 makes some of the other Arthurian tales- Percival and the Grail, etc
So begins my quest to find a place in Germany screening this film I’ve been wanting to see for a year now
Ugh, Ghost Story was so boring and up its own ass. The only thing I liked about it was Rooney Mara’s performance. For one thing, what did these people do for a living that they had a nice house out in the country and were never shown working at any kind of job? You could just tell this movie was made by rich white people, especially since the racial dynamics of it were really weird; the ghost terrorizes a Latina family and yet we’re still supposed to sympathise with him, and then at the end (spoilers I guess) the movie falls prey to the “savage natives” trope. Ugh, I say.
I get the point you want to make, but it does irritate me a bit that everyone just throws the term “trope” around it’s lost its meaning, so: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TropesAreTools?from=Administrivia.TropesAreNotBadTropes are not bad.
Racist tropes are in fact bad
Did you… even attempt to read the link?Tropes that are bad when imitated in real life are not automatically bad in fiction.This is an important distinction. Many tropes contain or imply cultural, social, or moral value judgments that simply don’t work the same way in fiction as they do in real life. Uncle Tomfoolery may be racist in real life, and based on some very nasty stereotypes, but when seen in a work, it simply is. It’s not necessary to tell everyone how awful it is, either in the examples or in the trope description. An extreme version of this comes when somebody wants us to cut a trope because they think it describes something bad. See also Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Language.
Nope racist tropes are bad
you really are just a caricature at this point
Sorry, are you being helped?
I never saw Ghost Story but it seems like this director has a style. A shitty one but he’s consistent!
“…one could not be blamed for desiring an Arthurian adventure that didn’t
unfold in such an unbroken state of art-movie portentousness.”After the last several cinematic takes on the Matter of Britain that resembled modern action movies both in script and in cinematography, I welcome something more serious minded.
Yeah, I wasn’t exactly like “Oh, another Oscar-bait King Arthur film…”
The whorehouse was open on Christmas?
I’m not normally a knight in shining armor/fantasy/dragons kind-o-guy so this trailer did nothing for me honestly. (I know…there aren’t any dragons. That I know of.) But as soon as I saw it was from A24, I’m like…this could be interesting! There are few companies that do that to me. Pixar being one of a very short list. So ok, I’m in. At some point, A24 is really going to let me down but so far, not really.
I have an MA in Medieval Studies, specializing in Middle English, and I am so excited that this is apparently good.
I’m feeling some The Fountain vibes, which in my book is a good thing…
I loved the Fountain. I did not like this very much.
Nice wanted to see this since last year. Going to see it this weekend!
This review is resplendent with verdant, esoteric adjectives, spilling rampantly across the ravenous page.
This must be the flick a friend of mine keeps referring to as “A Connecticut Swamp Thing in King Arthur’s Court”
Also, obligatory:BEIN WITH YEW GIIIIRRRLLIS LIKE BEIN LOWHEY HEY HEY LIKE BEIN STONED
Turns out it’s actually “stone” rather than “stoned”.
Listen, there are still people who don’t think that song’s about heroin.
See also: “Follow Me” but Uncle Kracker
Oh, do I have to?
I just looked it up…and until now I’d thought they were the same David Lowery, but it turns out they’re different people.So you’re just going to have to get off this, and get on with it.
I just did the same. lol
“Simon Arbitage”?
it feels like we’ve been waiting for this movie for ten years; at this point I couldn’t be more hyped.
20 years ago the book Timeline had a green knight in it. I wonder if that’s the inspiration. Really cool little story. Shitty movie, decent book.
This is just about the only American movie I’m interested in watching lately.
villain of classic literature into a menace of vegetative viridescence So we have definitive proof that the first A. in A. A. Dowd stands for alliteration. The question is, though, what the second one stands for. Is it just inserted for alliteration’s sake? We will never know.(Great review, either way — it’s the one movie, In The Heights not playing around here anyway — that tempts me to go to a cinema, even though, well, there’s still that plague. I think the widescreen would be worth it though.)
Amazing movie!
The Green Knight was Fern all along!
“I know that face. You just killed someone.”
My most highly anticipated movie of all of the pandemic-delayed ones…looking forward to finally getting back into a theater for this.
Simon Armitage, not Arbitage: Britain’s current poet laureate and author of a great retelling of “Sir Gawain And The Green Knight.” Worth your reading time.
Having virtually no knowledge of the source material or even any Arturian lore broader than Monty Python definitely seems to be detrimental when seeing this movie. It’s quite hard to follow the structure, though I’m at least enthused to find from this review that I wasn’t just having exceptional trouble differentiating young white Ladies/whores, because they were in fact played by the same actor. I also would have never known that the Ent-like nature of the Green Knight was a conceit.I suppose the lesson is don’t skip your English homework. I still found it enjoyable —primarily to look at— but I think having some extra context would go a real long way here.
Well… it was pretty, if just too dark most of the time. It’s obviously all allegorical, but if you aren’t familiar with the poem (and possibly even if you are) there are no clues to the meaning in the movie itself. After reading an interview with Lowery in Variety, this movie was made for himself, and if you aren’t him, you probably won’t really have any idea what’s going on from watching the movie alone. Wanted to like it, walked out pretty disappointed.
[MAJOR SPOILER][SERIOUSLY][YOU’VE BEEN WARNED] It’s not just that the meaning of the poem isn’t clear, it’s that it’s completely muddled by implying that the Green Knight is about to kill Gawain for real at the end. (Unless I totally misread that, in which case, feel free to correct me.) The poem itself is highly enigmatic and academic careers have been built on interpreting it, but it’s pretty clear that the Knight teaches Gawain a lesson that makes him a better man, which seems kind of pointless if you’re just going to lop of his head. It also raises the question of why did his MOM set the whole thing up? Did she really want him out of the house that badly?I don’t know what I was expecting, but I sure didn’t expect an unlicensed knockoff of The Last Temptation of Christ, although I would happily accept Dev Patel as Jesus if somehow David Bowie could reprise his role.
*SPOILERS, I GUESS, IF YOU CAN SPOIL A MOVIE THAT REALLY HAS NO SEQUENTIAL LOGIC*
From what I’ve read in one interview with Lowery, can’t remember where, he filmed a more definitive ending but instead he intentionally left it open to interpretation, citing the finale of the Sopranos… which is a choice, I guess. I also interpreted it as him getting chopped, so you’re not alone.
Additionally, it’s apparent from watching the movie that almost none of the characters are just who they appear to be, outside of Gawain, the prostitute, Arthur, his mom, and maybe Guinevere. From an interview in Variety or Vulture I think, it appears as if Gawain is a stand in for Lowery, and EVERY OTHER CHARACTER IS HIS MOTHER! The fox, the Green Knight, the hunter, the lady, the blindfolded old lady and possibly even the thieves. Freud would have had a field day with this guy.If nothing else, watch it at home because some scenes are so dark (maybe it was my theater, I dunno), and the dialog at times so difficult to understand that I repeatedly wanted to skip back to try and catch something. Again, I want to like it, but without a key, it’s mainly just scenes loosely connected with dream logic. And so slow. And I watched Pig and loved it, but this was slooooooooow.
Interesting. He actually said EVERY other character is his mother? I think even Freud might have walked away from that. I am not a successful filmmaker, but it seems to me if he was going for open-ended ambiguity he should have sacrificed the “wham” line. The Sopranos didn’t end with somebody walking into the diner, aiming a gun, and saying “I’m going to kill you now, Tony” immediately before the blackout.The darkness and drabness were surprising and disappointing for a film of which the word “green” is one of two principal words in the title and the subject of a lengthy monologue.I was really worried when I failed to understand most of the opening prologue, but I think that was mostly because of the weird distortion effect. I didn’t have a problem with the accents other than whatever it was Alicia Vikander was doing as “Lady.”Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn’t seen so much hype about it beforehand. As it is, it mostly makes me want to watch Excalibur again. Now there’s a movie with some green in it.
I don’t know if he said the fox (not great CGI, btw) was, but considering the lady was I think wearing fox fur in the scene where she gives him the belt, I assumed maybe she was the fox. But the knight and the hunter/lady/old lady were supposed to be. Like, basically the entire quest was initiated and overseen by her.And I went in with no expectations but I was still disappointed. I don’t remember ever seeing anything about it and have never read the poem it’s based on, but Dev Patel is pretty and the reviews were good, so I went. I like big tent-pole action movies (I thought Jungle Cruise was brainless fun), but I love to go to smaller movies in the theater so I don’t have easily accessible distractions and can really pay attention. Pig was a small movie with slower pacing and not much dialog and I loved that movie. I should have liked the Green Knight, and I think the performances were very good, but it just felt like a puzzle with pieces missing, and the pieces that were there didn’t fit together for me.
I expect we may well be in the minority opinion. I’ve seen so many glowing reviews. In any case, I hope it succeeds so we can get more studios to take chances on these sorts of movies, but it just didn’t work for me.
I did not make that connection with the Lady’s fur, but it seems incredibly obvious now that you mention it. And didn’t the fox speak with Morgan’s voice? In which case… ewww.And yes, the CGI fox was bad. Like, I think Song of the South did a better job combining live-action people with animated critters. And is it weird that I was put off by the howling? I mean, I knew it was going to magically talk at some point but somehow magically howling was a bridge too far for me.I too liked Pig. It was the first movie I saw in the theater since First Cow. Maybe I should stick to movies named after barnyard animals.
I read that interview, too. He said that the knight definitely kills him, but that this ending is intentionally more vague, and he’s cool with people having more interpretations.
It sounds like, in the other ending, we would have seen the knight take Gawain’s head, and he decided that was just too on-the-nose, or something like that.
I thought only the crone and the fox where Morgan Le Fey?
That’s what I thought, too. It sounds like Morgan summoned the knight hoping to have it fight one of Arthur’s actual knights. Instead, Gawain surprises her and takes the challenge. The rest of the movie—starting with her giving him the belt before he leaves—is her trying to get Gawain to either survive the encounter, or just avoid it entirely.
She’s the crone, who seemingly tries to get the “Lay” to give him the belt again. And she’s the fox who is keeping a watchful eye and/or guiding him, and eventually straight up tells him not to meet the knight.
That all came together way after seeing the movie. I kinda wanna watch it again. But it makes sense in my head. She didn’t mean for Gawain to accept the challenge. She never thought he would. He’s been lazy and just screwed around his whole life up until that moment.
The crone, definitely (this is the case in the poem as well), and it’s implied that the fox is as well (or at least her familiar / acting on her behalf). In the poem, the Lord is in fact The Green Knight himself (bewitched by Le Fey). The film leaves it more open-ended, but I’d wager the Lord and Lady if anything are more “influenced” by Le Fey rather than La Fey herself. The thieves were just thieves as far as I can tell.
The Sopranos reference makes a ton of sense. It doesn’t matter if the Knight kills Gawain or is telling him to go off, with his head. Gawain’s accepted his mortality — if he lives he won’t go through life under the shadow of death, as someone else wrote. But the price for that is his really accepting the possibility of his death right then. Is that moment of growth valuable even in the absence of a “Surprise, you get to live” ending?Gawain gets to a place Tony never did. And because we never see Tony get there (and we actually see him get farther away throughout the final season), the Sopranos ending has a tension that this one doesn’t, despite the similarity of leaving the main characters’ fates ambiguous. I think it’s a really neat inversion.
Well the inclusion of St. Winifred (and Gawain acting as St. Beuno whose miracle was raising people form the dead) kind of implies that beheading isn’t a permanent death here. I’m in a weird place where sitting through it was boring as hell, but Ive enjoyed thinking about it enough that I’d say I liked it. I guess the real trial will be whether I’m willing to sit through it again if it ever hits streaming.
SPOILERSI don’t think the ending was muddled, I think it was intentionally reversed. The poem’s Beheading Game is ultimately honorable, as you noted, teaching Gawain a valuable lesson. By removing the sense behind the Game, the film intentionally renders it senseless. Since the Game represents honor, particularly the honor that Gawain was so obsessed with achieving, the movie essentially condemns the chivalric code as barbaric, the source of a pointless act of violence.
By fully participating in the Game in the film’s final moments, Gawain becomes the honorable knight he’d been trying and failing to be throughout the movie. In fact, he becomes even more noble than the poem version of Gawain, since film Gawain returns the girdle to the Green Knight (albeit without knowing his identity), fulfilling his promise during the exchange of winnings. Gawain does “the right thing” and even earns the Green Knight’s respect – and it doesn’t accomplish anything but get him killed. He gets honor at the cost of everything else, including love and life.All this said, I’m a bit undecided on the ending too, honestly. I honestly did find it interesting and meaningful – but condemning chivalry as a false and arbitrary virtue is probably the default approach modern storytellers take to medieval stories (and pseudo-medieval ones like Game of Thrones). On a moral level, I even agree with that argument, but I really want to see ancient and medieval stories adapted to the screen on their own terms. I don’t want “subversive” modern deconstructions, I want epic poems and chivalric romances. But, regardless of my general preferences, The Green Knight is explicitly revisionist, and I think it’s a fantastic movie on the terms the filmmakers decided upon.
I came here to say something like this, I think the movie is deeply clear on its value system, and I didn’t feel there was much ambiguity about it. It’s even made explicitly clear by Essel before Gawain begins the journey.
That said, I ultimately side with the previous commentor who missed the fun of these original stories, but if we can’t have that, I’ll take this over the Guy Richie shit any day of the week.
(over a month later but I only just saw the film)I didn’t think the Green Knight was really going to chop off Gawain’s head at the end. He stopped his axe, knelt down beside him, and said “well done” or something. Then was kind of smiling when he said “now, off with your head.”In either case, Gawain has still learned the lesson. He has accepted the consequences of his actions and is offering his head to the Green Knight.
This. I almost fell asleep a couple times. Loved the Green Knight scenes but the rest was just boring. Sorry, was super stoked for it but left bummed.
Same. I would not recommend this thing.
I thought it might’ve just been the theatre I was at, but this film was so dark that I struggled to make out what was happening half the time. Agree with everything else you said, too. It’s a mess of disparate, albeit well-performed and good looking, scenes that all add up a whole that is much less than the sum of the parts.
Spoilers. The point that I took from the movie was that it was about what it means to live a life in the shadow of death. The moment when Gawain says he would be just as scared to die if he had “one year or a hundred” to prepare is telling. Because he does get that hundred years (in the Last Temptation moment) and death still comes and it still hurts to die. It also explains the death moment that happens after the bandits – Gawain is afraid of the death hanging over him for a year from the Green Knight. But death could have come at any time anyway for practically any other reason.
That makes a lot of sense. I’ll have to rewatch it sometime with that in mind. I guess the thing I don’t get is…. Ok, so he wants honor… He doesn’t realize that the green knight is immortal, (or does he?), so how does he get honor from beheading a defenseless man? Or if he does know he won’t kill the green knight, he knows the rules and knows he’s expected to receive the same blow in return one year later, so is it technically a suicide attempt? Or maybe logic is irrelevant I this story and I’m just approaching it from the wrong perspective completely. I really knew nothing about the movie or the story of the green knight before walking into the theater so I felt lost through the entire movie.
Well, but I think within the “life while in death” theme is maturity and immaturity. Gawain wants honor – to be seen as an adult and a Knight. But he’s a boy who doesn’t really understand what that means and is also scared of the burdens of maturity, so he falls back on just being as violent as possible during the “game”. He’s embarrassed in front of the other seasoned knights and doesn’t know how to act, so he falls back on being a violent knightly cliche.I think this is the casting issue. Gawain is supposed to be a callow boy, but he’s being played by a clearly grown man. It works for the later Last Temptation scenes for him to be older, but I think it makes the “he’s a confused teenager” scenes muddled.
Well, damn, I never thought it would happen, but someone on the internet (you) has convinced someone else (me) they might be wrong. I definitely have to give it another watch.I will say, then, that I think some of the editing/direction was weak in communicating some of these things. Or I’m just really oblivious and missed a lot.
Awww! I hope you enjoy it if you do see it again! For me, it was a movie that benefited from me getting to see it with people. Because they pointed aspects out that made me go, “Oh yeah! That’s also part of that theme!” Like, another interesting element that worked with the life/death, youth/age theming is Wynifred – she’s both a young vulnerable girl and a dry skeleton. And even the “green” term is alternatively representative of youth and vitality and also death and rot. I’m not sure it always holds together as a movie, but it did at least leave me thinking about it for awhile afterward.
Counter-argument: This movie, past the opening 30 minutes, was boring as fuck.
I liked the St. Winifrid scene. And “The exchange of wwwwwww” made me laugh.
I get that this was the tone of movie he was going for, but I think it’s a little sad that they lost the playfulness of the original. The early medieval KA stories often had that streak of fun and joy and it would have been fun to see it.
I think it’s a consequence of being an R-rated fantasy movie made post-GoT.
Yeah true. Though also I kind of blame the Victorians who pushed for more serious, noble, romantic versions of the story. It’s not bad exactly, but I wish the playfulness sometimes came through. The stories were more human. Like, in “Parsifal”, Gawain goes to a tournament and chooses as his “lady” a little girl who was really sad because she was bullied by her older sister and friends. He rides with her doll on his horse as her “favor” and basically makes her day. It’s so silly and sweet and human. These super-grim-serious versions don’t give space for moments like that.
It definitely wasn’t a comedy or a playful adventure, but I was actually impressed at some of the humor they did work in. Just enough to puncture the overall seriousness. (I would have accepted more, too.)
They definitely worked in some absurdism, which I think worked well with the tone. Though it also made me wish for another version of this film done by the Coen brothers. I think they would have been able to capture both the heavy themes and the silliness more clearly.
SPOILERS ( I guess) …Just got back from seeing this , and even when it happened in the movie,I kept wondering why , when the Green Knight tells Gawain to “strike a blow”, didn’t he just smack the Knight with the flat edge of his sword on his shoulder ( I know , because then there’d be no movie) since that is also “striking a blow”.
Also a little vague on the ending. Aside from the Last Temptation angle,I thought Gawain was supposed to learn from this and grow ,but , I guess not.
Well the Green Knight explicitly tells them that he’d accept a small cut on the cheek. Gawain striking off his head seemed like a mark of his immaturity to me. This was underlined by him doing it even though the king reminded him before the fight it was just a “game.” Gawain needlessly escalated. This differs from the poem where the game is about striking off heads (if I remember right).
Agreed. He was immature and he was standing in front of Arthur’s knights. He felt he needed to impress everyone, or at least show them that he was strong (or whatever).
If he had just slapped him with the sword or given him a little cut, it would have shown that he was wise. Obviously not the case. The knight literally said they would be friends after he struck his return blow a year later. They could have been pals. The Green Knight 2 could have been a buddy comedy!
Yeah, he misread the challenge completely, though Arthur knew what was up, trying to warn him it was a game. The real test was agreeing to face the Green Knight at all. Then once its revealed that the Green Knight wasn’t actually going to fight, Gawain could’ve done a bit of light sparring instead of a full head pruning and proven his wisdom along with his bravery. But I think the brief character work was enough to set up the mistake as plausible, and then for me the rest of the film was enough to pay off the consequences of that mistake. I really liked it, though yeah, no idea what his mom was going for. Also…(more spoilers) was he…gay? Bi? It felt like that was the implication of the entire castle layover. Both the lord and lady wanted to fuck him. The lord even says it’s okay, presumably because he’s gay and wanted to get his wife pregnant this way or maybe just give her some fun. (“I’ll take what I find in the forest, you take what you’re offered here.”) Then the kiss goodbye.Also Merlin was suitably weird despite zero lines and about 75 seconds of screentime.
I guess I interpreted the castle couple to be bi and in an open marriage. Though it’s interesting that they changed it from the poem where Gawain kisses the lord (multiple times!).
Some people have read the original text as queer. but the whole exchange of kisses seems to me to be played for laughs while reinforcing Gawain’s status as an honorable man. (He resists the Lady’s advances, mostly, without shaming her and still manages to keep his obligations to his host.)In the film it seems to me that (taken at face value) the Lord and Lady are both smitten by Gawain but he is steadfastly straight or so repressed he might as well be. He also fails in all the ways his literary counterpart succeeded. (And then succeeds in the one way the original failed — and is murdered for it. So.)
The Lord and Lady both tried to seduce Gawain, and his differing reactions to each showed Gawain to be either resolutely straight or so deeply repressed he might as well be.
In the poem, the Green Knight does not specifically mention beheading. That seems to be Gawain’s idea. But to be fair, when a strange giant barges into a royal celebration and starts throwing around insults and bizarre demands, it’s hard to know what exactly is the right thing to do without the benefit of hindsight. Also, it’s worth noting that Gawain only jumps in when after Arthur himself takes up the challenge, so it’s at least arguably more a case of doing his knightly duty to protect the king than seeking individual glory.In the film version, the Green Knight is even more menacing and inhuman in appearance, and Gawain is clearly frightened and unsure of himself. Should he trust that this monster will play fairly and exchange like for like, or should he try his best to put an end to the threat? Again without the benefit of knowing how the story ends, it’s a tough call.
In my college days I saw “Lancelot Du Lac” and loved it. How does it compare to this movie?
It’s a more focused Excalibur.
Saw it last night with my 19 year old daughter. I liked it. She did not. Pull quote: “That got an R for violence? There was not that much violence.” I have an extensive knowledge of Arthurian lore, she does not. She also struggles with the pre-modern method of story telling in which a lot of stuff just sort of happens, and then it ends (like life). I feel like it’s a movie you just have to watch, and not worry too much about making sense of it. For the record, I did not drag her to this. She saw the trailer and thought it looked cool.
Pretty sure the R was for the cumshot.
Head on fire imagery and Green Knight beheading may have been enough to combine for an R, but you’re probably right. Which remains fucking hilarious. The idea that seeing some sexual content is on par with graphic violence in terms of things people under 17 shouldn’t encounter is so perfectly American.
I wonder if the spunky hand/belt shot was a part of it.I must admit that bit made me go “wtf! did i just see that?” and wind it back, but ultimately it was there to be provocative and it wouldn’t make a difference if it wasn’t in there.
(Well, apart from me thinking “he’s still wearing that jizzy belt” for the rest of the film)
Loved it! A- in my book and for only a few, picky reasons; 1 – It kinda strayed from the original narrative (and not unpleasantly so in it’s Last Temptation of Christ vibe), and 2 – Got a little draggy in the second act for me.What buoys this into A territory for me is the overall sense of mythology it creates. You feel the “fog of war” in this, and everything in this universe is up for debate; Christian God or Pagan Gods? There are no answers and faith to either is based mostly on necessity and fear. This looks gorgeous. I don’t know what else you can say other than I felt like I could actually smell the loamy earthiness of medieval England. Dev Patel shines as per usual. What I love about him is he transcends race in everything he does. We’re so caught up in dividing ourselves along those guides, it’s surprising how successful he is at bucking that status quo (see Great Expectations! It’s a must and he’s brilliant).This was just a satisfying experience through and through!