King Arthur

[Free Capitalist]

Well, I see what you're saying. But imagine a story where Howard Roark learns to fly like Superman. One could use your argument to say that this is also a story not about how man is, but how he ought to be.

I might have been a bit negative in my last post, King Arthur isn't a terrible movie, but all I could think about during it was how cheap his ideas were, how easily they came to him, how 'obvious' they were. This is different from We The Living, because the latter set of ideas are of a different nature. The moral lesson about integrity and values doesn't require a lot of intellectual progress, just honesty mainly. The moral lesson about rights requires an unbelievable amount of intellectual progression, and it's treated like it's just another obvious moral lesson that requires only honesty to realize.

[Zeus]

Well, I see what you're saying. But imagine a story where Howard Roark learns to fly like Superman. One could use your argument to say that this is also a story not about how man is, but how he ought to be.

No, you're dropping context. Superman violates the laws of physics. Arthur, on the other hand, was a lifelong student of the philosopher Pelagius. Just as some of us here are, and will be, lifelong students of the philosopher Ayn Rand.

I might have been a bit negative in my last post, King Arthur isn't a terrible movie, but all I could think about during it was how cheap his ideas were, how easily they came to him, how 'obvious' they were. This is different from We The Living, because the latter set of ideas are of a different nature. The moral lesson about integrity and values doesn't require a lot of intellectual progress, just honesty mainly. The moral lesson about rights requires an unbelievable amount of intellectual progression, and it's treated like it's just another obvious moral lesson that requires only honesty to realize.

"Isn't a terrible movie" ? King Arthur is a wonderful movie!

No. His ideas were not cheap - they were long-studied from his mentor Pelagius, who was murdered by the Church. And what price is higher than death? The 'condemnation of Pelagius' is an actual historical event, I'm sure you realize. Arthur himself killed hundreds of men in his quest to actualize his ideal.

And before Pelagius, there had been the Stoics who had given us a glimpse of rights, and Christianity, which had given us a glimpse of the sanctity of the individual. For more of this, please see Leonard Peikoff's Religion vs. America in The Voice of Reason where he writes:

The early Christians did contribute some good ideas to the world, ideas that proved important to the cause of future freedom. I must, so to speak, give the angels their due. In particular, the idea that man has a value as an

individual - that the individual soul is precious - is essentially a Christian legacy to the West; its first appearance was in the form of the idea that every man, despite original sin, is made in the image of God (as against the pre-Christian notion that a certain group or nation has a monopoly on human value, while the rest of mankind are properly slaves or mere barbarians). But notice a crucial point: this Christian idea, by itself, was historically impotent. It did nothing to unshackle the serfs or stay the Inquisition or turn the Puritan elders into Thomas Jeffersons. Only when the religious

approach lost its power - only when the idea of individual value was able to break free from its Christian context and become integrated into a rational, secular philosophy - only then did this kind of idea bear practical fruit.

The 'Director's Cut' is up there with Ridley Scott's Gladiator, I dare say. In sense of life terms, it actually beats Gladiator hands down.

I rest my case.

[CICEROSC]

Yes, in my post I was writing about the Director's Cut, sorry that I was not clear. I did not see the film when it was in release, so I'm curious whether that version has less of a dark tone than the director's cut. I may just be curious enough to get both DVD's to check out the editing decisions.

Someone went to some trouble to do the homework on Pelagius, and to add the free will philosophical overlay to the more basic issue that the original Arthur could have been a Roman. I gather that the research for Arthur being a Roman has some basis in fact, but I'm not aware that the free will / Pelagius connection with Arthur was anything other than the writer's injection -- in fact I think I read somewhere on a page about the movie that they knew they were compressing time (or moving it around) in the storyline.

So it sounds like the screenwriter was consciously injecting the philosophical angle, and I wonder if the director's decisions aren't to blame for watering that down. The writer made Arthur almost a philosopher-king, which was great. On the other hand, the knights, even Lancelot, were portrayed as good men, but not shown as having any personal interest or participation in Arthur's free will ideas. Even Guinevere, who would have been a natural character in whom to display appreciation and increasing devotion for Arthur's ideas, is used only to set up the immediate problem of the Saxon invasion, rather than to give any kind of definition to a world of freedom and individual improvement worth fighting for regardless of the enemy. So to some extent we were left with the shopworn (to be charitable) Americans-in-Vietnam viewpoint that Fuqua apparently intentionally applied (as he states in the DVD director commentary overlay).

I kept thinking to myself as I watched this that if the Pelagius part of the script had been pushed just a little harder, and if the knights (and Guinevere) had been given more than just a hint of interest in those ideas, the movie would ended with a "glow" even better than Lord-Of-The-Rings -- a glow based on a vision of a leader working to promote the adoption of clear and correct ideas. As it was, I thought the grim Vietnam analogy obscured that result. But again, all in all, wade through the unnecessary grimness and there's a very good movie.

[Zeus]

Yes, in my post I was writing about the Director's Cut, sorry that I was not clear.  I did not see the film when it was in release, so I'm curious whether that version has less of a dark tone than the director's cut.  I may just be curious enough to get both DVD's to check out the editing decisions.

No, no, there's no call for apology. I even thank you for re-awakening this thread.

Someone went to some trouble to do the homework on Pelagius, and to add the free will philosophical overlay to the more basic issue that the original Arthur could have been a Roman.  I gather that the research for Arthur being a Roman has some basis in fact, but I'm not aware that the free will / Pelagius connection with Arthur was anything other than the writer's injection -- in fact I think I read somewhere on a page about the movie that they knew they were compressing time (or moving it around) in the storyline.

That person's name is David Franzoni, the man responsible for the Gladiator, Amistad, and highly-anticipated (at least by me) Trial of Socrates screenplays.

Aside of Andrew Niccol, and perhaps the work of Brad Bird and Tim McCanlies (between them responsible for The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Secondhand Lions), no one else in Hollywood is creating such dramatic yet philosophically-challenging material.

If we are to be just, we cannot shrug off what he has done here; his hard work must be recognized.

I agree with you that the free-will/Pelagius connection to the Arthurian legend is the writer's injection. But, what an injection!

Just consider what it must have taken. A solid grasp and appreciation of history, which many people today think is unnecessary. A solid grasp of different philological threads: the Stoics, the Christians, and the British Magna Carta (the first famous document to give property rights some recognition). And the volition to lace all these together using one of the greatest British legends.

Bravo!

So it sounds like the screenwriter was consciously injecting the philosophical angle, and I wonder if the director's decisions aren't to blame for watering that down.  The writer made Arthur almost a philosopher-king, which was great.  On the other hand, the knights, even Lancelot, were portrayed as good men, but not shown as having any personal interest or participation in Arthur's free will ideas.

Ahhhh....this is where my disagreement (which is amicable, mind you) begins.

If you watch the movie again, you'll see where Lancelot says he

*************** SPOILERS****************************

knows he will die in battle, but "let it be a battle of my own choosing..." Also, the crude knight with many children uses the word "free" many times, especially after his best friend, Dag, is killed in the battle on ice.

Then, in the minutes preceding the last battle, Arthur delivers one last speech on Baden Hill which makes clear that this battle wasn't one imposed upon the knights but rather one of their own choosing.

****************************************************

My point is, yes, they shared his ideas, but in the way that only somewhat-cynical, indentured servants could. Remember, they, unlike Arthur, were in the service of Rome. They had been pledged to this service since early youth. So, you will forgive their disdain for what they considered Rome's pretensions. And because of this disdain, they fought, not for Rome but for Arthur. Check out Dag's speech before they set out to get the boy.

Even Guinevere, who would have been a natural character in whom to display appreciation and increasing devotion for Arthur's ideas, is used only to set up the immediate problem of the Saxon invasion, rather than to give any kind of definition to a world of freedom and individual improvement worth fighting for regardless of the enemy.  So to some extent we were left with the shopworn (to be charitable) Americans-in-Vietnam viewpoint that Fuqua apparently intentionally applied (as he states in the DVD director commentary overlay).

I didn't see the director commentary, unfortunately.

My grouse with Guinevere (a fantastic performance still by Knightley) stems from the somewhat neo-conservative strain running through the movie: the notion that freedom will take 'automatically' take root anywhere it is sowed. She talks continually about Arthur's killing of his "own people" - a barbaric phrase on its own terms.

However, the Woads are barbarians blessed with very moral leadership - Merlin - who flatly tells Arthur that he, Merlin,

******************* SPOILERS *******************

requires a "master of war," and "my men, Arthur, think you can do anything."

*************************************************

So, Arthur makes the tough decision to try to spread freedom amongst the barbarian Woads instead of the semi-civilized Romans. Why? Because he had more influence with the Woads. But the movie does not say this - I am extrapolating from observation and experience here.

I kept thinking to myself as I watched this that if the Pelagius part of the script had been pushed just a little harder, and if the knights (and Guinevere) had been given more than just a hint of interest in those ideas, the movie would ended with a "glow" even better than Lord-Of-The-Rings  -- a glow based on a vision of a leader working to promote the adoption of clear and correct ideas.  As it was, I thought the grim Vietnam analogy obscured that result.  But again, all in all, wade through the unnecessary grimness and there's a very good movie.

I see what you mean: that the movie could have been more benevolent had it been more clearly focused. I agree. But, I guess if that were the case, we - Objectivists - wouldn't be in such thorough conflict with the culture.

Enjoy the weekend!

[Free Capitalist]

Well, regardless of how plausible it might have been for Arthur to just break out into lectures on rights, the other reason for my contention still stays. The fact that he chooses primitive Celts as most worthy of his protection, rather than civilized (not just semi-civilized) Romans, is infuriating to me. In a modern context, that's like choosing to build a free state in Iraq and leave America to crumble. Arthur likes to lecture the Romans on how far short they come of his ideal, and believes the Celts are better. Puh-lease.

[Zeus]

Well, regardless of how plausible it might have been for Arthur to just break out into lectures on rights, the other reason for my contention still stays. The fact that he chooses primitive Celts as most worthy of his protection, rather than civilized (not just semi-civilized) Romans, is infuriating to me. In a modern context, that's like choosing to build a free state in Iraq and leave America to crumble. Arthur likes to lecture the Romans on how far short they come of his ideal, and believes the Celts are better. Puh-lease.

Hold the phone, brother...

The Romans were on their way out of civilization: Augustine had had his say and the Catholic Church held full sway. It was the 5th century A.D. A "Rome, right or wrong" attitude cannot change the facts of reality.

Your analogy once again drops context, and would only seem plausible were the leader of Irag Objectivist, and had invited ten thousand American Objectivists to Iraq, and Leonard Peikoff or Harry Binswanger were of Iraqi descent.

Arthur gave one (two?) speeches to individual Romans (gathered in small groups) - there is no evidence that he was lecturing Romans in general. And I'm sure he killed many more Woads than he did Romans, whom he killed on behalf of for many years.

Please provide evidence that Arthur believed the Woads were better.

[Free Capitalist]

He chose to defend them and leave Romans to fend for themselves, did he not? Unless he was an altruist, he chose to defend who in his view were the the better people, and left to die the worse people.

And as far as Arthur's lecturing goes, yes it's true that he only lectures a few Romans here and there - that's because Romans were abandoning Britain, and there weren't that many left! He lectured as many as could listen, and what's more important, he lectured the movie's audience that he was a proper, moral man, as opposed to these primitive Romans who respect no one's rights. This is the whole justification for Arthur's primary choice in the movie: the Romans are incapable of understanding his vision of human equality and individual rights, so he abandons them and their brutish ways to lead the pure and noble Celts, whose minds and culture are more receptive to his enlightened ideals.

As I said, above, puh-lease.

Oh and by the way, regardless of how low the Romans fell by the 5th century AD, they still valued the Classical civilization, and defend it for centuries past their cultural prime, as ancient monument of glory they could not match anymore, but could at least protect from mindless brutes pressing down on the empire. The same cannot be said for the European barbarians (the aforementioned mindless brutes), who, when having acquired power over the ancient legacy, pillaged and destroyed it in short order.

[Zeus]

He chose to defend them and leave Romans to fend for themselves, did he not? Unless he was an altruist, he chose to defend who in his view were the the better people, and left to die the worse people.

No. This is a misreading of events: Arthur, commander of all the armed forces at the Great Wall, had been abandoned in the most ignominious manner by the government he had long cherished and championed. Rome had sent word of its intent to abandon a semi-civilized Britain through a consul, a man who also served new, dangerous, and unforeseen orders to Arthur and his men.

Rome had betrayed this champion. And it had betrayed his men.

So, what was the man to do? Betray his men? Or worse: betray his ideas? i.e., betray himself?

Absolutely not.

Ideas are eternal and do not inhere in people. They need to be sowed, and to sow them, the planter requires only one thing: a willing audience. Which he had in the Woads. You will recall the Woad who said to Arthur at point of death, "[strike me with] Excalibur, and make this ground holy."

Arthur realized that his faith in humans had to be grounded in reality and not remain a floating abstraction. [i have validated this truth first-hand myself, e.g., I had thought that all Objectivists I met would be as I was in temperament, but was seriously disappointed.]

He thought very deeply about the issue of his 'nationality,' and realized that his interests were better served with the Woads. After all, their leader and their leader's soldiers were solidly in his corner, as I have pointed out above.

The Romans no longer needed his services; they had said so themselves.

And as far as Arthur's lecturing goes, yes it's true that he only lectures a few Romans here and there - that's because Romans were abandoning Britain, and there weren't that many left! He lectured as many as could listen, and what's more important, he lectured the movie's audience that he was a proper, moral man, as opposed to these primitive Romans who respect no one's rights. This is the whole justification for Arthur's primary choice in the movie: the Romans are incapable of understanding his vision of human equality and individual rights, so he abandons them and their brutish ways to lead the pure and noble Celts, whose minds and culture are more receptive to his enlightened ideals.

As I said, above, puh-lease.

Ah!, I see you are cognizant of the abandonment of Britain by the noble Romans.

For the rest of my response, see above.

-----------------------------------------------------------

All in all, we can agree to disagree on 'King Arthur." I will still read your posts, FC.

Cheers!

[smogdog]

Addressing the historical accuracy/inaccuracy discussion, the film makers were somewhat vague, (as they usually are). You've seen the movie, now read the book - for free:

http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/

He's a man willing to put his money where his mouth is:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=14389

As for Guinevere's outfit - if she were only wearing blue paint ... well then, that would have been that much more historically accurate, wouldn't it? The only problem I see in this approach is that they all would have been naked. Personally, I would have appreciated just a touch more realism.