by Allan Fish
(UK 1981 141m) DVD1/2
Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha
p/d John Boorman w Rospo Pallenberg, John Boorman book “Le Morte d’Arthur” by Sir Thomas Malory ph Alex Thomson ed John Merritt m Trevor Jones (including Richard Wagner, Carl Orff ) art Anthony Pratt, Tim Hutchinson, Neil Jordan cos Bob Ringwood
Nigel Terry (Arthur), Cherie Lunghi (Guinevere), Nicholas Clay (Lancelot du Lac), Helen Mirren (Morgana), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Robert Addie (Mordred), Paul Geoffrey (Perceval), Gabriel Byrne (Uther Pendragon), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Liam Neeson (Gawain), Katrine Boorman (Igraine), Keith Buckley (Uriens), Patrick Stewart (Leondegrance of Camellard), Clive Swift (Ector), Ciaran Hinds, Carolyn Boorman,
There have been many Arthurian films over the years, conjuring up images of Richard Harris’ non-singing, Keira Knightley’s battle costume, and Stanley Baker glowering in a stone circle. Most of them have been predictably awful, and only really two stand tall. The first, Bresson’s Lancelot du Lac, is certainly a classic of sorts, but in trademark minimalist key. His is the world of Chrétien de Troyes, and sets the legend in a very real medieval world. History tells us that, if he existed at all, Arthur was a Romano-Saxon of the 4th-5th centuries, which tends to call for a fantastic take on the legend that, up until Excalibur, hadn’t been attempted. Boorman’s masterpiece may be gory and, with its nude love scenes, not really for kids, but it’s a visual triumph of the film-maker’s art.
Filming in his beloved Ireland (County Kerry and Wicklow), it’s impossible to underestimate the power of the imagery in Excalibur. Boorman’s Britain is a Celtic hybrid where people speak in Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Scottish brogues, where pagan necromancy is disappearing in favour of Christianity and the central ethos is of harmony with nature; “you and the land are one“, Arthur is told. The use of green, in particular, is quite astonishing, none more so than in the ethereal lighting seen throughout not only the woods but inside the castles and even reflected in the pristine shine of the armour and of Excalibur itself. A symbolism at its most potent in one of the most beautiful, symbolic sequences ever filmed, as Arthur leads his knights from Camelot for the last time to their date with destiny, riding through a barren landscape when the flowers and trees magically transform themselves into full bloom as the rejuvenated king leads his knights through a row of budding blossom trees. All accompanied by the greatest ever use of Carl Orff’s immortal ‘O Fortuna’ as could be offered. And Orrf is not the only composer to be so brilliantly served; in addition to Trevor Jones’ career-best score, there’s some spellbinding uses of Wagner. Is there a more foreboding entrance in film than Merlin, in full shaman garb and in silhouette against a fiery backdrop of torches in a forest battle, striding over a hill towards the camera while the theme of ‘Siegfried’ rises up? Or a more perfectly suited use of ‘Parsifal’ than in the grail sequences that proved so controversial? True, they do take the film off into a psychological state that may offend purists, but it successfully emphasised the psychological aspect of the quest, both of mind and soul as well as body. It’s also, of course, in the guise of the unseen ‘dragon’, a homage to George Lucas’ Force. “It is everywhere, it is everything“, as Merlin says.
Featuring more future stars than one could possibly hope to see in one place, it enabled its cast to have a literally fantastic time, none more so than Williamson’s truly barmy Merlin, one of the great eccentric performances in film, with more riddles and cryptic mantras than a dozen sphinxes. Essences of everything from Olivier’s Henry V to Kurosawa’s Kagemusha can also be glimpsed in what Pauline Kael called “one lush, enraptured scene after another.” Castles of gold and silver, charms of making in magical caverns, impossibly beautiful weddings, you name it. Here’s a film that truly does evoke a sense of mythical wonder and shows a legend you believe could last. Terry’s Arthur calls it “the stuff of future memory“, and Excalibur is certainly that. One of the greatest, most underrated films of the eighties; rumours of a longer cut are tantalising, to say the least.
Yep, the use of “O Fortuna” here trumps its employment in the original THE OMEN even. And indeed, th euse of Wagner here is overpowering. I like this film, but perhaps no so much as Allan. Still, another great review here, and a film worthy of another revisit.
I bhave always locked horns with Allan on John Boorman’s best film. For me it’s HOPE AND GLORY, but Allan finds that one mediocre.
Indeed, I’d place Point Blank, The General and Deliverance along with Excalibur ahead of it.
The visual tapestry in this film is awesome, and I also feel the use of music was often overpowering. My favorite Boorman film is “Deliverance” but this one some of the others are also quite good. Excellent cast too. Commendable review, I think I have an old tape of this.
OK, this one I like quite a bit, and I am on the same wavelength with those who praise the visual design and the music. I’m not so sure it’s my favorite Boorman, but I would put it near the top. It is different from just about every else.
I remember this one well, and while I do agree with you Sam on ‘Hope and Glory’ this was (visually) the richest of Boorman’s films.. Most interesting review.
It’s a flawed film, Excalibur, hence not quite getting the maximum ***** rating, but it’s still some kind of stunning. One could only wish the discarded footage would come to light as the insistence on it coming in under 2½ hours would not impede it today, where epics are released at much longer lengths. In an ideal worls, somebody should bribe Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to ‘do it all again’ and do the Arthurian saga as it deserves, in three films. First dealing with the saga of Uther and Merlin and leading up to the sword in the stone. The second dealing with Arthur’s reign up to the beginning of the affair with Lancelot and Guinevere, the third detailing the souring, the departure of Merlin, the rise of Mordred, etc, and the final battle.
It needs doing.
Um… Remember when I said that Arthur has never really been done right on the big screen? Yeah. This is one of those times. I really don’t know what to say, here.
I don’t mind Boorman in his bugnuts loco mode, but I prefer “Zardoz” for that. Would a longer cut do his vision more justice? Perhaps. Should I check this out again and give it another chance? That’s a good question…
Allan, you cagey fox. Better than “Empire”? Better than “Brazil”? Better than “Wings of Desire”, when the child was a child? You’re a sly one, Fish. I’ll give you that.
“In an ideal worls, somebody should bribe Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to ‘do it all again’ and do the Arthurian saga as it deserves, in three films.”
Since we’re discussing the prequels on another board, let me quote Darth Vader:
“Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!”
But we’ve been there before 😉
As for Excalibur: another 80s classic I haven’t seen. It’s just replaced Akira at the top of Netflix. I’m sure several more movies will have topped it before the queue is activated in a couple weeks…
You’re doing a public service, here, Allan…
Here’s the funny thing: wasn’t “Excalibur” what Boorman did when he wasn’t able to secure the rights to “Lord of the Rings”? So, the ideal movie would be produced by the “LOTR” team, based (in Allan’s head) on the vision of a King Arthur film which was made by a guy who had actually wanted to do “LOTR” himself? It would be like the makers of that cheesy “Flash Gordon” movie being allowed to do a remake of “Star Wars”. Now, that’s a disturbing thought…
“Flash! AHH-AHHHH!”
This was the first film by Boorman I ever saw (on the big screen) and found it a visual delight. The comparison that kept continually coming to mind was with those supernatural Japanese films of the 50s and 60s like “Ugetsu” and “Kwaidan.” It just seemed to be steeped in that otherworldly feeling. I agree that it’s not a perfect movie, but that atmosphere is so persistent and so overwhelming that just letting it wash over you seems to minimize the movie’s flaws. The film was another first for me: my first view of the young Helen Mirren (followed a short while later by “The Long Good Friday”), and what a stunning impression she made. I agree with Sam about “Hope and Glory” and with Allan’s ranking of “Point Blank” as one of Boorman’s best films.
I agree fully with Allan on this one, my favorite of all of Boorman’s films. When you look at this film and compare it with all of the films in this directors canon, this is the one Boorman’s heart is all over. Like Allan, I feel the film is a slightly flawed master-work, but the flaws are all over rode by the visual slendor and the attention to period details. The performances are all uniformly terrific, and, yes, the use of music is the icing on the cake. We often talk here about directors making films that forego narrative in favor of creating audio/visual experiences. Here, however, is a perfect example of having both. So far Allan has picked two that will also make my list.
It’s been a while since I saw this, so this is a good reminder of my needing to re-watch it before I make my own 80s list. And, fortunately, I have a copy nearby that I can watch whenever I get the opportunity!