Der eiserne Ritter von Falworth

Instead of trying to portray real historical events, Hollywood instead opts for a fictitious story set in the England of Henry IV. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Unusually for Hollywood, they actually make an effort to get things right historically, and broadswords are used as broadswords and not as rapiers. The weaponry and military techniques are pretty OK for a Hollywood film, and are, on the whole, accurate.

The fight sequences are very exciting and, along with the training methods, are probably the best bits of the film.

As to Tony Curtis's accent. Well, we have in Geoffrey Chaucer an authentic idea of what the English language in London was like in the early 15th century. It is ridiculous to write the script in Chaucerian English - not if you want to fill the cinemas, at any rate. Compare Tony Curtis in Black Shield with Olivier in Henry V. Is Olivier's accent any more correct or authentic? This is not the deepest film ever made, but there is plenty to enjoy about it.

I guess this qualifies as an overdue "thank you" to this movie for getting me started in a lifelong love of history. I saw this movie originally as an 8 year old. I knew nothing about movies, stars, plots, directors or anything else about film, but Oh how I wanted to swash and buckle after seeing it!

It also got me interested in reading more about the era, and beyond that to other eras as well. Since then I have always been sympathetic to historical epics and movies on screen--and elsewhere. No matter how horrendous they might be (and some of them are pretty horrendous), I figure if it gets people interested they can go from there. The funny thing is is that the real history is often much more fascinating--and can be more fun--than the Hollywood variety. In fact I never fully understood why people thought history was boring--perhaps it was too many dates.

So thanks Tony, Janet, David, and Craig for getting me started.

To my mind, this is the best knights of olde movie ever made. Years ago it was the habit of British tv station BBC2 to have a movie on at 6pm most evenings and they were usually, either 40 & 50's westerns, historical yarns, melodramas or swashbucklers. One such film was The Black Shield of Falworth, I was a big fan of such films like The Vikings (Incidentally or co-incidentally both starred Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh) and decided to record this movie, if it was any good I'd keep it, but if not just tape over the damn thing. The movie was that good I still have it after 15/16 years. The plot is similar to Henty's Novel 'St George for England' in as much as it tells the story of a peasant boy ignorant of his noble blood for most of his upbringing. though that's where the similarities end. The American accents in a film set in medieval England are ludricrous, but the plot of the film is so engaging that you don't mind as much. Torin Thatcher gives us another scene stealing performance as the firm but fair Sir James and if it's possible, betters his performance as Humble Bellows in The Crimson Pirate. This film has everything, action, romance, subtle comedy, and an excellent music score. This is not one to miss and I can't wait to get this movie on DVD so i can give my old VHS copy a well deserved retirement.

At least it was when I was 7! If you like The Vikings, Scaramouche, The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Crimson Pirate, you absolutely can not go wrong with this. Curtis is excellent (in an anachronistic sort of way) and Torin Thatcher is one of cinema's greatest villains. I wish someone would bring it out on DVD!

Why do all the critics love to attack Tony Curtis for his accent in this movie? (Most frequently citing the line "Yonda lies da castle of my fodda.") Since Curtis's movie acting is invariably entertaining, doesn't he deserve the benefit of a doubt when it comes to the arcane question of what accent is appropriate to a fictional medieval character? The critics have always complained that his accent sounds too American or New York for a medieval knight. But how can the critics be so sure that they are right and the actor is wrong? I mean, what did a genuine English knight of the middle ages really sound like? Have they researched this question?

There were many races of people in England of the middle ages: Saxons, Angles, Normans, Celts, Scandinavians, Picts, Scots, Frenchmen, Jews, even some Moors. Back then, of course, they didn't speak modern English as actors do in almost every American-made movie, so the only issue is whether Curtis's pronunciation of vowels and consonants sounds wrong or right for a medieval knight.

In the Bronx in the twentieth century (Tony Curtis's time and place) there was a mixture of races similar to that of Europe in the middle ages. The pronunciation of the local dialect spoken most likely would have been similar to that of many European languages, including English of several historical periods. Most importantly, if Tony Curtis spoke Yiddish, then he spoke a dialect very similar to medieval languages like Old German or Old English.

It's pretty obvious that the critics had it completely wrong. If there had ever been a real knight of Falworth and we somehow had the opportunity to ask him to pronounce the "offending" line (which was actually the invention of a carping critic and not even in the movie), how might it have sounded? Tony Curtis had it right!