Knights of the Round Table

When I used to teach world history, I invariably got questions such as "When are we going to learn about King Arthur?"...and invariably I had to explain to my students that there was no Arthur...at least when it comes to history. And, because there are many different fictional accounts of Arthur and his reign, the studio had lots of room to craft whatever sort of story they wanted...provided, of course, they included the familiar Arthurian characters.

I have an odd confession. Although I love history and have enjoyed such films as "Ivanhoe", "The Vikings" and "Robin Hood", I am not a huge fan of medieval costume dramas. I find, generally, they are pretty dull affairs...with too much emphasis on costuming and stilted dialog. Heck, my favorite Arthurian film is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"! Keep this in mind as you read the rest of my review.

The film is the story of Sir Lancelot (Robert Taylor) and his career from joining King Arthur to saving Guinevere from captivity to marriage to betraying the king. It's all very familiar stuff if you are acquainted with the legends.

So is it any good? Yes and no. The costumes are nice and one of the horse battles is really nice. But it's also very cold and the dialog very dull and stilted....as I pretty much expected. I give it five stars simply because it looks nice....period.

In his novel "The Lyre of Orpheus" the Canadian writer Robertson Davies made the point that although the Arthurian legend had played an immensely influential role in the history of English literature, there had never been a particularly distinguished dramatic treatment of the story, either in the theatre or in the cinema. (Davies discounts Purcell's opera on the grounds that its plot differs radically from what we have come to think of as the Arthurian story). And yet the story seems to offer great dramatic possibilities, both in its adventure elements and in the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle.

"Knights of the Round Table" was the second in an unofficial trilogy of films on a mediaeval theme made by producer Pandro S. Berman and director Richard Thorpe, all of which starred Robert Taylor. (The others in the trilogy, both based on the novels of Sir Walter Scott, were Ivanhoe and The Adventures of Quentin Durward). It is based upon Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur", although it makes some changes. The Quest for the Holy Grail plays a less important role in the film than in the book,   Elaine is Lancelot's wife rather than his lover, and their son Galahad, who plays a key role in the book, only appears as a baby. Apart from Lancelot and the villain Mordred (here referred to as "Modred"), the most prominent of the knights is Sir Percival, in this version Elaine's brother.

The film is ostensibly set in the Britain of the 5th or 6th century, after the end of the Roman occupation, but as is usual in films on this theme (the recent "King Arthur" being an exception) the costumes, armour and buildings are all based upon those of the High Middle Ages, that is to say of Malory's day rather than of Arthur's. Arthur's kingdom is always referred to as "England", even though the historic Arthur (assuming that he was a real person) would never have used this term. The Celts would always have referred to "Britain", the name "England" ("Land of the Angles") being used only by their Anglo-Saxon enemies.

The story begins with Britain in turmoil, divided among various warring overlords. Arthur, the illegitimate son of the former ruler Uther Pendragon, is able to unite the kingdom and, with the help of Lancelot and the wizard Merlin, to defeat his main challengers, his half-sister Morgan Le Fay and her son Modred. (Anne Crawford who plays Morgan was only eight years older than Stanley Baker, who plays her son. Presumably the explanation is that Morgan's enchantments have been able to preserve her youthful looks, and things could have been worse. The original choice for Modred was George Sanders, fourteen years older than Crawford). After his victory Arthur pardons Morgan and Modred, against Lancelot's advice, but they continue to plot against him, and see the growing attraction between Lancelot and Arthur's wife Guinevere as their chance to make trouble.

One of the problems with Arthurian films and plays is that the love- triangle is so central to the plot that it requires three high-quality performances if it is to succeed. Taylor here makes an attractively dashing Lancelot, although the film misses one of the key themes of Malory's work. In Malory Lancelot, an otherwise ideal knight, is morally compromised by his adulterous affair with Guinevere, but in this version their love is not physically consummated, possibly in order to keep the censors happy, and the result is that he seems a much less morally ambiguous figure. The film tries to contrast the "flawed" Lancelot with the idealised Percival, but Lancelot's flaws seemed to me very minor ones.

Arthur is another complex character, difficult to realise on screen, because he is on the one hand a powerful, heroic monarch and on the other someone compromised by his status as a cuckold. In mediaeval literature cuckolds were generally seen as weak, pitiable or ridiculous, like Alison's husband in Chaucer's "Miller's Tale". Probably the best screen Arthur I have seen was Sean Connery in "First Knight", but that film subtly altered the traditional tale by making Arthur much older than Guinevere or Lancelot. Here Arthur comes across as a forgettable nonentity when he should be at the film's centre, and this is due partly to the wooden acting of Mel Ferrer and partly to the sanitising of the Lancelot/Guinevere relationship which also removes much of the interest from Arthur's character. As for Ava Gardner, she certainly makes a lovely Guinevere, but she was capable of much better acting than this. (As, for example, in "The Barefoot Contessa" the following year). Baker is not bad as Modred, but I think that Sanders, who had been so effective as Brian de Bois-Guilbert in "Ivanhoe", would have been better.

The film is visually attractive, with much emphasis on pageantry and spectacle, but I did not enjoy it as much as "Ivanhoe". (I have never seen "Quentin Durward"). It is certainly better than the dull and turgid "King Arthur", but the problems with characterisation made me aware just why it can be so difficult to make an effective Arthurian drama and to understand what Robertson Davies may have meant by his dictum. 6/10

Sir Thomas Malory's traditional tales of King Arthur and Lancelot are made even more commercially palatable with this costumed version from the British arm of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The narrative has become so basic (and dull), presumably for mass consumption, that all we have left to respond to is the ornate production. Robert Taylor's Lancelot devotes himself to being Guinevere's champion (not that her husband--Mel Ferrer's vacuous King Arthur--would notice!), but Taylor seems to have wandered in from another picture; his diction is thudding and his hangdog face never brightens, not even in the presence of a ravishing Ava Gardner as Guinevere (who doesn't so much flirt with Lancelot as she does beam and glow with silent affection). The overlong film is a sumptuous spread, and there's plenty of action, but the episodes fail to come together as a whole and the sound recording (Oscar nominated!) is barely adequate. Consequently, the legendary characters rarely come to life. ** from ****

A movie filled with beautiful scenery, knights in armor, the clashing of swords, lovely damsels, and chivalry at its finest. Remind you of Camelot? It should. Adventure and romance are blended deftly in this fine retelling of Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur." Taylor (well-cast as Lancelot) also played the title role in "Ivanhoe", which was released a year earlier and also directed by Thorpe and scored by Rozsa. Thorpe does another excellent job as director here, and Rozsa contributes another nonpareil score that has forever marked him for the esteemed composer he is. Interestingly enough, Aylmer (who played Merlin) also played Issac of York opposite Taylor's "Ivanhoe." Not to be overlooked either are Gardner (never lovelier as Guinevere); Baker's perfect portrayal of the diabolical Mordred; and Crawford, whose chilling Morgan le Fay is very reminiscent of Milady de Winter of The Three Musketeers saga. Ferrer deserves kudos as well for bringing nobility and sensitivity to the role of Arthur. As mentioned before, the scenery is a real treat; when coupled with the music and the action, one may get the urge to strap on their armor and grab their sword! Everyone, from medieval history buffs to those who just love a good movie, should see this one. It has intrigue, adventure, and romance, but above all, it forever proves that chivalry is a virtue worth abiding by.

The legend of King Arthur has been told, and retold, by movie makers several times. This may have been one of the first tellings, using Technicolor coupled with Cinemascope and drawing heavily upon the pageantry of the days of chivalry and knighthood in England. The story is simple, relating the coming of the throne of his country by Arthur Pendragon, and his attempts to establish justice and peace in the war-torn, divided land he called England. His efforts are to no avail, as there is simply too much greed and distrust among the small kingdoms of the country to allow the rule of one person, but this film has some fun in the citing of the Arthurian legend.

The cast members for 1953 read like a star-studded list from MGM. Mel Ferrer portrays King Arthur, with the lovely Ava Gardner as his queen, Guinevere. Stanley Baker plays the villain in the piece, Mordred, a knight sworn to capture the throne for himself, even if it destroys the unity of England. Playing the role of the greatest knight member of the Round Table, Lancelot, was Robert Taylor, who seemed to relish the sense of justice, decency, and moral standards as no one else of the time seemed willing to do.

"Knights of the Round Table" is meant to be viewed as an enjoyable touch with the past and the days gone by. Worth a view or two.