The Mists of Avalon

Well its not the book at all, so if you are expecting that its better to dream. So much so that I think it should have a different name, like Excalibur II or something. But there were parts that kept to the book and so it goes. But oh man if you watch this and never read the book I feel sad for your loss. The book is a thrilling tale about change and fate. It delves into realms of religion and how one religion overcomes another. There are also sub plots of innocence, trust and the betrayal of trust. This show was more about the men and their lives. I had hoped that maybe someone would have the nerve to show a differing viewpoint but I suppose not yet. I am sad and so I lament. Please someone have the nerve to make this book as a movie as it is, not for the forwarding of a differing perception but because it is a beautiful book.

Over the past two nights, I was carried away to Avalon and Camelot. Even though I've seen virtually every version of the Arthurian legends ever filmed, and was a bit hesitant about seeing yet another, this was a winner! Being told through the eyes of the women involved, who are generally reduced to Guinevere, Morgana (aka Morgaine), and the Lady of the Lake's arm in most tellings, made this completely an original. I must admit that I have never been a great fan of Juliana Margulies, even though I've watched ER since it first aired, but she was wonderful as Morgaine in this. Joan Allen and Anjelica Huston gave performances worthy of the Oscars they've been nominated for, and Samantha Mathis as the ill-fated Guinevere was heartbreaking. As a final note, I believe the casting director definitely merits an Emmy, since the little girl who played young Morgaine looked EXACTLY like a pre-teen version of Juliana, and Hans Matheson, who played the evil Mordred, Morgaine's son, couldn't have resembled Juliana more if she'd have really given birth to him! As an enchanting, mythological fantasy tale, I recommend it to anyone over 14, due to a slightly graphic (necessary) sexual scene dealing with incest and one of a menage a trois nature.

Fans of Marion Zimmer Bradley's book may wish to carry a barf bag for this one. I realize that time constraints will not allow for the detail that made Bradley's novel so striking. This does not, however, excuse changes that contradict the book. Important details are overlooked, though readers might be able to notice key lines and fill in the background. Overall, this was a very poor adaptation of the book with lackluster characterizations.

The legend of King Arthur has been retold enough times that no single version of it is sacred. This explores the notion that Arthur is king "at a time when the gods were changing" (to paraphrase James Michener) and that the mystical women of Avalon (and not Merlin) are the real force behind the events of Camelot. The attempt to unite pagans and Christians under one king may seem like a very contemporary issue, but it is a human universal and one that has been repeated throughout history.

It's a shame that most viewers will see this interrupted with commercials; it's a beautifully moody film with lots of excellent photography, sets, and costumes (even if the latter look a little too Medieval for accuracy). The performances are generally good, with a few over-the-top lines and gestures.

PARENTAL ADVISORY: This film contains violence and sexual situations unsuitable for children under 15. Additionally, it is sufficiently cerebral that anyone under that age might not be engaged by it and as such might not be appreciated by newcomers to this legend.

The book is simply amazing and this film adaptation adequately embodies its epic stature. I am amazed how much of the book is actually reflected in a 2-hour television digest version. I really don't like spoilers and I always try to avoid giving away a story myself, so I will just say this movie can be enjoyed by either fans of Marion Zimmer Bradley's book or the uninitiated.

The scenery, cinematography and costumes are beautiful. The acting is generally very smart and understanding. The cast was well chosen. The writing is well-informed.

Some of the negative reviewers seem to be offended by sexual material and what they perceive as "anti-christian" content. Of course I would not try to change any of these people's opinions, but I would remind these reviewers of the story's point of view. The setting is in a largely non-Christian world and told from a feminine perspective. With virtually all other tellings being from a masculine, heroic, 15th century Christian perspective (despite the fact that the setting is actually 4th century pagan) I find this appealing for history's (her-story's) sake alone. Usually the "winners" write history. In this case I think Bradley is trying to tell the other side of the story.