Le chevalier du roi

This is an adaptation of Howard Pyle's "Men of Iron", and an unusually enjoyable film from start to finish. Ignore Tony Curtis's accent; it hardly matters to anyone that young and everyone in the film is bright, lively and suitable to his/her part. The direction by Rudolph Mate gives a light, sunny feel to the entire piece, and he keeps the action moving splendidly in my judgment. The storyline is classic. Myles and his sister Meg have been raised as peasants. One day they journey to Mackworth Castle and enter a new world, the world of noble landowners, quarrelsome young prigs and knights. Myles continues to search for the secret of his origins and finds it in the Library finally, the Black Shield of Falworth, shield of an attainted traitor--his father; of course he was innocent; and when Myles turns out to be a promising young knight of courage and natural skills, he is willing to be knighted in order to fight it out--at Prince Hal (the future Henry V's) plan--with the villain of the piece to claim his rightful heritage and wear the family symbol again. Along the way, he falls in love with the daughter of the household and his sister with his best friend in the dangerous and unruly body of young knights. In the cast along with Curtis and Barbara Rush as Meg are Janet Leigh, then Curtis's wife, as his love, Torin Thatcher in top form as the master of knights, David Farrar, Herbert Marshall as Mackworth, Dan O' Herlihy as Prince Hal, Patrick O'Neal as Walter Blunt (very good), and Craig ill as his friend Frances; others in the stellar cast include Ian Keith as Henry IV, Doris Lloyd, Rhys Williams, Maurice Marsac and others. Music was supplied by Hans J. Salter, and the screenplay adaptation of Pyle's novel is the work of Oscar Brodney. Irving Glasberg's cinematography is delightfully rich,the art direction by Alexander Golitzen and Richard H. Ledel very good indeed. Rosemary Odell's costume are worth the price of admission. But this is an in-depth adventurous look behind the grim tapestries that usually baffle the seeker into the late Medieval Age, There is humor in this film, much hard learning for the young knight-to-be, mystery, skillful dialogue and unusually well-developed characters. This is an enjoyable and memorable work that is bright and lively from start to finish.

Looking back, it seems like they showed this movie every other Sunday afternoon (and I watched it everytime). It's of a time when knights were bold and their women were beautiful. And, a time when you settled your disputes on the 'field of honor'. Tony Curtis looks a bit awkward in the role of 'knight wannabe', but you soon suspend belief and accept him in the part.

The story unfolds in nicely presented vignettes (over the course of years), that are assembled effortlessly and almost seamlessly. Battles and glory await our hero (the girl awaits too). It's an entertaining journey to the climatic finish. Enjoy....

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.

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!

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.