King Arthur: A Review
A Look at the 2004 Movie from a Protestant Christian Point of View
Since this site is focused on issues related to Protestant Christianity, what follows is a review of the religious-oriented claims made by the 2004 film King Arthur
In the summer of 2004, Jerry Bruckheimer and Touchstone Pictures released the epic film King Arthur, which was billed as the “untold true story that inspired the legend.” The legend of course being that of King Arthur.
According to the traditional legend, Arthur was a medieval British king who presided over the egalitarian Camelot, replete with its Roundtable of Knights, fabled sword Excalibur, and legendary magician, Merlin. History has shown that the Arthurian legend is but a myth, built upon centuries of oral traditions, poetry, and contrived drama. It is a myth, however, that may be based on some degree of reality, as there are references to an Arthur in ancient British writings.
Historians have engaged in a quest of sorts, over the last few decades, in trying to lift the Arthur of history from the pages of myth. And Bruckheimer’s 2004 film King Arthur was sold as Hollywood’s contribution to this effort. In fact, King Arthur only helped fashion a new myth.
Screenwriter David Franzoni sets his Arthur at the time the Roman Empire is withdrawing from southern Britain, leaving it to its fate. He changes history a bit to make this work, as the events of the movie take place several decades after Rome’s actual withdrawal from Britain in AD 410. But, hey, Hollywood has never actually concerned itself with historical accuracy, has it?
Arthur, in this film, is a Roman officer commanding a unit of drafted Sarmatian Knights. Played well by Clive Owen, Arthur is idealistically committed to Rome, the Church, and to the principles of equality and freedom as taught him by Pelagius, a family friend and religious teacher.
Pelagius is a real historical figure. According to the film, he preached equality and human dignity, and (as Arthur later finds out) is excommunicated and burned at the stake. One problem with this: It didn’t happen that way. Pelagius was ostracized as a heretic, but not for preaching equality. Rather, Pelagius offended the powers-that-be for his rejection of the doctrine of original sin.
What’s more, Pelagius wasn’t burned at the stake. Though his doctrines were denounced, he continued to have friends and supporters. And he died of old age – years before the events of the film. It’s rather obvious that the real Pelagius never knew anyone like the film’s main protagonist.
The film also depicts a Roman Empire in the firm grip of the Pope. This is a historical misconception. While the Roman Empire became officially Christian under Constantine’s successors, the Bishop of Rome (later the Pope) did not assert full supremacy over the imperial church until much later. And, even when he did, that was only over the Church apparatus. His relations with the Roman Emperor and Senate were much more complicated – made all the more so as the western Empire approach collapse.
Overall, the film serves up a stereotype of a corrupt, sinister Catholic Church. And Arthur’s character arc goes from idealistic Catholic to neo-pagan. It is Merlin, the pagan mystic, who marries Arthur and Guinevere in the end. And it’s fairly obvious that Arthur is turning his back on more than just the political Rome when he refuses to abandon Hadrian’s Wall in the film’s third and final act.
In King Arthur, the pagans and the atheists are the good guys. The devout Catholics are the bad guys. Typical left-wing Hollywood stereotype of religion.
Of course, the most effective propaganda always has a kernel of truth. And the sad truth is that the medieval Roman Catholic Church was corrupt. There likely would not have been a Protestant Reformation, after all, had this not been the case.
When Constantine called the Council of Nicea, it was the beginning of the imperial church – an institution that would become the Roman Catholic Church, splitting off later into the Eastern Orthodox Church. This institution would be the source of great pain, tragedy, and corruption in the medieval world.
Nevertheless, there were many honorable men and women who identified themselves as Christians that did not fit the insulting stereotype served up by Franzoni’s King Arthur script. There were, in fact, many honorable priests, teachers, scholars, and everyday Christians during these tumultuous years.
Arthur need not have abandoned his Christian faith, as is implied by the film’s ending, in order to renounce the corruption which victimized him and his men. Just as people today do not need to abandon Christianity, because of the hypocrisy they see in some self-professed Christians.
For all its faults, King Arthur is still an absorbing film. It is still probably closer to the true Arthur of British history than the legendary account. The acting is solid, and male viewers can’t help but appreciate the captivating, hypnotic screen presence of Keira Knightley. Its cinematography and special effects are breathtaking. The direction is impressive. Overall, King Arthur is a good movie. It’s worth your time. Just be sure to take it with a grain of salt – and a bag of popcorn, of course.
