Eager for King Arthur Revisionism? Here Comes 'Galahad'
Filed under: Classics, Independent, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Deals, Scripts, Newsstand
Revisionism and remakes, those are the buzz words these days. The Hollywood Reporter posts that the Film Department, the indie production company run by Mark Gill and Neil Sacker, won the bidding war for Galahad, a revisionist version of the classic King Arthur story. Is it really edgy to revise King Arthur anymore? We've already had the ultra-feminist version with Mists of Avalon; we recently saw the "historical" version with Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. I suppose we haven't had a version yet that changes all the names -- and here it is. Galahad portrays King Arthur as an aging, cowardly king, who is murdered by the young and ambitious Queen Guinevere. She blames the crime on Sir Galahad, who must escape this death sentence, vanquish the forces of evil, and return Camelot to its former glory.
Call me crazy, but I would just like an ordinary version -- with Merlin, Morgan LeFay, the forbidden passion of Lancelot and Guinevere, and Arthur as the Once and Future King. Is Excalibur (which I always found too nightmarish, but I do respect it as a solid attempt) the only one we're ever going to get? It can't all end with Clive Owen, can it?
The Film Department is confident that the actor's strike won't harm their fledgling production, as the SAG will grant companies like them a waiver. Interestingly, the company is also set to begin shooting Gerard Butler's Law Abiding Citizen with the actor's new Evil Twins shingle. Galahad + Gerard Butler makes me wonder if he'll wind up producing and playing that pure and chivalrous knight. He's fond of the sword genre, especially if it has a revisionist edge. I wouldn't be surprised -- and you will have heard it here first.
SDCC Panel: Robert Rodriguez's 'Red Sonja'
Review: The X-Files: I Want To Believe
Live from SDCC: Preview Night Gallery!
Live from SDCC: Time to Get Our Con On!
Discuss: Wednesday is the New Friday
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-11-2008 @ 6:08PM
Mike Z said...
FIRST KNIGHT, dawg. It's like the best B movie ever made. Sean Connery, Richard Gere, and that badass villain that has been in nothing since. Plus Julia Ormond is fine, don't even front.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 9:30PM
John said...
You Forgot "Merlin" with Sam Neill and Isabella Rosellini. Somewhere between the fantasy of Excalibur and the attempt at historical accuracy (it had Uther in Roman armor) of Arthur.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 10:59PM
ZooeyGlass said...
And freakin' Camelot. Musicals are real movies too. Sort of.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 1:19AM
Tigerlily said...
And except for the musical, they were all terrible. I'm ready for a revisit of the musical version myself. Other than Excalibur the only one I've been even remotely pleased with is the Owen Knightley version. I have to agree, give us and ordinary version, and truly exceptional, like LOTR
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 1:22AM
Elisabeth said...
Well, I was trying to list the ones that were the most "radical" in their approach to the story. I didn't forget "Camelot," I just consider it a reasonably faithful adaptation! :D
I don't remember much of Merlin. I tuned out when they tried to make Martin Short a Harlequin cover, lol. But yeah, add that to the revisionist list.
I remember when I first heard of the Clive Owen adaptation, I thought it was going to be the classic version. Can you imagine if it had been? Owen would have been a brilliant Arthur, Knightley just right for a frail Guinevere, and Ioan Gruffudd the perfect Pre-Raphaelite Lancelot. What might have been...sigh.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 1:36AM
NickP said...
Someone definately needs to adapt the phenomenal Warlord Chronicles (The Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur) by Bernard Cornwell. They are a gritty, realistic, semi-historically accurate telling of the tale.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 5:32AM
ZooeyGlass said...
I thought you were saying you wanted another faithful to the original story movie and that Excalibur was the only one so far? I'm confused now.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 5:31AM
Elisabeth said...
What's so confusing? Every King Arthur movie since Excalibur has been a revisionist story -- and I hardly consider it a definitive version. It's always historical, feminist, pagan, modernist, etc.
Your point was "You forgot Camelot" and I replied that I hadn't forgotten (though I did leave it out of the post), but that I didn't consider it a revisionist take on the story, so it wasn't included with Mists of Avalon and the recent Clive Owen version.
The reason it didn't get listed alongside Excalibur was because Excalibur is the most recent "traditional" version, so I just went with it. Every time you mention "I'd love to see a King Arthur" movie, someone goes "Well, there was Excalibur." No one wants to tackle it because they feel it's been done so definitively in *that* movie. (And I don't think it has.)
Sure, Camelot is a very good King Arthur movie and accurate to the original legends, but it's hardly considered the same way.
What I want is someone to pick up Le Mort d'Arthur and adapt it. Keep the magic. Give it the look of Pre-Raphaelite art. That's the version I have always wanted to see. If nothing else, at least give me Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight.
I hope that clarifies. :D
3-12-2008 @ 5:50AM
ZooeyGlass said...
Gotcha'. I thought you were saying Excalibur was the only traditional take on the story. Wasn't trying to start an argument or anything. Personally, I think Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the definitive version. What is Authorian legend without coconuts and swallows?
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 6:33AM
ZooeyGlass said...
I spelled Arthurian wrong. Foreshame! I'm going to go with the 5:50 in the morning defense. It served me well that time I ran over a hobo.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 10:14AM
Suz said...
I always look forward to a good Arthurian treatment... In view of all the different adaptations, I think we can retire the word "edgy" when talking on this topic... think that train left the station LOL
To date, my fave has to be Anton Fuqua's version (King Arthur)
But here's something that interests me as a fan of Mr. Butler's work. I'd like to see him in this treatment as the Tired King and not the young romantic lead here (talk about a train that's left the station LOL) Though he's still quite young and able to do the younger roles - he's proved his chops for the heavy iconic roles with Leonidas... I can see him as old Arthur....waddyathink?
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 10:25AM
Patrick said...
Good call, Elisabeth. Le Morte d'Arthur will always be the blueprint in my mind for what makes a good Arthurian story. Even as a series of vignettes, that would be a far better film than most of the recent versions.
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 4:26PM
Tigerlily said...
Man...if Butler actually does tackle this, I hope he or someone in his retinue is reading these comments and does the
Le Mort d'Arthur version! Are you listening out there???
Reply
3-12-2008 @ 10:04PM
Suz said...
I'm with you Tigerlily..I hope that Gerard and his new "shingle" are mindful of scripts and retread projects they might consider.
I'll go with the consensus here for the Morte d'Arthur version, and hope that some of his people catch our remarks here. I'm seeing Gerard as more regal, majestic and imperial since 300's King Leonidas so I see him more in a King role than a younger romantic lead. Though he's in his 30ies I think he's got the chops for another King role - IMHO. Fun to speculate on new projects!
Reply
3-14-2008 @ 12:37PM
roguescribner said...
I share Elisabeth's hopes for a new and faithful telling of the Arthur legend. EXCALIBUR was good, but it's kind of hardcore. Not a movie I could my kids (if I had any). Of course, I'd like a faithful adaptation of the Robin Hood legend, too. Kevin Costner doesn't quite cut it. ;)
Reply