Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Many of the other characters of the legend, such as Guinevere and Merlin are present in this film, as is the Sword in the Stone legend of Excalibur, Arthur's weapon (it was his father who removed it from the stone.
Ultimately, Arthur denounces his Roman citizenship when he is disillusioned by the Roman leaders and their activities, especially Bishop Germanius, and he joins the Woads to fight the Saxon Army that is attempting to gain control of Britain. In the end, many of his knights are killed in a ferocious battle, including Lancelot, and when the battle is over; Arthur has won and is declared king, with Guinevere by his side.
This film is so different from the traditional Arthur legend that is seems quite unlikely, but legends are often wrong, and so, the film could actually be based on historical fact, since new evidence comes out all the time through archeology and discovery. The Romans did take Britain and fight the Saxons during the time portrayed, and they did eventually withdraw from the area, leaving it to the Celts...
The accuracy of the costumes and weaponry, like the other film, seems to be accurate, and many of the scenes of violence seem to be accurate. There were two things that did not seem to fit, however, and one of them is Guinevere fighting alongside the men, because women would not be on the battlefield, and they called themselves knights, but that concept did not come around until the Middle Ages. I am not sure if I would recommend this film, because it is so different from the Arthurian legends, and I think I like to believe they are true, and this rendition is just a fictional look at what might have been. Of course, no film is going to be completely accurate, they have to change things to keep the audience entertained, but this film just left me wondering why they had to mess with the legend.
References
King Arthur. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Clive Owen, Keira Knightley. Touchstone Pictures, 2004.
Spartacus. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons, Tony Curtis. Universal Pictures, 1960.
Strangelove, put him over the top" (p. 61). The learning curve was clearly sharp for Kubrick, and he took what he had learned in these earlier efforts and put this to good use during a period in American history when everyone was already ready to "duck and cover": "The film's icy, documentary-style aspect served not only to give the movie its realistic edge that juxtaposed nicely with its broad
Spartacus An Analysis of Stanley Kubrick's 1960 Spartacus Gerald Mast (2006) notes that "as with Renoir, Kubrick's social evils are human evils; the problem is human nature," (p. 542) and such can easily be applied to Kubrick's 1960 Spartacus -- despite the fact that the film cannot really be said to be his. Spartacus is more Kirk Douglas' vehicle than anything. Bought by Douglas, the story was meant to be his answer
The 1960 film "Spartacus" stands out as a landmark in cinematic history, not only for its sweeping epic narrative and grandiose production but also for its cultural and political implications during the era in which it was made. Directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring Kirk Douglas, the film was based on the novel by Howard Fast and presents a heavily romanticized account of the historical figure Spartacus, a Thracian slave
film Spartacus, its historical background, the significance of the movie being made and shown in 1960's America, the real-life events occurring in the U.S. In the 1960's, the historical significance of the slave revolt of Spartacus, how gladiators and slavery in Rome relate to the movie, and background information about Rome at the time of Spartacus, including the slave revolt, and the rise of Roman generals to positions of
Part 1: Introduction By the 1950s, America had moved on from the turmoil of WW2 and was enjoying a bit of peace and prosperity. The Cold War was but a looming threat that would escalate fiercely in the 1960s—but in the 50s, Americans were generally content to enjoy themselves. Still, the specter of Communism loomed and had been perceived as an encroaching problem in Hollywood since the 1930s. Following WW2, Senator