Powerful Sword, Puny Plot

"Excalibur"

Director John Boorman's Excalibur is a far cry from Disney's Sword in the Stone, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the Las Vegas hotel.  This is a film that takes us back to a time and place of might, magic, and his majesty King Arthur (Nigel Terry.)  The tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, and The Holy Grail seems like a story begging to be brought to the big screen.  Knights in shining armor galloping and gallivanting around on horseback, the wizard Merlin (Nicol Williamson) casting spells on less fortunate souls, and ruckus parties held in larger than life castles are part of this epic medieval story.  However exciting these events may be, an inconsistent plot plagues Excalibur and unfortunately not even Arthur can vanquish this villainous foe.

You won't be seeing merry old England here.  No, this is the Dark Ages.  The land is littered with carnage from battles once and still fought so that Britain may claim herself a king.  Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) is on the verge of staking his claim on the vacant position, but he must make a pact with Merlin in order to do so.  The Sword of Power (Excalibur) comes into Pendragon's possession.  He also gets an heir out of his queen through deception and trickery.  In return though for Merlin doing these deeds for Pendragon, the wizard demands that the king's new born son, Arthur, be raised as his own.  In a fit of rage, Uther goes after Merlin with Excalibur only to be slain by the hands of his enemies.  The Sword of Power is forged into a stone as Pendragon's dying act and only the next true king of England shall be able to unsheathe it.

For those who are unfamiliar with the tale of The Sword and the Stone, when Arthur reaches his teenage years it is by chance that he pulls Excalibur from its resting place.  He then, through much guidance from Merlin, is able to declare himself king and take his place rightful place at the throne.  The castle Camelot is erected so that Arthur, Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) his queen, and his many loyal knights may reside in the mightiest of courts.  Although, a king's court is only as mighty as the king himself.  Jealousy consumes Arthur as he realizes that Guenevere actually has the hots for one of his knights, Lancelot (Nicholas Clay.)  Feeling heartbroken and betrayed, in an act of resentment toward his queen and knight, Arthur casts Excalibur aside, leaving him and his kingdom in a weak and darkened state.  A search for The Holy Grail begins so that light and order can then be restored to the land that was once so prosperous.

  

Excalibur is very much a plot driven film, as well it should be.  Big events lead to bigger actions by our characters.  But here in lies the picture's problematic three act structure.  The first act comes off as feeling disjointed.  Scenes of violence accompanied only by slight character development is how this film opens.  Furthermore, sizable amounts of time are just skipped over as we are left to connect the dots.  The screenwriters assume that we should already be familiar with these legendary characters as well as the film’s time and the place.  I'm not looking for a history lesson here, but some context and explanation would have been nice.

I found the second act be quite more enjoyable.  I liked Arthur's motives that propelled his character to be something of a moral and virtuous king.  His character grows and matures into an adult who makes adult decisions that propel him into being a likeable hero.  Arthur acted how a king should act.  Watching how Arthur assembled his Knights of the Round Table, the friendship he had with the wise and foresighted Merlin, and admiring the size and scope of the court I thought was wonderful to see unfold on screen. 

The third act suffers from much of the same woes that hindered the first act.  The story shifts focus as our hero takes a backseat in lieu of two other characters, his evil enchantress sister Morgana (Helen Mirren) and the daringly courageous Perceval (Paul Geoffrey.)  The passage of time is unclear, the conflict feels forced and thrown together, and the choices made by Boorman during final battle sequence are disappointing.

Uneven in its plot and character development Excalibur could have been a film of immense proportions.  At least director of photography Alex Thompson’s ever changing color palette captures the regal beauty of the King Arthur world.  The telling of this legendary tale should have been masterful.  Instead, the film holds up this unstable, wobbly shield of directionless uncertainty and varying degrees of storytelling.  I enjoy films of the medieval time period and hold them to a certain level of entertainment.  Excalibur does have a solid second act, but that is not sufficient enough to carry us through this 140 minute film.  To have a crummy opening act is one thing, but to have a shaky third as well, you will definitely lose your audience.  I wanted to like Excalibur given its source material.  By the end though, the film's middlemost strengths were all I could carry back to the castle.  Raise the drawbridge, this film can be left to swim in the moat.