Archery and Inaccuracies: Keira Knightley Shines in ‘King Arthur’
Film: King Arthur (2004)
Stars: Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd, Stellan Skarsgård, Ray Winstone
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Oscar History: No nominations
Rating: 3/5 stars
Key Points
“King Arthur” (2004) is one of many adaptations of the Arthurian legends. Directed by Antoine Fuqua, this film stands out more for its controversies than its acclaim. Notably, the theatrical poster featuring Keira Knightley’s Photoshopped bust sparked discussions about media portrayals of femininity. Despite claims of historical accuracy based on recent archaeological evidence, the movie contains numerous factual errors. However, it does offer some commendable elements, particularly in its portrayal of archery.
Good Points:
Keira Knightley’s performance as Guinevere is a highlight. Her dedication to mastering archery is evident, and her form is impressively accurate, a rarity in film.
- Perfect Form: Knightley’s archery stance is impeccable. She maintains a parallel line between her arms and the arrow, achieves a full draw close to her face, and uses a correct Mediterranean grip with three fingers around the string.
- Attention to Detail: The arrow’s placement is precise, with the cock fletch pointing towards her face and the other two fletches aligned correctly. The arrow rests on the bow’s left side, adding to the realism.
Mistakes:
Despite Knightley’s skill, the film suffers from several archery and historical inaccuracies.
- Safety Measures: The arrow tips are not sharp, likely for safety reasons, which is understandable but detracts from authenticity.
- Overdrawn Bow: In one scene, Knightley overdraws her bow, touching the arrow tip to her bow hand, which complicates the shot.
- Grip Issues: Her grip on the bow is too high, impacting stability and accuracy.
- Missing Quiver: Guinevere lacks a quiver or spare arrows, making her two swords appear more for show than practicality.
- Inaccurate Bows: The film shows Guinevere using recurve bows, anachronistic for the Picts, who would likely have used simple self bows. Strangely, extras in the background use self bows, highlighting this inconsistency.
King Arthur (2004) Review
“King Arthur” promises a fresh take by setting the story in Late Antiquity (300-500 C.E.) instead of the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 C.E.). However, the film’s execution falls flat due to historical inaccuracies and poor direction. The depiction of Picts as “Woads,” their use of trebuchets, and fantasy outfits detract from the film’s credibility.
The movie follows King Arthur (Clive Owen) and his knights on a mission to rescue a Roman family from invading Saxons. Despite an epic setup, the film turns into a prolonged chase, filled with action but lacking depth. Characters endure extreme conditions without flinching, making their immortality seem implausible.
Clive Owen’s Arthur is stoic but lacks charisma, while Ioan Gruffudd’s Lancelot is overshadowed by his wild mane. Stellan Skarsgård’s portrayal of Cerdic appears drunken, fitting for the chaotic narrative. Keira Knightley’s savage warrior Guinevere stands out, though her character feels out of place in the film’s context. Ray Winstone delivers a solid performance, adding some much-needed gravitas.
Conclusion: “King Arthur” aims for historical authenticity but falters with numerous inaccuracies and a weak plot. Keira Knightley’s archery skills and dedication shine, but they cannot save the film from its shortcomings. The movie’s blend of epic ambitions and lackluster execution results in a forgettable experience. For fans of the Arthurian legends, this film offers an interesting, if flawed, interpretation. Available on various digital platforms, it remains a curiosity rather than a classic.
