ealgylden: (beowulf (cruisedirector))
Joan ([personal profile] ealgylden) wrote2003-10-21 10:25 pm

Mmm, Vikings (Arthurian Vikings, but whatever, it's cool)

Okay, I know everyone was all giddy yesterday about the King Arthur pics of Keira looking fierce (but cold. Poor girl, that costume looks really uncomfortable) or Ioan looking terribly butch, or both. I was too, believe me. But I want to throw a little love in the direction of Stellan Skarsgard. Come on, is that not the face of a Viking who knows he's doomed to die, and wants only to die well? I've only seen Stellan in contemporary roles, so I had no idea he had such a great look for period pieces. Nice surprise. I also have no idea who this Cedric he plays is (Cedric the Saxon, kidnapped and sent back in time from Ivanhoe?), but I'll admit freely that the Arthurian mythos is not traditionally my thing. I had one Medieval Comp. Lit. class on it as an undergrad (Gildas to Mallory, yeehaw), and that's pretty much it. Anyway, Stellan has definitely made the cast of my fantasy Beowulf and/or Viking saga movie, along with Dennis Storhoi and Vladimir Kulich from 13th Warrior (not a great pic of Dennis, but Vladimir looks fearsome), possibly Rutger Hauer (he did "nobly doomed" wonderfully in Ladyhawke, but that was a long time ago, and he's not aging well) and pretty much all of the Rohirrim. Some of the extras in King Arthur seem to fit the bill as well, and who is that long-haired cutie? Him too. I'll make him Wiglaf or something.

And speaking of King Arthur, I’m not in favor of banning books, but damn if I'm not tempted when it comes to Mists of Avalon. Not permanently, but just long enough so that there's one generation of teenies that doesn't shriek, "But Guinevere was blonde! She was a pious Christian virgin! Why isn't it all about the women? Where's Morgaine/Viviane/Morgause/whotheheckever?" whenever something Arthurian arises in pop culture. And I like MoA, or at least I did when I read it at thirteen (haven't read it since, and from what I hear it often doesn't hold up well after adolescence). But kiddies, it is not the Arthurian gospel. It's certainly not very good history, Arthurian or not. Or, you know, history at all. It's just a novel. Honestly.

[identity profile] reginaspina.livejournal.com 2003-10-22 03:03 am (UTC)(link)
Cedric the Saxon

I think the Ivanhoe Cedric is the anachronism ;) If I remember right from my Rosemary Sutcliffe (a sadly out-of-print but fabulous author about late-Roman Britain), Cerdic was one of the Saxons who came into British territory (whence the names Sussex & Essex in England) and the "historical" King Arthur, who may have been a Romanized Welshman (mmmmIoan!) fought against him at Maldon? I *highly* recommend R. Sutcliffe if you've never read her stuff.

I also really love Stellan Starsgard and adored the original "Insomnia" - would love to see him in a film version of the Henning Mankell mysteries if they ever do those.

And I COMPLETELY agree with you about Mists of Avalon - I completely loathe that book (although the miniseries was a guilty pleasure.) I really had to force myself to finish it and I will *never* recommend it to anyone!!!

[identity profile] alethialia.livejournal.com 2003-10-22 03:09 am (UTC)(link)
Wow. We coordinate so well. I was just talking about KK getting cast in this a few days ago. Funny that.

Seriously, you want to do a Beowulf movie? Talk to me in ten years. ;)

[identity profile] castalianspring.livejournal.com 2003-10-22 03:38 am (UTC)(link)
That costume does look uncomfortable. Highly so. Her chest is being squashed (even when you're small up top, it still hurts).

Ioan looks very hot, but that beard looks badly done in some shots. Either it's fake or he just doesn't grow one very well.

I like your cast so far for the fantasy Beowulf movie. Mmmm, pretty.

Haven't read Mists of Avalon. Now I'm wondering if I should ever bother.

[identity profile] amberite.livejournal.com 2003-10-22 05:41 am (UTC)(link)
Absolutely! I wouldn't go as far as to say ban it, but I'm a'guessin' that was hyperbole anyway.

I thought Mists of Avalon was all right, but I didn't connect to it. I read my T. H. White, y'see, and Arthurian mythology just doesn't work for me without the Christian angst. Any more than Star Wars would work without the Force. Mythology always taps deeply into philosophy, and the fierce futile tragedy of the Arthur cycle is wrapped tightly around the fierce futile tragedy of medieval Christianity . . . I felt a little gypped by MoA. It pulled a few too many teeth.
cruisedirector: (firstamendment)

[personal profile] cruisedirector 2003-10-22 03:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh yeah, because the "real Arthur" books are sooo much more historically plausible than MOA.

Congratulations on your sophistication and maturity, and MOA is going to remain the book that overhauled much of my theology and gave me a personal reason to find Arthurian mythology interesting. And I didn't read it until much later in my teens.

Oh, but wait...it's about WOMEN! Can't have that in slash-land, can we?

[identity profile] carmarthen.livejournal.com 2003-10-22 09:31 pm (UTC)(link)
And speaking of King Arthur, I’m not in favor of banning books, but damn if I'm not tempted when it comes to Mists of Avalon. Not permanently, but just long enough so that there's one generation of teenies that doesn't shriek, "But Guinevere was blonde! She was a pious Christian virgin! Why isn't it all about the women? Where's Morgaine/Viviane/Morgause/whotheheckever?" whenever something Arthurian arises in pop culture. And I like MoA, or at least I did when I read it at thirteen (haven't read it since, and from what I hear it often doesn't hold up well after adolescence). But kiddies, it is not the Arthurian gospel. It's certainly not very good history, Arthurian or not. Or, you know, history at all. It's just a novel. Honestly.

THANK YOU. I despite MZB's Gwen intensely, and I wish she weren't seen as the 'correct' one. I'm also tired of the dismissal of the men in the legends -- yes, the women were important, but ultimately the story is about Arthur.

And MoA is such crappy historical revisionism. Mary Stewart does much better with the women, and there are many other authors who not only did their research better, but who didn't resort to shoddy, one-dimensional pagan/Christian conflicts that bear little resemblance to history to drive their stories.

I loved MoA when I was eight, but I didn't even make it all the way through again this summer. I should read the copy of Sword At Sunset on my bookshelf as an antidote.

(Regarding Blood and Sand -- Amazon and www.abebooks.com periodically have used copies, if you're willing to pay for them. I got mine, hardbound, for about $30 US, ex-library copy.)