•
Rating:
Guy Ritchie and chivalric literature might seem like an odd pairing. I am not a particular admirer of the director, the story of King Arthur seems rather worn out for cinema (remember Fuqua's King Arthur? No? Better!), and there's talk of a sure flop. In short, the premises were not encouraging. Instead, Ritchie made me reconsider and won me over piece by piece during the two intense hours of the film. A very solid work, which has nothing to envy in the big comic book successes of these years, except the setting. And that is likely to impose a lack of popularity on the film. But works like this should be an example for those who want to make blockbusters without giving up their directorial personality, but also for those who want to try again with the epic, very fashionable 15 years ago, while maintaining a fresh, lively approach, without giving up the potential of a high and emphatic register.
Ritchie's King Arthur works because it's not just apparently streetwise. It really is, almost to the end. The hero's journey follows winding paths, which lead him to do everything, without major moral distinctions. He himself grew up in a London brothel, extorting and stealing here and there, relying on his strength and not so much on his goodness of heart. This journey doesn’t suddenly stop upon discovering his origins; it continues and slowly deviates. The protagonist's hesitation is not rhetorical and empty, but well-argued by a dense network of memories, removals, fears, and new teachings: "Don’t look away." His steps forward parallel a backward path, uncovering the events that marked his life.
An introspective and boring film? Quite the opposite. The filmmaker's lively style almost reaches paroxysm here in some of its happiest episodes. There are excellent ideas, like alternating the preliminary discussion and the actual action (or its hypothesis) in the editing. But there are various aesthetic games: the protagonist's growth path is shown with a summary that does not undermine the experiences, rather it shows the harshness and impulse of those who face them. With thunderous music that further amplifies the impact. There are some typical tricks, like the puzzle-like reconstruction of past events, or the extensive use of irony and a decidedly informal language.
A great asset concerns the protagonist: as mentioned, his street approach is not flawed. It is consistently maintained until the end, portraying him as a ringleader of a gang of rogues, rather than the designated heir to the throne. His irony is inappropriate, sharp, and perhaps for this reason not suitable for an audience accustomed to Disney’s maternal attentions. Arthur is a true asshole, a boaster. Perhaps for this reason, some softness in the last minutes seems off-key.
On the opposite side, we have uncle Vortigern, played by a magnificent Jude Law: a truly superb enemy because deeply Shakespearean, cruel but cowardly, lusting for power but lacking the qualities needed to obtain it. His strength, his magical power is the result of sacrifices to an abysmal demon, like a variant of Doctor Faust, selling the soul and body of his loved ones for power and not so much for knowledge. In short, Arthurian cycle, Shakespeare, Marlowe, a bit Robin Hood as I read: this King Arthur is a beautiful hodgepodge of literary references, subjected to an inexhaustible spectacle machine.
The structure of the narrative is particularly successful, thanks to the forward and backward progression in memories, which gradually clarify the issue. But it is also appreciable for its being jagged, rich in centrifugal adventures, complicated by arbitrary choices, ready to fold in on itself when it seemed to be on the finish line. The hero does not feel ready or is often discouraged by objective obstacles: the inability to use the sword, his deep-seated fear, or the impossibility to act because of blackmail, because he strives to preserve the lives of friends. Only in the end does the clash become frontal, but as Vortigern rightly says: "You've already won. Now let's have some fun."
And perhaps it is in the moments of maximum amplification of violence and battles that the film pays the price. Annoyingly so, due to a very strange choice that imposes too fluttery and confusing shots. This, combined with some bad taste touches like light effects on the sword or eyes, somewhat clips the wings of a very solid work.
6.5/10
Loading comments slowly
