Tags

, , , , ,

Here it is! The first glimpse of the latest King Arthur movie (I heard the rumours before and I was excited then). Here’s the trailer for anyone who hasn’t seen it:

Now, I am still excited. I see you there, fire-weilding Jude Law Vortigern – what is your deal? I simply must know. But I have some concerns. Indeed, I wouldn’t say that the trailer has dampened my excitement, but it has confirmed a few worries I had about the film in the first place. The big one being:

Where are all the women? 

You can see one creepy sorceress woman (bet you £5 that’s Morgan le Fay), and that’s about it. There’s lots of men with those particularly Ritchiesque mockney accents making glib comments, some pretty stunning looking CGI and a lot of fightin’, but no women.

I mean, this is fairly typical of Ritchie’s oevre. A passer of the bechdel test he ain’t. So I wasn’t surprised. But it is disappointing when the sausage-fest that is medieval literature manages to provide a more nuanced and gender-balanced version of the myth than this trailer seems to suggest (and I look forward to being proved wrong when I sit my sweet ass down in the cinema to watch it). The women of Arthurian literature are many, complex and just as prominent, especially for writers like Malory, as the men. It will be a little disappointing if it turns out that this has been consciously excised (for there is no other explanation for their absence, other than making this a “man’s film for men”) from a twenty-first century version.

Now before you say it’s a tough-as-nails King Arthur with a gritty modern twist so there’s no room for women, just sit yourself down a minute. I could see a very tough and gritty Morgan, Morgawse or indeed Guinevere in a version like this. Perhaps I will. Perhaps in the cinema I will weep with joy. I hope so.

Watch this space for a review when it hits the screens!

Advertisements