True. The Mists of Avalon is probably the most successful telling of the Arthurian saga to date in terms of weaving the myriad tales into a single tragic epic complete with a strong narrative plot connected by powerful themes and coherent motifs.
The Mists of Avalon (2001) - the definitive Camelot film?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
True. The Mists of Avalon is probably the most successful telling of the Arthurian saga to date in terms of weaving the myriad tales into a single tragic epic complete with a strong narrative plot connected by powerful themes and coherent motifs.
But still - Your claim of it being the "definitive Camelot film" rings hollow if you haven't even seen at least one of the major adaptations.
You don't read much Marion Zimmer Bradley, do you? ALL her major works are from the female point of view: Mists of Avalon, the other Avalon books such as The Forest House, the Free Amazon arc in her Darkover novels, and my favorite of her historical fiction: The Fire Brand (the story of the Trojan War from the point of view of Cassandra).
My favorite Arthurian movie is First Knight. It has all the romance of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot, but does not have any magic or mysticism in it whatsoever. Merlin, Morgan, and Mordred are not even mentioned in the film. There is no Lady of the Lake. The bad guy is a former Knight of the Round Table, Sir Malagant, who decided that he'd rather acquire riches and territory than live according to Arthur's ideals. The cast is (in my opinion) superb: Sean Connery as Arthur, Richard Gere as Lancelot, and Julia Ormond as Guinevere.
Oh, and I thoroughly enjoyed the musical Camelot and worked backstage as Lancelot's dresser (and armor repairer!) when our local theatre group put on that play back in 1987. I was active in the Society for Creative Anachronism at the time, and was the only person on the costume crew who even knew what the various parts of the knights' armor were called, let alone where they went.
That has nothing to do with my point. I was merely stating that when you pick an unusual focus to tell a traditional story, you can't at the same time claim to have written the definitive version.
Marion Zimmer Bradley never claimed to have written the definitive Arthurian novel. She did not write the movie script (nor the pre-production treatments), so she can't be held responsible for what ended up on film.
I haven't seen the filmed version of Mists of Avalon. I will someday when I have the opportunity, but in any case when a movie is made from a book there are inevitably some changes made (for better or worse).
I haven't seen the filmed version of Mists of Avalon. I will someday when I have the opportunity, but in any case when a movie is made from a book there are inevitably some changes made (for better or worse).
First Knight is based on Chretien de Troyes' Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, written around 1170, in which Lancelot rescues Guinevere after she is abducted by Meleagant, a corrupt knight. While stories and poems featuring Guinevere's abduction were common at this time, this was the first work to create the adulterous romance between Lancelot and Guinevere, for Arthur is barely in the story. It's also the first work to mention Arthur's court city of Camelot. This is what I mean when I say The Mists of Avalon is a direct descendent of the legend, as much as any works which focus on the male characters. Like Mallory, Bradley took the "original" (it's hard to call anything original in a series of legends that had a long oral history before they were written down) material and worked from it. And, more than Mallory, she looked at the substance of the Celtic legends which the Medieval authors were adapting into the mold of the Christian Camelot, and brought that to the fore. So there are ways in which Mists is actually more true to the source material than Mallory. Both, of course, are completely products of their time. Mallory was deeply enmeshed in the patriarchal Christian society of 15th century England, concerned with issues such as legitimacy of heirs, and the special nature conferred by one's blood as well as the concept of chivalry presented as counter to wanton violence as a way to gain and wield power. Bradley was working in a postmodern feminist mode influenced by archeology and comparative mythology concerned with how the Celtic worldview of animism and Goddess worship was overtaken by patriarchal Christianity. It's this flexibility of interpretation that makes the Arthurian material so enduring.
Quoted for truth, +awesomeness.
No they werent. Arthur and then his knights were always the foremost elements within the story. I think the fact that they are called Arthurian legends speaks to that.
These elements were never ever part of the legends, but inventions by much more modern writers. Morgana sleeping with Arthur or her conception of Mordred. They are reinventions and rewriting of the medieval material. Mists can't really be the definite Arthur or Camelot movie or book if it redefines the material in a definition in a way that not everyone can agree on is for the best
And also Geoffrey of Monmouth, the guy who pretty much made up King Arthur.
Exactly MZH has no more claim to writting the definitive Arthurian story any more than TH White or even Mary Stewart when they have all put too much of their own personal touch into the story.
I think we're getting a bit too hung up on the word "definitive" here. I see that I should have merely asked if The Mists of Avalon was the best Camelot film, and not best as in "most faithful adaptation of various ancient retellings," but best as in "most artistically accomplished in its own right."
As San Francisco Chronicle critic Tim Goodman wrote in his review of the movie:
As I understand it, the "Matter of Britain" gradually and by accident became the Classical-style founding myth of British culture in the vein of the Jews' Exodus, the Greeks' Homeric sagas and Rome's Romulus and Remus myth (later complemented by the Aeneid). But the Matter of Britain seems to have been developed so late in the culture, and in so haphazard a manner, that the connective tissue between its stories is tenuous at best. Which is why The Mists of Avalon works so well; it gives a disparate canon of stories a coherence it never actually had.
Oh, and it's a darn good movie, too.
As San Francisco Chronicle critic Tim Goodman wrote in his review of the movie:
As I understand it, the "Matter of Britain" gradually and by accident became the Classical-style founding myth of British culture in the vein of the Jews' Exodus, the Greeks' Homeric sagas and Rome's Romulus and Remus myth (later complemented by the Aeneid). But the Matter of Britain seems to have been developed so late in the culture, and in so haphazard a manner, that the connective tissue between its stories is tenuous at best. Which is why The Mists of Avalon works so well; it gives a disparate canon of stories a coherence it never actually had.
Oh, and it's a darn good movie, too.
Um, no. Geoffrey wrote in the early 1100s. The oral tradition of Arthur had existed since the 5th century. Originally Arthur was not even a king, but a legendary hero along the lines of Hercules. He was most well-known for being a giant killer. It is thought that this legend was collapsed together with an actual historical figure, probably also called Arthur, who was a Roman dux belloram or native born war duke trained by Roman troops to defend Britannia's shores sometime in the 5th century following Rome's withdrawal from the island. Geoffrey is the first written source we have calling Arthur a king and crediting him with a variety of spectacular military victories against both human and supernatural creatures - most of which has long since dropped out of the popular conception of the Arthurian legend. No one talks about how Arthur conquered most of Northern Europe, including marching on Rome, any more.
My point is that various authors have created Arthur over the years, each introducing elements that later authors either use or ignore. There is no definitive Arthur because it's a flexible and ever changing legend. I was never arguing that Mists is definitive, merely that it is not a novelty. A mere 35 years after Geoffrey, Chretien and a host of other medieval authors were writing stories in which the Lady of the Lake, Guinevere, Morgan, and Morgause, plus Elaine, Iseult and a dozen other female characters were the main characters and therefore the focus on female characters does not put Mists left of the main Arthurian tradition, but in a direct line from the earliest written medieval material.
Last edited:
That claim is in the thread title: "The Mists of Avalon (2001) - the definitive Camelot film?"
There's yet to be a definitive Arthurian show imo. MZB does do everything in a pro feminine and political angle, that's why I'm not interested in reading anymore of her books. You get your share and say enough after awhile.
But yes, there have always been prominent women roles in the legends. I think MZB's contribution was trying to make the Morgan le Fay character less of a bad girl. I've been to some forums for the new show Merlin, and their mostly a bunch of teeny boppers shouting about who's hottest and asking silly questions like, 'Y are they putting Arthur and Gwen 2gether?' Frankly I think whatever Camelot show you watch, I hope it leads you to at least some of the literature. Apparently the classics are a thing of the past.
But yes, there have always been prominent women roles in the legends. I think MZB's contribution was trying to make the Morgan le Fay character less of a bad girl. I've been to some forums for the new show Merlin, and their mostly a bunch of teeny boppers shouting about who's hottest and asking silly questions like, 'Y are they putting Arthur and Gwen 2gether?' Frankly I think whatever Camelot show you watch, I hope it leads you to at least some of the literature. Apparently the classics are a thing of the past.
