5 ms·

You're in for a deeply strange, wild time. Stick with it after the bizarre opening and abrasive dialog; it gets better and is quite affecting by the end. Boorm

by pryce 5y ago

You're in for a deeply strange, wild time. Stick with it after the bizarre opening and abrasive dialog; it gets better and is quite affecting by the end. Boorman depicts the Arthurian myth almost in religious way; it is intentionally solemn, weird, almost painful in its lack in humor, and jarring in its refusal to explore the psyches of its characters, preferring instead to insist its tale itself is transcendent and demand reverence. The closest other film I can think of that makes remotely similar choices is David Lynch's Dune (1985). Dune is seen as odd by the Lynch fanbase, but I've come to view it as fitting perfectly with Lynch's fascination with subjective experience, given what we see is the depiction of the 'Messiah' through the frame of devoted believer Princess Irulan. Dune (1985)'s disinterest in authentic human experience is built into the frame; there's a reason some viewers felt like they'd sat in a 2 hr Sunday school lesson. And yet...

mdp2021 5y ago
> almost painful in its lack in humor What?! «You cannot understand, Merlin! You are not a man...» It's just humour from a different "world" [:grin:]
- pryce 5y ago
  Oh it's exceptional; the film itself, like Merlin, is almost an artefact from the world that was slipping away. Only some of our most gifted filmmakers could conceive of how to go about this kind of project, let alone pull it off.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Do not miss, in your interpretation of "humour", that a big topic of the movie is, in fact, compassion (interestingly, at the same time a legacy and a radical difference between "the old gods" and "the new gods"). Compassion also involves noting the absurdities of those existences bound to their own nature (of god, of man, of titan). It is subterranean in the movie, and sometimes its side or radical humour (laughter inducing, but not "funny": tragic) emerges more clearly.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> it is intentionally solemn, weird As a plus it has superb evocations of the ancient landscapes of Britain (admittedly filmed in Eire), in a way that I think captures a Tolkien-like view of a young world that is fresh and green > almost painful in its lack in humor And there is a subtle humour, especially in Merlin, who is more directly humorous, than say Gandalf (another mythic wizard). > and jarring in its refusal to explore the psyches of its characters It surfaces the personalities and drives of multiple distinct characters. If they aren't 'explored' it's perhaps because they represent distinct folk personas and Boorman was more interested in their interactions and responses to each other.
Maursault 5y ago
Suburb post, and I have so very little to add. Supposing a Stewart triple feature, the question remains, how to button-up a trilogy that includes Excalibur and Dune... and in what order (chronological or feature, sequel, prequel)?

by pryce 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

> almost painful in its lack in humor What?! «You cannot understand, Merlin! You are not a man...» It's just humour from a different "world" [:grin:]

pryce 5y ago
Oh it's exceptional; the film itself, like Merlin, is almost an artefact from the world that was slipping away. Only some of our most gifted filmmakers could conceive of how to go about this kind of project, let alone pull it off.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Do not miss, in your interpretation of "humour", that a big topic of the movie is, in fact, compassion (interestingly, at the same time a legacy and a radical difference between "the old gods" and "the new gods"). Compassion also involves noting the absurdities of those existences bound to their own nature (of god, of man, of titan). It is subterranean in the movie, and sometimes its side or radical humour (laughter inducing, but not "funny": tragic) emerges more clearly.

KineticLensman 5y ago

> it is intentionally solemn, weird As a plus it has superb evocations of the ancient landscapes of Britain (admittedly filmed in Eire), in a way that I think captures a Tolkien-like view of a young world that is fresh and green > almost painful in its lack in humor And there is a subtle humour, especially in Merlin, who is more directly humorous, than say Gandalf (another mythic wizard). > and jarring in its refusal to explore the psyches of its characters It surfaces the personalities and drives of multiple distinct characters. If they aren't 'explored' it's perhaps because they represent distinct folk personas and Boorman was more interested in their interactions and responses to each other.

Maursault 5y ago

Suburb post, and I have so very little to add. Supposing a Stewart triple feature, the question remains, how to button-up a trilogy that includes Excalibur and Dune... and in what order (chronological or feature, sequel, prequel)?