Score Sample - 80s Forgotten Gems - Return to Oz

Here is a little mini series of posts about movie music. Because I love it, and I love sharing it. The 1980s were a great time for fantasy and adventure film scores. The decade was dominated by some of the biggest names in film scores with John Williams giving us the amazing Indiana Jones trilogy as well was two Star Wars films. You had James Horner cranking out both Krull and Willow not to mention two Star Trek scores. And speaking of Star Trek Jerry Goldsmith knocked it out of the park with Star Trek V as well as his immense and amazing score to Legend. At the end of the decade you had Danny Elfman really coming into his own with fantastic scores to Scrooged and Batman.

But I'm not going to talk about any of those, I'm going to focus on the forgotten ones. Scores to movies that most people don't talk about any more, but had amazing scores. First up is David Shire's wonderful work with Return to Oz. Shire did some amazing work with various themes for nearly all the characters and weaving them into one powerful score. Listening to the full album is a treat with a new memorable theme popping up in each track. It is nearly impossible to pick one to sample here. But I think his most charming music is the rag time triumphal march that plays near the end of the film. Using the rag time style fits perfectly with the setting of the film, and gives the score a unique identity among the very much orchestral bombast scores (nothing wrong with that) we got in the decade.

So here is Rag March from Return to Oz by David Shire.

Score Sample: The Dark Crystal (1982)

2019 brought us a new television series based around the 1982 fantasy adventure The Dark Crystal. The television series outlines the events that lead up to the situation Jen and Kira find themselves during the earlier film. So yeah it is a prequel of sorts, but I'm just happy to see the amazing puppetry and sets brought to life. As a kid, I adored The Dark Crystal, as well as it's younger sister Labyrinth. So I've been enjoying the series quite a bit (still working my way through it at this point).

One thing that I don't think has been improved on is the amazing score from the 1982 film by Trevor Jones. In a lot of ways this is one of those forgotten fantasy scores that really deserves more attention, kind of like the work on Young Sherlock Holmes. Jones created a myriad of themes for The Dark Crystal and nearly every one of them is memorable in some way. He interweaves the themes all through the film and gives the world its own unique flavor.

He wrote a wonderful Overture piece that I'll share today, but really the whole score is worth seeking out for fans of big colorful fantasy adventure scores. It might even be my favorite work by Jones. So here is Overture from The Dark Crystal by Trevor Jones.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

So yeah, this movie. I’ve held off on reviewing it for about a year, because so many people have said so many things… and a lot of it has been toxic and nasty. There seems to be very little middle ground with The Last Jedi and I was hoping that a year down the road it might be safe to have a normal conversation about the film. But man, does this movie seem to trigger the haters. I’m having flashbacks to the post Phantom Menace world. Still, I can’t put it off forever. So here are my thoughts on this, the most divisive of Star Wars films yet.

Summary:

General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) finds the Resistance on the ropes. The First Order lead by the fearsome Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) has discovered their secret base, destroyed it and now is relentlessly pursuing them. With limited fuel, ships and personnel, the General finds herself between the Rancor and the Sarlacc Pit (see what I did there). Finn (John Boyega), Poe (Ocar Isaac) and newcomer Rose Tico (Kelly Marie Tran) hatch a dangerous plan that may allow the fleet to escape from the First Order.

Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) journeys with Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) to a distant world to find the legendary Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). Turns out that Luke is a bitter and angry old man who blames himself for the rise of Kylo Ren’s dark powers. Rey does her best to convince him that his twin sister and the Resistance need his help. She also reveals her budding powers with The Force. Luke remains convinced that he will only do harm by restoring the Jedi Order. Meanwhile, Rey finds herself in a strange Force fueled communication with Kylo Ren, and she feels she may have a chance to pulling him from the evil Snoke’s (Andy Serkis) sway. Before it is all over, the fate of the galaxy will rest in the hands of The Last Jedi. Lupita Nyong’o, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Gwendoline Christie, Laura Dern and Benicio Del Toro round out the cast.

Good Points:

• Impressive, dynamic visuals make this the best looking Star Wars film to date
• Shatters audience expectations
• Creates some truly iconic sequences 

Bad Points:

• Tries a little too hard to shatter expectations
• One of the storylines feels like nothing more than wheel spinning
• At times feels like it is attacking the previous films and mythology

Overall:

To be honest, The Last Jedi was what I wanted this episode to be. It veered away from being a copy of The Empire Strikes Back, and at nearly every turn surprised me with the narrative direction. It doesn’t always works, with Finn and Rose feeling like they suffer a frustrating narrative arc. There are some amazing visuals in the film. Kylo Ren and Rey get some excellent sequences together. When all is said and done, the film moves the series in an interesting new direction, and I’m looking forward to see what happens next.

Scores(out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In Depth Review

At the end of my review of The Force Awakens I wrote the following:

But I will also say that I won’t accept that kind of safe story telling for episode eight. The stage is set for some really interesting plot and character development. I want to see new worlds, new paths and new revelations. I don’t want to see Empire Strikes Back in a new coat of paint. If episode eight forges its new path, than I think those that don’t care for The Force Awakens too much will be willing to accepts its role in the series. But if episode eight continues down this path of manufactured familiarity, we’ll see some disgruntled fans that may be wishing that Lucas were back in the drivers seat.

Rey is ready to take her next step into the larger world.

Looking at the reaction The Last Jedi got, it is kind of funny about how wrong I actually was. I think there were a lot of fans who spent way too much time predicting how the movie was going to play out, and how most of that was going to be a rehash of The Empire Strikes Back. They were let down by The Last Jedi because it didn’t follow the same beats as the 1980 film. And then because of certain narrative choices, these fans felt the film was actively attacking them… and it kind of was.

So let’s get this out of the way. The director has said that he wrote the story to deny many of the fan theories out there. It resulted in people feeling like they a) wasted their time and b) are stupid. He was basically trolling a portion of his audience. Never a good idea. The result has been a lot of very toxic and angry commentary directed at a movie that doesn’t really deserve it.

Luke trolls Rey, just as Johnson trolls his audience.

Is The Last Jedi a great film? No. It’s a good Star Wars film that does a lot of things right and takes things in a fascinating new direction. That is fine. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, it is what we should expect. There have been only one truly great Star Wars film, and quite a few good ones (and yeah a couple stinkers). So these folks who are acting like The Last Jedi broke Star Wars are just blowing it all out of proportion.

Ok, that’s about the last I want to write about the “great debate” surrounding this film. Let’s take a look at the film itself.

Visually, The Last Jedi is probably the most impressive looking Star Wars film we’ve seen up to this point. Director Rian Johnson combined the visual style that J.J. Abrams created in The Force Awakens and adds a bit more of a stylistic touch to the film. Not too surprising from the director of Brick.

Dammit Ackbar, stop playing Yar's Revenge! We are in crisis mode here!

There are some really impressive sequences brought to life in the film, including the initial bomber assault on the First Order fleet, the visually dynamic vision sequences Rey experiences, the demolition of the casino, the final confrontation with Snoke and the ensuing battle, the last ditch defense by the Resistance, and of course Luke and Kylo Ren’s face to face battle.

Johnson uses the color red through out the film, giving the color a vivid garish quality that adds some weight and threat to the film. In fact, burning, fire and red seem to be seeping into all aspects of the film. During flashbacks we see Luke among the burning training grounds where he lost Kylo Ren to the dark side. When Rey and Kylo face down Snoke’s guards the throne room is wreathed in flames and the guards red outfits and Kylo Ren’s saber move all around Rey, dressed in neutrals and wielding her blue saber. The battle on Crait features a world of red ore and minerals covered in a layer of white salt. All this plays into a key element of the finale of The Last Jedi. 

Johnson’s use of flames and red reminds me strongly of a similar use in Akira. We have a film where anger and rage are uncontrolled, and being unleashed. We see this in the performances by members of the First Order and even Poe. The universe is literally burning around the characters, seeming to be consumed by the hatred fueled by the dark side of the force (represented by Snoke and then Kylo Ren). This rage is power and all consuming and our heroes seem to be helpless in the face of it.

Lightsaber tag is really really dangerous. Play freeze tag instead.

To contrast this we have neutrals colors and blue around the Resistance that will become the Rebellion. I’ve already mentioned Rey, but even General Leia is primarily seen in toned down colors, as are all the ships the heroes use. This stays pretty close to what was established in the original trilogy but the direct visual contrast to red fire gives it greater prominence in The Last Jedi.

In many ways, this film is a little less utilitarian in its presentation and a bit more mythical. Images feel more iconic and powerful because of the framing and use of color. It really seems to embrace the fantasy aspect of Star Wars more than the previous few films (such as Rogue One, that went for a much more realistic feel). That works fine in these main storyline films, and I’m happy to see a director really dive into the mythical feel of these movies. Sure there are plenty of space ship battles and melee combat, but the key moments are ones between characters and how they relate to each other. This is not only done with dialogue, but also visually: isolating certain characters in frame, or using angles to create intimidating moments or eerie sequences. Johnson really gives The Last Jedi a unique but completely workable visual aesthetic that is refreshing to see in these films.

Kylo watching over Rey. Was he manipulator or manipulated?

As we expect the visual effects are top notch. All the big sequences look impressive. We get to see some new ships doing things we’ve never had a chance to see before. The bomber sequence is very intense, and something that fans of the series knew existed in the older trilogies (both the Empire and Rebellion had specialized bombing ships, but we only saw the TIE Bombers in action for about 20 seconds in The Empire Strikes Back). Johnson puts us in the bomber crews place in The Last Jedi and it is a great sequence. There are lots of new aliens, droids and ships in this film, which is always fun to have. We also get the expected planet hopping with three different locales: the islands on Ahch-To, the casino world on Canto Blight, and the red and white planet of Crait.

It is obvious that I loved the visuals in The Last Jedi; they are the strongest part of the film. The sound work rises to meet that bar. We get a great combo of the classic sound effects with some new sound work. All of it is nice and immersive. Sound is balanced to provide some nice powerful sequences while allowing us to hear the dialogue clearly.

I swear James Bond is about to enter stage right.

Following along is the music composed by John Williams. It is a pleasure to hear Williams continue scoring these main storyline films, and his work on The Last Jedi seemed to take him in a new and yet familiar direction. Williams created a sequel score that essentially takes many of the themes from The Force Awakens as well as the familiar Force theme from the original trilogy and builds with those blocks. Williams will usually present multiple new themes in these films and blend them with the older ones. But for The Last Jedi, Williams only gives us one new theme for Rose, and couple minor motifs. The rest of the time he manipulates his older themes in interesting and unexpected ways.

Those looking for a fresh Star Wars experience from a musical point of view may be disappointed. But Williams keeps things interesting by allowing all the older themes to play off each other and shift in interesting ways. I love Rey’s theme from The Force Awakens and we get quite a few new variants of it in The Last Jedi as her character continues her journey. Kylo Ren’s theme gains more power and menace as the film moves forward.

Admiral Holdo doubts the veracity of your claim.

But it is the return of old themes that really clicks. We get a taste of Yoda’s theme, as Luke struggles with his role as a mentor. We get a wonderfully touching version of Luke and Leia’s theme as the siblings meet again after so many years apart. In fact all the variants of Leia’s music in the older trilogy (Leia’s Theme, Han and Leia’s Theme, Luke and Leia’s Theme) all make an appearance during the film. Hints of The Emperor’s theme during Snoke’s interview with Kylo Ren (as well as the Imperial March) are played. For fans of Williams work in the previous film, this score almost becomes a game of spot the theme.

It works well in The Last Jedi supporting the action and emotions. But part of me wishes there was a bit more new musical color in the film. It is part of what gives each Star Wars film a unique personality, and yet tied to the whole. This film score feels like an extension of The Force Awakens, which the film really is. It is a minor issue, but one that did stick out to me a bit. Williams’ work is always top notch and as always works wonderfully in the film. So I can’t fault any of that.

I said... get off my lawn.

The cast was pretty much set in The Force Awakens. I really enjoyed their performances in that movie and thought they continued their fine work here. Our protagonists are all very likable (even when they are doing foolish and ridiculous things). Of the main cast I think Ridley and Driver have the best scenes in the script and get to play them very well. Ridley does an excellent job with Hamill and Driver, and really holds her own in some intense scenes. Boyega has good chemistry with newcomer Tran, and they have some really fun scenes together.

Are space slugs supposed to do that? Gross!

On the dark side of things Driver dominates the scenes as Kylo Ren. The character has so much going on, that he is really the most interesting and imposing of these villains. Gleeson chews up all the scenery as Hux, and he looks like he is having a good time. Serkis gets a bit more screen time as Snoke, and his arrogance almost physically manifests. 

The Last Jedi was Carrie Fisher’s last performance, and she does a fine job as General Leia Organa. She feels like the heart and soul of the resistance and her interaction with Isaac and Dern are handled well. As I already mentioned the scene between her and Hamill is one of the best in the series. It isn’t very long, but both actors really give you the feeling that they are siblings who care deeply for each other and yet have grown distant. 

"I must know... do you still keep in touch with Wicket?"

The only weak point, from an acting point of view, is Laura Dern. I’m still not sure what it is about her performance as Admiral Holdo but it just doesn’t’ click for me. This is so strange; normally Dern is excellent in just about anything she is in. But here, I never really felt that she was that character. The movies doesn’t give us a lot of screen time with her. It just doesn’t ever seem to gel, until we see her interacting with Fisher late in the film. But it is so brief, it just kind of goes by.

So now we come to the main issue with The Last Jedi, the script. We have a story that feels like it is focused on two things, building tension and shattering expectations. I think the script handles the tension elements pretty well, and goes above and beyond when it comes to shattering expectations.

Finn is the RAD RACER!

I think we are missing a clear idea of where the characters were going to end up. As the middle section of a trilogy, you need to really put the main characters through the ringer, so they can rise to the challenge in the final episode. Star Wars films are mythology after all. There is a clear set up for how these things build and release. In the original trilogy, we had the classic hero’s journey. In the prequels we had the classic tragedy. Based on how The Force Awakens was executed we are heading into classic heroes journey again. 

All that said, the concept of where this episode needs to end must be clear. To me, it feels like this was lost somewhere in the writing process. Then remembered at the last moment and shoehorned back in. Both Rey and Kylo Ren have clear arcs that feel like they build to where they need to go. But the Resistance and the characters locked in that conflict feel like they didn’t accomplish all that much. But you could argue that the main point of that storyline is destroy the resistance and create the rebellion.

The tempest of mystery calls to us and Rey

But here is the problem; we never have a clear idea of what “the resistance” is. We get an idea of what “The Rebellion” means to people, and that comes across pretty well. But The Force Awakens never made the political situation very clear. I think this was done because everyone complains about the “boring senate scenes” in the prequels. But part of the issue there is that we have no investment in the politics in the prequels really. 

For old fans of the original trilogy, we are invested in the heroes and the fate of the rebellion and empire. The Force Awakens never clarifies any of it, and The Last Jedi continues on its merry way. We never get the idea that the Resistance is this small rag tag organization – and if it is, what the hell is the big deal of creating The Rebellion. Is it more than a matter of semantics? If that is the main goal of the second storyline in The Last Jedi and all the events tied to it feel hollow.

To quote a famous scoundrel, "This deal is getting worse all the time."

That brings me to the whole construction of that storyline, the extended chase scene. The logistics that seems odd on the first watch, and then fall apart during your refrigerator moment. We are essentially going through a storyline that is an exercise in futility. And you can make that kind of story work, and in many ways, it does work in The Empire Strikes Back. But in The Last Jedi it feels less like a series of cliffhangers where the enemies keep getting the upper hand, and more like a series of mistakes and bumbling that could have been avoided. 

I would trust Poe to blow up a Death Star, or two.

Why does it feel that way? Because Rian Johnson’s script goes out of its way to avoid any predictable plot elements. More than that Johnson’s script actively attacks audience expectations, but not replacing them with anything that furthers the second storyline or builds the desperation in a meaningful way. The whole Poe vs Holdo storyline feels poorly executed, because we are invested in Poe, and his viewpoint seems very clear to us. Holdo comes across (through writing and performance) as very unreliable. If Poe had been a bit more impressed with her war record, and had Holdo actually attempted to engage in productive conversation with one of her best soldiers, it might have worked for more viewers.

Then you have the Rose and Finn storyline. I really like Rose as a character and Tran does some great things with her. She has some really good moments with Boyega, but man, does their whole side quest feel forced and uninteresting. It doesn’t stop the story dead like I’ve seen some folks endlessly complain about. It does end up feeling futile from a narrative point of view, or at least have a very tiny pay off (tied to the rebellion vs. resistance issue). And yeah, you could argue that the whole point of that side story is express how some things in life are pointless and futile… but is Star Wars really the place you want to express that theme? And to do it in a side story gives it even less importance. Star Wars is mythic storytelling; heroes in myths rarely do anything that ends up being pointless. 

Well at least Phasma has a point in this movie... oh wait... 

The other issue I have with separating all the characters up was that part of what made The Force Awakens so much fun was the great character interplay, especially Rey and Finn. To have them separated for nearly 98% of the movie was a bit of a letdown for me. I like Rose, and think she makes for a good addition to the cast, but there had to be a better way to use this character.

Finally lets take a look at the theme of the film, because boy is it confusing. The imagery of the movie feels very clear – let go of the past, look toward the future. The script seems to support this in the way it destroys so many of the expectations viewers had about how they felt The Last Jedi was going to play out. It didn’t, and I think that is great. It fits the theme of letting go of the past. But here is the problem with the way the theme is executed here

I AM suppressing my rage!

What is the beacon shimmering in the future? The rebellion. The state of affairs that was established at the end of Revenge of the Sith. So, the future state of hope is based in the past? Wait, what? 

It works a little better with The Force and the Jedi order. We saw how ineffectual the Jedi Council was in the prequels. We saw how old thinking nearly destroyed Luke in the original trilogy. It makes perfect sense to move the Jedi into something new and fresh. And THISis what the new trilogy should have been about. Seeing how powerful and interesting all this material in The Last Jedi is, makes me realize that this is the storyline that should have been explored in greater depth. Drop the First Order and Resistance material that feels all surface and no depth. The Force Awakens feels like a title that never got the movie it deserved. 

Drawing a line in the salt.

I agree with Luke, the Jedi order had its time, before the prequels. Now is the time for something new. Rey could and should be the first of that new direction. We seem to be moving in that direction, and because Johnson already took the great Luke-centric moments from the original trilogy and twisted them around in The Last Jedi. He put J.J. Abrams on the spot. He can’t rely on recreating Return of the Jedi’s scenes without looking like he is aping to previous films. Hopefully this forces his hand to go in a new direction for Episode IX.

All in all Johnson’s direction is very good. Even when The Last Jedi feels like it is spinning its narrative wheels, he keeps everything moving and visually interesting. He created a very good Star Wars film, one that does some great stuff. I think he should have given the script a few more passes, tried a bit less hard to troll old time fans and fan sites obsessed with predicting the way the series was going to play out (and I admit, I found all that super annoying too, so I understand his frustration). He should have focused his script on telling a compelling story. Instead we have a good movie with one great storyline and one that feels like if flounders around in a visually exciting way. We almost got another Great Star Wars film.

Their last battlefield?

Enjoy this review? Click an ad and support this blog.

And Then This Happened... Outlaw of Gor

It is good to be king. You can wear whatever you want. Command all your minions. Demand absolute obedience from your subjects. And of course you get to make proclamations. But sometimes wearing whatever you want while making the proclamations can turn out to be a bad thing.

Case in point in the example below.

But still, this moment from Outlaw of Gor gives us the perfect opportunity for caption fun. So we can't be all that mad at King Goofy here.

And then this happened...

Movie Musing - The Magic is Gone

I’ve obviously blogged quite a bit about Excalibur and the opening scenes already. But I wanted to explore a strange phenomenon that occurred with films based on the Arthurian legends for the last couple of decades. For a lot of folks Excalibur is the definitive film version of the legend. But Hollywood is always eager to churn out films with familiar characters and situations. In theory, that familiarity entices viewers to come to the theaters and watch the film.

Often the creative forces behind the camera have a different idea. They are not content to make the same movie over and over (can't say I blame them). They will want to shake things up a bit and bring a new twist to the old story. When you are talking about something as old a King Arthur, it is hard to imagine a new twist that hasn't already been done. Mark Twain did time travel and King Arthur back in 1889.

The Arthurian legend provides plenty of stories and characters to tap into, as well as numerous versions of the familiar stories. You can focus only on the love triangle. You can focus on Merlin and the magic. You can focus on the Quest for the Holy Grail. You can select another knight’s story to explore like Gawain and the Green Knight, or Sir Tristan’s love for Isolde. Lancelot has a ton of adventures on his own and some of those are bound to make for exciting films. Or you can select one of the many other knights who manage to get mentioned in Malory’s Le Morte de’ Arthur. Who wouldn't want to see The Many Adventures of Sir Griflet.

No need to fight about it, you both look ridiculous.

But for some reason Hollywood used a different tactic during the 1990s and 2000s. In those years we had three films based in the legends. First Knight focused on the love triangle and turned Arthur and Genevere’s marriage into one of political gain. The other two attempted to place Arthur and his knights firmly in history, specifically at the end of the Roman Empire. King Arthur, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer of Pirates of the Caribbean and Top Gun fame, brought an action heavy version of the story. It was gritty, and dirty and packed with action. The Last Legion went for a similar angle trying to work a more historically believable scenario and putting Colin Firth in the lead role of the man who would become Uther Pendragon. None of these films did all that well and are essentially forgotten by most folks (except film music fans who will tell you how entertaining the scores are with the likes of Jerry Goldsmith, Hans Zimmer and Patrick Doyle working on them).

No the sword isn't helping, I still don't buy it.

You could attribute a bunch of reasons for this. Each film has some serious faults on display. First Knight throws Richard Gere into the role of Lancelot, and he looks about as out of place in medieval armor you expect him to. King Arthur looks so dower and grim that you don’t see a hint of any of the adventure or thrills you would expect in this kind of story. The Last Legion also had some odd casting and was poorly marketed.

With all the grit and realism flying around, it is no
wonder the movie looks so drab.

The main reason I found these films frustrating is the fact that they ignore the magic inherent in the legend. These films try to ground Arthur and his knights. They try to explain all the “magic” in practical and sensible ways. Merlin isn’t a sorcerer (if he even appears in the film) but he’s a druid or trickster. Excalibur is a normal Roman sword that just happens to have some Latin writing on it that could be mistaken for the word, Excalibur. Holy Grail? Who needs it. Those wonderfully weird moments form Malory’s epic where omens appear, or people transform, or the oddly wonderful Questing Beast taunts the knights. None of that to see here. We are going for realism... in a King Arthur movie.

Guinevere lets out a mighty yawp.

Are these movies ashamed to embrace the fantasy of what is essentially (and maybe quintessentially) a fantasy story? Can you really have these characters without the magic? Maybe. But then you have to have all the other elements working. Clearly that wasn’t happening in any of these adaptations.

Ok, James Franco as Tristan may have been
worse casting than Richard Gere as Lancelot... maybe.

I’ve given First Knight the most chances over the years. I keep wanting it to work, because all the story elements are in place. Even though Jerry Goldsmith’s score goes into overdrive to make it all work, the movie ends up lifeless and dull for a good portion of the film. Part of it is the lack of chemistry between Gere and just about everyone else in the movie. But I feel the lack of magic removes anything that makes it stand out from a standard medieval epic. You could have a similar story with differently named characters and it would probably be just as effective.

Does anything about this image remind you of King Arthur?

The other two films came out in the post-Dark Knight/Casino Royale world. Everything had to be realistic and gritty. I guess Jackson’s amazing adaptation of Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films had taken up all the magic Hollywood could handle. So we get these two films that are “historically accurate”, except that historians can’t agree if Arthur was a real person and if so, who he was. Both films take major liberties with all kinds of historical details. It opens up the Arthurian legend to a bunch of scrutiny that isn’t needed. We shouldn’t be distracted by the fact that we have end of the Empire era Romans running around in the incorrect armor in front of a castle that is clearly build in the late middle ages. There is no point to that. Neither of these movies is all that fun to watch. The spirit of adventure or romance are gone. It is all grim action and serious growling of silly lines.

"Smile kid, at least Uwe Boll isn't directing this."

To not embrace the magic and fantasy is to miss one of the key reasons for the appeal of these stories. We want to see and experience the fantastic. We want to see the unbreakable sword pulled from the stone. We want to see Merlin casting spells. We want to see the dangers of the mysterious forests filled with bizarre creatures. We expect the Holy Grail. We expect the Lady of the Lake. We expect the magic.

I think they are both disappointed in Camelot's "grandeur".

While the recent King Arthur: Legend of the Sword bombed in theaters, at least it looked like it embraced the fantasy. It is obviously more inspired by Game of Thrones and the Marvel franchise, but that is another issue altogether. But it somehow managed to look more monochromatic and drab than the Bruckheimer King Arthur, a feat in itself.

These stories are timeless because they explore timeless themes. The three films from the 90s and 00s do accomplish this to a degree. But they also ignore the key elements that make them so beloved and well known. I think this may have hurt them in the long run.

"At some point, someone is going to look back fondly at this
version of Merlin."

Check out Patrick H Willem's YouTube channel for an excellent video essay about Hollywoods obsession with Robin Hood and King Arthur and his theory on why the latest films based on these stories have failed. He also has tons of great video essays about film in general. Well worth checking out.

Excalibur (1981)

When it comes to Western mythology and legends, there is one name that looms large, King Arthur. Just mention this British monarch to anyone in the Western world and you are likely to hear about swords in stones, love triangles and a wizard named Merlin. Because the stories are so well known, you would think people would be tired of revisiting them. But it didn’t stop director John Boorman from bringing his own take to the screen right before the Barbarian Age of fantasy films kicked in.

Summary:

Some of this may be familiar to you. Merlin (Nicol Williamson) is trying to get some order going around these Dark Ages, so he helps out Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) by giving him the sword of power: Excalibur. Unfortunately Uther is a lustful hothead that destroys all of Merlin’s plans. Merlin is able to smuggle baby Arthur away from all the bloody insanity to be brought up by a good knight. Many years later Arthur (Nigel Terry) pulls a sword from a stone, starts a civil war and battles alongside Captain Picard… I mean Leodegrance (Patrick Stewart) much to the delight of Guinevere (Cherie Lunghi). Arthur forges the Table Round, builds Camelot and marries his queen.

But things start going downhill once Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) shows up. He is a master knight, but falls for the Queen. Prodded by the plotting, scheming Morgana (Helen Mirren), Sir Gawaine (Liam Neeson) challenges Lancelot to a mighty duel. But Lancelot proves his innocence in a contest of arms. That doesn’t mean too much, because eventually Arthur finds his wife and best friend naked in the forest. The King is unable to slay them, and leaves Excalibur behind, plunging the land into famine and despair. The only hope for The Knights of the Round Table is to find the Holy Grail. Sir Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) nearly achieves the quest, but discovers that Morgana and her unholy son Mordred (Robert Addie) are preparing to wrest the kingdom from the ailing Arthur. Can Perceval obtain the grail and return it to the King? And even if he manages that, does Arthur have any hope against the deadly Mordred without Excalibur at his side?

Good Points:

• Very impressive visual style that creates a mythic feel
• Admirable job condensing all the key events of the legend into 140 minutes
• The use of classical music works wonders in many key scenes 

Bad Points:

• The film is not subtle at all, some of the acting and visuals are over the top
• Some of the actors are miscast
• Tries to cram in so many elements that you never get a lot of depth to the characters

Overall:

This is Arthurian legend presented as mythic saga, not afraid of the blood or sex that saturate the narrative. Boorman uses impressive location shooting, eye-popping color and visual storytelling to bring the stories to life. The side effect is that diving into all the passions of the Arthurian saga leads to some over the top dialogue, acting and settings. It gives the movie the feel of the dream at times. For all its enthusiasm the film manages to be entertaining and powerful. I feel this is still the definitive film version of the tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

Scores(out of 5)

Visuals:  5

Sound: 4

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total:  4

In Depth Review

King, Queen and Champion stand before God at the Table Round.

Arriving in screens in 1981,Excalibur was a strange film for Orion Pictures to release. Arthurian legend hadn’t had a big budget release since Camelot in 1967. But studios were giving big budget fantasy and science fiction films a try after Star Wars raked in massive amounts of cash in 1977. Many of these post Star Wars fantasy films weren’t well recieved, and it wouldn’t be until the release of Conan the Barbarian in 1982 that the fantasy renaissance of the 1980s really kicked in. So Excalibur was ahead of the curve (kind of like Hawk the Slayer in that way). That ends up being a good thing, because Excalibur isn’t like any other fantasy film of the 1980s. It has its own feel, its own methods and its own themes that it explores.

Merlin is about to get this party started!

Boorman wanted to show us Arthurian Legend stripped of the pageantry and the staid nobility of previous Hollywood versions. He reduced down the characters and story to passions. There are many moments where the film feels almost operatic in tone and acting (and the opera music by Richard Wagner helps as well). The film is one that dives into the heart of the tale – one that revolves around the need to control our desires. Characters that lose control in this film end up dooming themselves and others. Those who are not slaves to their passions are rewarded.

Uther does not understand the power of a king, and wastes Excalibur.

To illustrate this, we are thrown into a primal world where the Dark Ages are truly dark. Boorman is a very visual director, and he does not shy away from bold symbols and colors to execute visual storytelling. I wrote an extensive breakdown of the first few scenes of Excalibur, examining how Boorman uses various images and style to set up his reoccurring themes. Needless to say, nearly every shot in the film is crafted with skill and an eye to not just plot and characters, but to themes and mood. 

All the knights in these early scene are wearing black or grey armor.

One interesting visual aspect of the film that ends up supporting the story and yet is never remarked upon by the characters is the armor. When the film opens, Uther and his contemporaries are dressed in black and matte grey armor. It is often spattered in blood and mud. 

A young King Arthur is about to meet his match... and his Champion.

Even after Arthur becomes king, he and his knights are dressed in similar armor.

The stark contrast between the fallen King and the noble shimmering Champion.

But then we see Lancelot, and his armor shimmers like silver. He is the paragon of knights, something that all knights, including Arthur, aspire to be. It is after Arthur unites the kingdom do his knights also appear in silver armor. 

The wedding sequence is awash in silver for the knights, and green for
the natural world. "The Land and the King are one."

This visual persists until Arthur plunges Excalibur into the earth between the naked Lancelot and Guinevere. After he loses his sword, the armor of the Knights of the Round Table starts to lose its luster. 

The quest isn't going so well.

As we follow Perceval on his Quest for the Holy Grail, his armor becomes more and more rusty, more dented and soon without any shine to it. 

Mordred doubts the veracity of your claim.

In contrast Mordred appears in golden armor, hinting at his conceit that he is superior to Arthur and his knights. But Mordred’s armor is also gaudy looking, with the helm giving him the look of a statue of Alexander the Great, a young conqueror, who many see as a power hungry brat. 

The final ride from Camelot

Mordred’s army are all dressed in black armor, harkening back to the dark times of the opening of the film. Mordred’s reign will be a return to a dark age. When Arthur and his knights ride into battle the last time, their armor is gleaming in the sun, silver and pure once again.

You would think Percival would wipe some of Mordred's blood off of
Excalibur before he returned it to the Lady of the Lake.

Time and again Boorman allows the visuals in Excalibur to speak to the themes of the story. His use of locations shots not only creates some amazing and beautiful moments in the film, but also ties the natural world to the story. There is a scene that occurs in a ring of stones involving Uther and Merlin, and the scene is mirrored near the end between Arthur and Merlin. The contrast is powerful as we see the two kings interacting with the magician in very different ways. The use of challises in the film not only foreshadows the quest for the grail, but provide twisted mirrors of the holy object. Even the scene where Perceval returns Excalibur to the lake is a mirror to Merlin’s retrieval of the sword at the opening of the film. Boorman’s use of these mirror scenes give the film a feeling of resonance beyond what we expect.

You wold think that if anyone could pull the sword from the stone,
it would be the captain of the Enterprise.

To match the visuals the sound effects work very well. The battle scenes are awash with metal on metal clangs and the soundscape fills with thundering hooves in several key scenes. Boorman also injects some natural sounds into the mix, especially during the Grail Quest, when the knights search the known world, and are battered by rains, snow and wind.

Boorman said that Mirren and Williamson disliked each other, but
it added to the rivalry between Morgana and Merlin.

Boorman is no stranger to using classical pieces as score in his films. Excalibur continues this trend, and this may be one of the most effective uses in his filmography. Most of the music heard in the film is from composer Richard Wagner for his operas Tristan und Isolde, Götterdämmerung and Parsifal. Each of the pieces is an instrumental overture, interlude or prelude, so no singing Valkyries here. Instead the music does a lot of the heavy lifting in key scenes. Whenever Lancelot and Guinevere’s eyes meet we get the swelling lush notes of Tristan und Isolde. The grail’s appearances are scored with music from Parsifal. This may explain why Boorman selects Perceval as his Grail hero instead of the usual Galahad. Finally, the sword itself (as well as opening and ending credits) are scored by the funeral march from Götterdämmerung. This gives these scenes a grim but powerful feel that certainly sticks in the mind.

The Quest for the Holy Grail begins as the land is plunged into
uncertainty. "The King without a sword, the land without a king!"

The other classical music we hear in the film is Fortuna from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. You know the piece when you hear it. This choral piece has been used in countless movies, televisions shows and commercials. These days it often shows up in parodies when something “epic” occurs. If you hear a composer using bombastic choral moments, such as Duel of the Fates from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, you will hear folks saying how it sounds like Carmina Burana. 

The moment where Arthur forges the knighthood, and the Round Table.

Excalibur used the piece before it became a cliché, and hell, it may have inspired those clichés. The piece is based on actual medieval texts, so it fits a movie about King Arthur. It also has an intrinsic power behind it, something primal. It is showcased in the film near the end, when Arthur and his knights ride into battle one last time, and the land springs back to life. It really works wonders in the scene. But you also hear it a couple times before that during moments of triumph.

Arthur knew the Lady of the Lake was around, because of 70s synths.

Boorman did hire composer Trevor Jones for some original score material in the movie. But most of it is limited to scenes of magic. Jones uses some late 70s synths as well as orchestra in these moments, and they work well enough. He has some ghostly wordless female vocals for the Lady of the Lake sequences, and it adds an uncanny feel to these dreamlike moments. I will say that Jones’ material contrasts a bit with the classical pieces, but it also adds that surreal disconnect that works in the movie’s favor.  

Neeson embraces the boorish nature of Sir Gawain.

When it comes to acting in Excalibur, things get a little strange. You have several very fine actors from the British Isles in early performances. We’ve seen many of them do wonderful things in later films. Here, well there is no way to put it delicately, they are all pretty much going over the top. Gabriel Byrne and Patrick Stewart seem to shout all their lines. Liam Neeson is a brooding hulking and drooling (not kidding here) brute. Helen Mirren vamps it up wonderfully in some scenes and other times draws her cloak around her face like silent film villainess.

"Look lady, I've seen the future. I know what you do with your brother.
See a therapist. I hear Sir Bors is a good listener."

Nicol Williamson pretty much steals the acting show with his take on Merlin. Williamson uses strange inflections for his lines. He makes some expressive faces of annoyance and joy. But he is also disturbing when he channels the power of The Dragon, or lurks nightmare-like in his final confrontation with Morgana. He goes out of his way to be otherworldly and it works. When Morgana accuses him of being a creature, we believe it. He also has some of the best lines in Excalibur, acting as Arthur’s Yoda on several occasions.

Did I mention that Mirren vamps it up a little bit... just a touch.

All this big acting will annoy some viewers and pull them right out of the film. But as I mentioned, Excalibur is not going for subtly and realism. It is bringing this primal myth to life in a big way. Passion is the name of the game, and that passion comes through in the acting, especially by the folk we would come to know later in their career.

Would you trust this guy to find anything, much less the HOLY GRAIL!?

Some of other members of the cast play things a little lower key, but seem a bit out of their depth. Paul Geoffrey never quite sells Perceval to me. He seems too simple minded as the thief turned squire in the middle of the film, and he just doesn’t feel like the best and bravest of the knights to achieve the Grail. He’s never horrible, but he never seems to rise to the role, admittedly a difficult one. 

Young Arthur ignoring the spirited advice from Merlin about love.

In a similar boat is Nigel Terry as Arthur. This role is very, very challenging, and would test an experienced actor. Boorman cast Terry to play Arthur as a young squire all the way up to being the older king riding into his final battle. Terry is at his best when playing Arthur in those later years, with the gravitas and power at his command. When he is playing the young squire he is just too old to be all that naïve. He isn’t bad in the role, and his interactions with Merlin are some of the best parts of the film. But I wonder if Excalibur would have benefited from different actors playing the part at different ages (as Boorman did with Mordred). 

"Come father. Let us embrace at last."

Speaking of Mordred, Addie does a good job being both arrogant and unsettling all at once. But a big part of that is also how well young Charley Boorman plays him in earlier scenes. The kid is just creepy with that laugh and the casual cruelty he displays.

Guinevere tries to chat up Lancelot, but he is "sworn to the quest".
I doesn't last long.

Wrapping things up are the two lovers. I think Clay does a fine job as Lancelot. He has the nobility of spirit and determination down. You believe he is the best knight in the land, and his dedication to that is palatable. Clay is always the image of Lancelot in my mind and one of the reason I found Richard Gere’s casting in First Knight such a confusing one. However the love angle falls a bit flat. I don’t think this has anything to do with Clay’s acting, but the simple fact that the film spends very little time on it. As I mentioned the music does the heavy lifting in those scenes, and Clay does the best he can with the material. I do think that he does a fine job later in the film when you can see the conflict and anguish overtaking him when Guinevere finally comes to him in the forest. I also love crazy ass hermit Lancelot at the end of the film.

Husband and wife, King and Queen, meet one last time.

Cherie Lunghi gives us a Guinevere we hadn’t seen before. Lunghi plays very naturally, playful and impressed by Arthur in her youth. Resentful of her husband’s duty to order and law in her maturity. And wonderfully wise in her final scenes with Arthur. In fact, that sequence is one of my favorite from Excalibur. Lunghi and Terry do a great job in this scene, and it makes you wish the film had slowed down enough for more scenes between these two (and Lancelot) to really build that love triangle. Again, the love angle feels underplayed, but not really because of Lunghi’s commitment to the role, but just because of the short amount of screen time it does get.

The Round Table is revealed to Percival and the audience from an upper
gallery.

So let’s take a look at the script for Excalibur. It is ambitious to be sure. These days the Arthurian legend would be drawn out across multiple films or in the form of a television series (as both were attempted in the 2010s). But Boorman didn’t have the luxury. He was lucky enough to convince Orion that the film concept could be a crowd pleaser, even if it was going to be rated R because of all the blood and nudity. Boorman felt that the story needed to show the arc of Arthur from boy to man, life to death. It needed to show the world before, as well as the world Arthur created. It needed to have the redemption of Grail and horrors of the final battle against Mordred. And of course you had to have Merlin, even The Sword in the Stone had Merlin.

Percival's armor probably smells as bad as it looks by this point.

It is a lot of plot elements to work into the story. Along with that there are themes flowing throughout the film: Christianity vs. Paganism, Order vs. Chaos, Law vs. Passion, New Paths vs. Traditions, Truth vs. Lies. Each of these comes into play during the film and some of them carry all the way through the film in plot, visuals and dialogue. It is a lot to chew on, and because of that Excalibur feels like an epic film. But it also feels rushed in places.

"How spicy do you want your Hot Wings?"

The love story at heart of the fall of Arthur feels incomplete. Boorman has stated that the original film was three hours long and included a sequence where Lancelot rescues Guinevere from a group of bandits. Some of this can be seen in the trailer. A scene like that, or even a dialogue scene between the two would have done wonders to build their relationship. As the movie plays out now, it goes for the love at first sight swooning that just doesn’t work, even in a film as operatic as this.

I double checked, and that is not the Grail shaped beacon. It is the real thing!

I also think the finale of the film with Perceval returning Excalibur to the lake and seeing Arthurs final voyage play out very rushed. I think the reason is that Boorman wanted to edit the sequence to the eight-minute Funeral March from Götterdämmerung. When you watch the sequence it fits the music perfectly. And damn if it doesn’t work as an amazing short film right there. But as the finale to all that came before, it just feels abrupt. An epilogue of some kind dealing with Perceval’s fate, or the fate of the kingdom after Arthur’s departure would give some needed closure here. Or if the sequence was allowed to play out a little longer, and not so tied to the music (and Boorman had allowed Trevor Jones to compose music to the sequence) it might have worked. As it stands, I’m always surprised when the credits just start. Not as abrupt as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but few films are.

The once and future king is taken to Avalon.

Excalibur never feels its 140 minutes. Boorman’s enthusiasm for the story and telling it in such a rich and visual way really carries the film along. I love that he went for the R rating, because the passions of war and love need to play out fully in this version. It makes it stand out against the older versions of the tale, as well as the television versions. It is not a perfect fantasy film, but it does so many things right. Even some its faults are endearing at this point (and I’m sure that is nostalgia talking). I would love to see this same approach taken with King Arthur again, but given time to breathe and flow. A television series or a trilogy of films could do it justice… and yet, we’ve had both in this decade and they fell short. Excalibur is still theking of Arthurian legend for me, and whenever I think of these characters I usually see the cast in this film and hear Wagner’s motif from Götterdämmerungin my mind.

Enjoy this review? Click an ad and support this blog.

The sun sets on Arthur's story. Excalibur is drenched in blood.
The king is dead, long live the king.