Skip to main content

Why? WHHHYYYYYYY?!!


First Knight
(1995)

Did First Knight start life as a comedy? Obviously, it finished up as one (unintentionally). How did it come by a title that appears to be a bad pun on stagecraft (but with no good reason)? Nigh on every aspect of Jerry Zucker’s follow-up to Ghost is a bust, from the script, to the cast, to the costumes, to (yes) the direction. It’s as if all concerned laboured under the perverse desire to manifest the most horrendous version of Arthurian legend imaginable on a cinema screen.


Although, ignore the names Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere and you’d be understandably surprised to learn that these characters are intended to represent their mythic counterparts. True, there’s Camelot and the Round Table. And Malagant features in some stories. But there’s no Merlin, no Holy Grail, no Morgana. Excalibur remains unnamed. This is a land devoid of mythmaking, shorn of fantasy, lyricism and poetry. In their place, the lumbering and literal. Arthur is an old man, marrying for the first time. Lancelot is a wandering mercenary, who meets Guinevere before the king. I don’t make great demands at fidelity to the source material; there are quite enough variations of Arthurian lore from myriad different authors. Easily sufficient to stake a claim for legitimacy of a distinctive take. Make whatever changes you want in the service of a compelling tale (God knows, Excalibur has it’s problems as a result Boorman sticking to bits of text he should have excised). I just have no idea why anyone would gut the story of everything that compels or strokes the imagination. All that’s left is a ten-a-penny love triangle. One which proceeds to die on its arse.


In part, this is why I wonder about the comedy element. The script is so threadbare, you doubt there was a serious interest in the Arthur; the Dudley Moore version, perhaps. There’s also the suspicious presence of two of the credited storywriters; Lorne Cameron and David Hoselton are almost exclusively known for their comedy work. The finished screenplay is by William Nicholson, who would go on to contribute to Gladiator amongst other patchy works. The production went through a variety of permutations of possible stars and helmers (including Bond director Terence Young), before ending up in the malformed state we find it.


Not content with desecrating the story, there are the aesthetic elements to content with. The knights wear a combination of spandex and quilted knitwear (knghtwear?); all of it blue. As others have pointed out, it’s as if the main source of inspiration for the costume designers was Star Trek: The Next Generation. On top of such apparel comes the armour, which resembles oversided Lego, only more plasticky. John Gielgud looks like he bought his outfit at John Lewis.


And everything is shockingly clean. Not for Zucker the mud and squalor of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Nor for him the blood and fog of Excalibur. Camelot is disastrously overlit, as if the paint’s not yet dry. It proudly displays itself in pastel colours, airy and devoid of atmosphere. There’s no texture or shade. It’s a Disneyland castle.


But who knows; with a shrewdly cast trio of leads, perhaps it could have struggled towards something semi-respectable. Anyone fearing that Richard Gere, Julia Ormond and Sean Connery seemed a bizarre mismatch of ages and styles needed only recall that Zucker had score the biggest hit of 1990 with two leads audiences tended to give short shrift. Alas, this time his vision wasn’t so much skewed as boss-eyed.


Richard Gere is an absolutely horrid sight, and hilariously miscast. You could imagine him in one of brother David’s spoofs or a Mel Brooks effort; he’s absurdly inappropriate to every aspect of Lancelot. True, failing to disguise your accent did Kevin Costner no harm in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. And I suspect this was in the back of the producers’ minds when the cast an American lead. But Gere isn’t just adrift of voice; he’s hopeless in the action scenes. And limp at the romance. There’s a shot during the climactic battle where he is galvanising himself atop his steed, in slow motion, and it appears that he is succumbing to an onslaught of indigestion. He dives off castle parapets like a man whose stuntman hates him (and then appears to engage in burst of water-skiing), runs the gauntlet in a somnambulist stupor, and you’d swear he’d never worked with a fight choreographer before. Apparently he revealed on set that this would be his last action role, but I’m trying to think of one where he actually tried to swashle his buck before (King David?)


His approach to romance is doubtless intended to be of the charming rogue variety, hence a jerky line like, “I can tell when a woman wants me I can see it in her eyes”. That might work if you’re Harrison Ford as Han Solo, with a deportment of self-conscious swagger behind you. If you’re Gere, that charmless man, it just makes you a complete tosser. Especially when your seductive move is to attempt to suck Guinevere’s entire head into your lower lip. I know, you’ll tell me he was stud-dom personified in the likes of An Officer and a Gentleman, but I’m suspicious of this. I suspect his success there was more by luck than magnetism.


The Pretty Woman star, who is most expressedly not a hamster smuggler, here appears to be to be attempting some of the upbeat jollity of Tom Cruise. Which can be infuriating enough when little Tom is at it (I’m thinking vintage, over-excitable Tom, here, the chap with a toothsome grin so piercing it could blind panthers), but an actor who doesn’t possess that energy level looks like a prat. And an even bigger one with his dye-perm and seeming inability to walk naturally. He appears slouchy and graceless next to his co-stars. It really looks like he can’t be bothered. Perhaps he thought they hired him to be Richard Gere (whoever that is) rather than Lancelot.  Gere only succeeds in showing the world that his range is as narrow as his pointy little eyes. Which blink a little more than we’re used to when he suffers some obligatory childhood flashbacks, but that’s about as emotional as he gets.


Apparently Sean Connery didn’t much appreciate tardy Richard, and chewed him out on the first day for his lateness. There’s zero chemistry between them; not even the tension of butting heads (as you can see between Connery and Hoffman in Family Business). It’s as if Sean took one look at the joker he was stuck sharing scenes with and decided it was hopeless. Usually you can count on Sean to deliver, in even the stodgiest of fare. Here, he’s a little bit dull. Not helping matters is that Arthur is written as an utterly unpersuasive monarch, mouthing platitudes and showing how he is remarkably progressive emotionally (it’s one of those movies where late 20th century values are alive and well in the 6th, , leaving the king looking like a big wuss). If Arthur had a pair of balls, instead of torturing himself over what to do (“As a man I may forgive, but as a king I must see justice done”; fortunately Ben Cross is about to save you any difficult choices), Connery might have upped his game., but it’s as difficult to see why he takes Lancelot to his bosom as it is to fathom Guinevere’s love for du Lac (and no, I’m not sure if Lancelot is supposed to be French in this). I hope Connery was working on his swing between takes, as nothing else followed through. You don’t often laugh at the Scot, but when he utters a desperate cry to God of “Why? WHHHYYYYYYY?!!” mirth is the only defence.


Julia Ormond had two or three years when there was buzz that she’d be a next big thing. I could never see it; she’s a decent actress, but she’s not a star. She doesn’t exude, or whatever it is stars are supposed to do. She’s unable to sell the idea that she’s fallen for Dick, but I don’t think she can really be blamed for that. She doesn’t fare well with Connery either, suggesting that the problems were deep within the carcass of the production. One can’t even work up a critique of Arthur’s dubious disposition, since he has clearly nurtured feelings for Guinevere since she was a highly inappropriate age. That may have been just an everyday part of life in the 6th century – and, we learn, to the TV kings of the late 20th  - but this is a highly revisionist take, so you can’t use that excuse. Ormond recites her lines like they’re Shakespeare. Unfortunately they’re just piffle. Her best showing is her first scene, where she proves reasonably adept a kicking a pigskin around.


We should be grateful for Ben Cross then, enjoying his chance to bask in the glory of Brit villainy in the latest Hollywood blockbuster. It’s not that he’s especially great, but he is awake. And his contempt for henchman Ralf (Ralph Ineson) raises the occasional chuckle. He was obviously into the part, as he clearly hasn’t washed his face for a couple of months. Malagant sounds like a made-up villain but his status as kidnapper of Guinevere is fairly well entrenched in Arthurian lore. His cry of “Burn everything” made me wistful for Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham. Liam Cunningham is fairly non-descript, and apparently Buffy/Angel actor Alex Denisof is one of the tepid Knights of the Round Table. Rob Brydon makes more of an impression than any of them, and he’s only features as an extra in the first scene. It’s all downhill from there. When a wretched child asks Lancelot, “Can I go home now?” the sad response is “Unfortunately there are another 30 minutes left”.


It occurs to me, based on the rabid right-winger bent of at least one of the Zuckers (apologies if I’m tarring Jerry with David’s brush; the latter poured all his energies into a “comedy” taking facile pot-shots at Michael Moore), that there might have been some contemporary subtext to this take on Camelot. Perhaps America as the world’s policeman wasn’t quite such a pervasive idea in the mid-90s, but there’d already been one Gulf War as a warm-up exercise. This King Arthur is most definitely an interventionist king; Malagant takes him to task on this very issue, asking, “Is the law of Camelot to rule the entire World?” If we consider that Arthur is fashioned as a well-intentioned and humanitarian figure, then surely his plans to bring the “entire world” to heel are “good” ones? Also of note is that Malagant lives in a cave, and emerges to wreak destruction in the “civilised” world. Very prescient, Jerry. Arthur brandishes the illusion of the democratic process; all are equal at the Round Table, but when it comes down to his whims, he rejects any notional veto on bringing Lancelot on as a knight (he’s right in the end, of course; mystifyingly Lancelot looks to rule the kingdom. So, Bush Jr., then?)


Something actually possessed me to see First Knight in the cinema on its released. I recalled it as pretty ropey, but it clearly didn’t hit home how ropey. There appears to be an endless appetite for witless reimaginings of this legend. It’s as if writers need to show they’re not just derivative hacks; they’re derivative hacks who sabotage all the best bits.  Jerry Bruckheimer’s King Arthur was the last notable version and, as weak as it is, it looks quite respectable sat next to this tripe. Bryan Singer was attached to an Excalibur remake for a while (Why, Bryan, why?) Then there’s David Dobkin’s on-again off-again modern reimagining Arthur & Lancelot. Why? WHHHYYYYYYY?!!





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli