Christopher Eccleston and The Dark is Rising...

[fajrdrako]

You may have noticed that I love, absolutely love, Christopher Eccleston as Claude in Heroes. Not as much as I loved him as the Doctor, but hey, nothing could match that. And there's a new episode tonight - great! Last week distressed me by not featuring Claude and Peter at all. This week, I live in hope.

But I keep seeing news items about Eccleston's role in "The Dark is Rising". And I keep trying to feel confident about this, but really, every item I hear makes it harder to fight my dismay.

First of all - and I think this may be heresy, considering how many people recommended this book to me - I didn't much like The Dark is Rising. It was... not terrible. But it didn't match the standards of Diana Wynne Jones for British fantasy. Considering the recommendations I'd heard, it disappointed me.

Secondly, it is clear they have made a lot of changes to the characters and updates to the themes - making the main characters Americans, for example. The updates might make me like the story more. But it annoys me. Why adapt a book as a movie if you're going to change everything? Why not just make an original fantasy movie about American kids in Cornwall? (Er... it was Cornwall, wasn't it?)

Thirdly, this does not bode well for Eccleston having a long tenure on Heroes, which is too bad, since I like Claude so very much.

Comments

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

the idea of bringing Americans into it is just a travesty.

Yes. Very annoying, IMHO. Sort of like making King Arthur a Roman solider ... and they did that too.

I bet there's going to be that whole Fantasy PhallusSword bollocks as well.

I wish you hadn't said that. That sounds Only Too True.

The problem isn't even just movie quality. It's having respect for the material. And understanding of it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Sort of like making King Arthur a Roman solider ... and they did that too.

I have less of a problem with that. It's not implausible to depict him as a late Roman military type. There were worse things in the movie...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It's not implausible to depict him as a late Roman military type.

No, but I don't like it, personally.

There were worse things in the movie...

Oh, sadly true. That was actually one of the better things, which is really too bad.

[vervassal.livejournal.com]

I thought the Arthur as Roman was the only good thing about the film. Thing is, if you're going to go the "historical Arcturus" route, you have to go the whole hog (unless you're TH White, in which case anything goes, because TH White is one of my favorite authors)- which they didn't. You can't half-ass Roman Arthur, because the only way that interpretation works is in a relentlessly historical context.

I may go back and look at my Gawain idea...

Wow, this post is bringing out my inner geek big-time. Thank you. :D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I thought the Arthur as Roman was the only good thing about the film.

Hmm. I think that I have Arthur firmly in my imagination as a Celtic or, preferably, medieval figure. I'd rather not see him put in the late Roman era. I concede this is just a matter of personal taste.

if you're going to go the "historical Arcturus" route, you have to go the whole hog

Yes, here we stumble over all my prejudices. I don't think Arthur ever lived and I don't like the attempts historicize him. I think Arthur is myth, or he is nothing. So I want my Arthur to be in the world (or worlds) of Malory, Cretien de Troyes, Giraldus Cambrensis, and their ilk - not Romanized, not rationalized.

unless you're TH White, in which case anything goes, because TH White is one of my favorite authors

I wish I was! He had the right idea. I think "The Once and Future King" has both strengths and weaknesses - flaws and triumphs - and it has my admiration on many counts.

the only way that interpretation works is in a relentlessly historical context.

In my opinion, there is no way that interpretation works. Someone may yet prove me wrong - though I'm not holding my breath. Rosemary Sutcliffe did a fair job of giving Arthur a Celtic background.

this post is bringing out my inner geek big-time.

Fun, isn't it?

In my opinion, the strength of the "King Arthur" movie, using 'strength' in the loosest sense of the word, was beautiful actors. I liked Tristan. And Arthur and Lancelot, of course.

[vervassal.livejournal.com]

As for the whole Historical Arthur thing- if you go that route, it isn't King Arthur anymore: it's a historical man who had folktales and stories attached to his name until he was taken as fabula by chroniclers. None of the legend applies at all. I find this historical person just as fascinating as Malory's fully-blown folk hero. How did he attract the stories? What was his place in medieval tradition and how long did it take for him to get there ("He glutted the black ravens on the rampart of the city, though he was no Arthur." c. 594)? And don't get me started on [Sir] Owain (defintely existed, d. 6th C) in early Arthurian literature. :D

So, just as fun, but not the King Arthur we got in the movie. They mixed their metaphors, so to speak.

I went off into this whole essay about the historical personage of Taliesin and the literary tradition that built up around him, but I just confused myself. Basically, Celtic scholars can't say that there was an Arthur. On the other hand, there's a nice Arthur-shaped hole in the records. No one has really come up with a cracking argument to settle the matter.

Ok, I have to go do real work now. Blagh. This is fun!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

As for the whole Historical Arthur thing- if you go that route, it isn't King Arthur anymore

Yes, exactly. I'd rather see a story that focussed on a fictional Roman, or a historical king, or some variation of that, than tacking the trappings Arthurian legends onto a historical setting where it really doesn't belong. I'd be happy with a warrior-hero worthy of being remembered as Arthur centuries later, but in that case, I don't want the 12th century trappings of courtly love, Crusades, and Christian mysticism.

And of course, as a great lover of the 12th century, I do love those trappings. So - bring it on! For this reason, I prefer something like "Camelot", with the world-view of 1950 rather than the middle ages, to "King Arthur", which tries to be sort of Arthurian and sort of historical and gets lost in the middle.

They mixed their metaphors, so to speak.

Yes, and rather badly.

I do love debating the Arthur questions of history. I love the story as a study in the historical development of a fictional series that takes on a different flavour in each century it passes through - and it started, when, in the 9th century or so? Maybe the eighth? (I used to be up on all the sources, but my memory fails me now.)

I think "King Arthur" was playing with various ironies about society, culture, and religion, but didn't cope with it very well and ended up being a rather murky adventure/war story.