King Arthur: The Intersection Between Hollywood and Modern Politics

King Arthur: What works, what doesn’t, and what this film says about the time in which it was produced.

By Andrew L. Schwartz
In Hollywood, the 2017 summer season is off to a predictable start. With Warner Bros’. new release, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Hollywood has proven its reluctance to break away from the typical mold of creative output that has come to dominate the summer circuit.
With King Arthur, Hollywood once again shows their willingness to take a gamble on a reboot hoping its appeal will resonate with an audience who’s already locked in to the tentpole film’s allure. Upon further examination the film shows exactly what kind of narrative Hollywood believes people are eager to see: themes of power, temptation and redemption dominate this re-imagining of King Arthur. For better or worse, it reveals much about the current state of affairs, both in Hollywood and the world.
The film’s unforgiving, fast-paced first-half does little in the way of character development and much in the way of putting on a spectacle. It does what it sets out to do and for some that may be just fine. To those looking for that momentary escape, I say, enjoy King Arthur for all it’s worth. This dazzling CG spectacle pulls out every stop it can to overload the senses with grabbing visuals, a sound design that resembles a Pink Floyd concert and a hands-on approach from an auteur director to distract the viewer from the obvious: this isn’t your great grandmother’s King Arthur. This is Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur; the story of an orphaned street thug (Charlie Hunnam) turned onto the powers of a mythical sword, called upon by his late father’s rebellious brethren, and supported by his fellow hoodlums to rid his land of the dark, tyrannical evil that oppresses the people.
On a much deeper level, it’s a true underdog story that even the most politically obtuse can draw modern-day parallels from: an outsider disrupting the status quo; an underdog from the city becoming the king of a nation. It’s a film that serves to overwhelm viewers with flashy visuals and the promise of a mythical hero to distract them from the glaringly obvious: at its core, the film is an utter mess. Sound familiar? If it does, it’s because that is exactly what is happening in the current political climate — over the top distractions from the frightening truth.
From the ashes of this muddled narrative rises the age old question: as a ruler, is it better to be feared or loved? Even the tempted King Vortigen (Jude Law) finds himself beholden to this quandary as he irons out the best course of his rule. He learns that balance is a law that cannot be transgressed — maybe people fear what is going on in the world today, but love the idea of escaping that which they have come to expect from turning on the news or clicking at internet headlines by going to the movies. In that sense the film succeeds, but not without it serving as an allegorical reflection on how the powers that be distract people from the truth. 
What this film shows us is that becoming a king is entirely different from ruling as a king. It’s not unsurprising, then, that the current president has even stated his own disbelief at the pitfalls of ruling the free world. To be a good king you need the love of your people. In this story, the people are young, lustful and energetic; they yearn for a leader they can root for. That is the version of King Arthur Guy Ritchie depicts, but for all the noble attempts at showing us a hero, instead we got dazzling CG imagery and a plot that falls flat of hitting the emotional impact it is reaching for.


Next Blog:


← Back to Blog

13 Responses to “King Arthur: The Intersection Between Hollywood and Modern Politics”

  1. Andi Says:

    May 12th, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    Great work.

  2. Jake Herskovits Says:

    May 12th, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    Yea I don’t think I am going to see this one.

  3. Yanique Says:

    May 12th, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Wonderful review Andrew! I’ll take my dollars elsewhere.

  4. Katherine Says:

    May 13th, 2017 at 2:07 am

    I watched the movie and greatly enjoyed it, because I was expecting just that – a show with little to no substance. That’s what you expect from mr Richie movies.

  5. Reinaldo Garcia Says:

    May 13th, 2017 at 6:30 am

    How long was this film in development? I would wager its journey from idea to screen pre-dated the 2016 election. If that is the case, the writer of this essay is disingenuously conflating two distinct events.

  6. Stephen Settle Says:

    May 13th, 2017 at 9:29 am

    Trump as King Arthur? You better hope he doesn’t read this review.

  7. Tory clark Says:

    May 13th, 2017 at 9:58 am

    Well said, the original film had similar themes, but the acting was superb. It also has sexual and even taboo-ish themes. It’s unfortunate that Hollywood the place where dreams come true. Continue to show us its lack of imagination. I will do the same with this film like I did with the gods of Egypt, let it play in the background while I repainted my kitchen. Thanks for the review

  8. SM Says:

    May 13th, 2017 at 11:59 am

    Box-Office Bomb: ‘King Arthur’ Limps Toward $14M Debut Behind ‘Snatched’


  9. Abner T Says:

    May 14th, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    Only a Hollywood commentator could draw a supposed rational parallel between this medieval shoot’em up on CGI steroids and the current political state.

    I saw it this morning. It was action-packed and visually stimulating but seemed to lack in purpose, with the special effects and visuals being the focus of the offering.

    Nothing more. No political statement…

  10. Justin P Says:

    May 15th, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    @Abner T So basically you agreed with the entire review outside of the political part?

    I saw it last night and this review was on the spot.

  11. John Says:

    May 15th, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Your movie review was a majestic phoenix emerging from the ashes of the muddled narrative of King Arthur. Subsequently leaving Guy Richie’s skin and ego charred from your articulated flames of critique!

  12. Bruce Dundore Says:

    May 15th, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    Not sure of the politics. Just sure that Braveheart could not be made today. The reliance on massive CG fight scenes and monster scenes became exhausting, as did the device, much better used in Sherlock Holmes, of rapid flash forward to the thing that was about to happen. There was a lot of movement. Not enough action.

  13. MFB Says:

    May 16th, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    I think some commenters may be missing the author’s point comparing the film to today’s political climate. The author fairly reviewed the movie and commented unbiasedly and briefly on the film’s relatability to today’s headlines. I have yet to see this movie, but even I noticed the similarities before the author made mention of it. In my opinion, it would have been odd if the author didn’t make mention of this obvious relation, and would have made the review feel incomplete.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>