Monday, February 25, 2013

A Knight's Tale (2001)

Director: Brian Hegeland                                       Writer: Brian Hegeland
Film Score: Carter Burwell                                    Cinematography: Richard Greatrex
Starring: Heath Ledger, Mark Addy, Rufus Sewell and Shannyn Sossamon

I don’t really do the whole, “I walked out of this after thirty minutes” thing, and then trash the film . . . but I really wanted to. I started watching because I really like Heath Ledger, and even a mediocre medieval tale of knights can be pretty good, so I though A Knight's Tale had potential. But then the title sequence began with a crowd at a joust clapping and stomping along to Queen’s “We Will Rock You,” and my jaw dropped. It wasn’t just the music, the whole thing was full of anachronisms. A woman dancing in a modern way, kids with face paint and big, bare-chested guys like something from a pro football game. Just a bad opening? I had hopes, but then the prince began to sing along. Oh, no. And yet I was still willing to give it a chance. But when War’s “Low Rider” came on during their practice session, I immediately turned it off. Eventually, however, I had to go back and finish it, just to make sure, but my first impression was right.

The biggest problem with the film is just how lame the attempt at comedy is. It’s one thing to inject humor into a period piece in a way that is intelligent, full of anachronisms, and yet satisfying in its thorough understanding of how to employ exactly the right type of humor. The quintessential example of this is Shakespeare in Love, which kept faithful to the period, used period dialogue, an appropriate score by Stephen Warbeck, and was an Oscar winning success. Now, the other way to go is Kate and Leopold, where the nobleman is transported to modern times, and the humor evolves from his being literally out of time. But A Knight’s Tale wants it both ways. It wants to be a modern romantic comedy, with seventies music, set in the middle ages. The characters attempt to speak period, but act modern, and when Leger calls the object of his affection a “foxy lady” the only thing it elicits is a cringe.

The story, such as it is, has Heath Ledger filling in for a dead knight in the jousting ring, and then perpetuating his deception to earn money for himself and his two partners, Mark Addy and Alan Tudyk. He falls in love with Shannyn Sossamon, a woman that the Count, Rufus Sewell, also has designs on, and attempts to win her love with his deception. It's the same as many similar stories, including The Princess Bride and Disney's Aladdin. Bad enough, all that, but then they try to crib from Shakespeare in Love by throwing Paul Bettany as Chaucer into the mix as a gambling addict, and instead of the humorous take on a classic author we get a buffoon. Mark Addy, who was brilliant in Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, is completely wasted here. Carter Burwell’s score is unmemorable, and he really hasn’t been a composer of any importance since the eighties. Director Brian Hegeland’s script is tedious and predictable and ultimately a bore. All of the comedy, we’ve seen before. All of the romance, we’ve seen before. All of the masquerade, we’ve seen before. All of the underdog victory, we’ve seen before. All of which means we don't really need to see A Knight’s Tale.

2 comments:

  1. He falls in love with Jocelyn(Shannyn Sossamon who is not meant to wed Count Adhemar(Rufus Sewell) he is just courting her same as William(Heath Ledger)not Kate(Laura Fraser). and the only point you made throughout your post is that you are not okay with a film using juxtaposition in a unique way as to connect the audience in a way other then overlaying a soundtrack. i could understand your argument if this film was meant to be a perfect manifestation of the time period but I'm sure you could figure out that isn't what the movie was trying to do at all from the opening scene that you disliked so much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. lol. Okay, obviously I had a hard time paying attention as well as I should have because I wasn't liking the film. And I think you're right on in your assessment: for me, personally, the juxtaposition doesn't work and ruins the entire film. I can certainly see what Hegeland was attempting, but I don't think it works, in the same way that Romeo + Juliet doesn't work, the disparity is too great. For me, it destroys the suspension of disbelief and so then it begs the question of why it has to be set in that time period at all. If you want to bring in the audience with modern music, why not tell the story in a modern setting? But maybe I'm in the minority.

    The soundtrack issue you brought up is also interesting. Had the ENTIRE film score been modern, then it seems it would have been more to the point, but when the pop songs just lurch into the foreground from nowhere it's a bit of sonic whiplash. It was an interesting attempt, but for me it failed. Shakespeare in Love really worked for me, but I can't really think of a film that uses the same technique as Hegeland did. I'd like to check them out if they exist to see if it's just this film or the concept as a whole that doesn't grab me. Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to comment.

    ReplyDelete