"A Knight's Tale" - a future cult classic

[Argent Towers]

I was just watching A Knight's Tale with the late Heath Ledger and I feel fairly certain that in time, maybe 10 years, this movie is going to be a cult film with a lot of fans. I remember when it first came out, it was widely mocked, and even now it's not taken very seriously. It's considered one of Ledger's stupider movies, especially in light of the really amazing performances he put in prior to his death. But I think the cheerful anachronism of A Knight's Tale and the sheer honesty of the movie - with no ironic or self-conscious connotations whatsoever, a completely unashamed and unpretentious effort - puts it above the average feel-good comedy. I mean, American honky-tonk music playing in the background of a tavern in 14th-century France? The opening sequence with We Will Rock You, at the end of which you actually see the heralds with trumpets "playing" the last bar of the song (even though you can't hear them)? The only meta-reference that is kind of annoying is the Nike marks on the armour, but I'm willing to let that slide.

There are some irritating historical inaccuracies in the aesthetic of the film. I know a lot of peoples' reaction would be, "come on!" but, I believe that even with the anachronism of the music and everything, they should have still made an effort to keep the time period of the film accurate and keep the costumes and armour consistent with that. It's possible to have something be completely farcical and still have the setting of it be consistent with reality. And in reality, you would not have seen knights jousting in full plate armour in 1370, when the movie is supposed to take place; they probably would have worn a combination of chain mail and plate with a heraldic surcoat over it. And contrary to what movies would have you believe, plate armour was very closely fitted to the body and did not have such a clunky and bulky look to it. You also see helmet types that did not appear until 130 years later, and at one point "Ulrich von Lichtenstein" competes in a sword duel wearing a barred-visor burgonet, a kind of helmet that was used in the mid-1600s during the time of Oliver Cromwell, not remotely consistent with the late Middle Ages. Actually, the helmets in A Knight's Tale have no basis in history at all - they have giant vision slits that in reality would have been suicidal to joust with. And where are the plumes and helmet crests? And...they win gold trophies in the tournament, and then sell them for silver florins? But I'm willing to overlook that; the movie is still fun as hell.

Does anyone else like it? Or is liking this movie one of those things that none of the kool kids are supposed to cop to?

[Lethal Babydoll]

Being a simple man, I have a simple aesthetic criteria for movies.

My favorite films are the ones I have watched the most often (Rudy -- no lie -- over 400 times, Gettysburg and Pulp Fiction over 300 times).

A "Great" movie is my system is any I've seen over 50 times. So I call A Knight's Tale great.

The history of helmets and armor aside, the movie has a witty, romantic, exciting script ("Yes William. With the pigs") well served by the actors.

And like all great movies has a scene of pure brilliance. In this case, the one where he reunites with his father ("I bring you word, Master Thatcher. Word of your son").

So future cult or not, is will hopefully entertain generations. I might watch it again the more I think about it.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I was just watching A Knight's Tale with the late Heath Ledger and I feel fairly certain that in time, maybe 10 years, this movie is going to be a cult film with a lot of fans. I remember when it first came out, it was widely mocked, and even now it's not taken very seriously. It's considered one of Ledger's stupider movies, especially in light of the really amazing performances he put in prior to his death. But I think the cheerful anachronism of A Knight's Tale and the sheer honesty of the movie - with no ironic or self-conscious connotations whatsoever, a completely unashamed and unpretentious effort - puts it above the average feel-good comedy. I mean, American honky-tonk music playing in the background of a tavern in 14th-century France? The opening sequence with We Will Rock You, at the end of which you actually see the heralds with trumpets "playing" the last bar of the song (even though you can't hear them)? The only meta-reference that is kind of annoying is the Nike marks on the armour, but I'm willing to let that slide.

There are some irritating historical inaccuracies in the aesthetic of the film. I know a lot of peoples' reaction would be, "come on!" but, I believe that even with the anachronism of the music and everything, they should have still made an effort to keep the time period of the film accurate and keep the costumes and armour consistent with that. It's possible to have something be completely farcical and still have the setting of it be consistent with reality. And in reality, you would not have seen knights jousting in full plate armour in 1370, when the movie is supposed to take place; they probably would have worn a combination of chain mail and plate with a heraldic surcoat over it. And contrary to what movies would have you believe, plate armour was very closely fitted to the body and did not have such a clunky and bulky look to it. You also see helmet types that did not appear until 130 years later, and at one point "Ulrich von Lichtenstein" competes in a sword duel wearing a barred-visor burgonet, a kind of helmet that was used in the mid-1600s during the time of Oliver Cromwell, not remotely consistent with the late Middle Ages. Actually, the helmets in A Knight's Tale have no basis in history at all - they have giant vision slits that in reality would have been suicidal to joust with. And where are the plumes and helmet crests? And...they win gold trophies in the tournament, and then sell them for silver florins? But I'm willing to overlook that; the movie is still fun as hell.

Does anyone else like it? Or is liking this movie one of those things that none of the kool kids are supposed to cop to?

I agree completely with your first paragraph, "A knights tale" is a great film.

I am curious though, why you state the view that "A knights tale" is a great film that takes liberties with the source material, and then follow this with a criticism over an issue (The knights armor/helmets) that 99% of the the worlds populations couldn't give a rats ass about?

If anybody makes a sequel to this with stupid plumes or helmet crests I will beat them to death with the bloody stump of Mark Addy and Berenice Bejo's unconsummated love.

[RikWriter]

Knight's Tale was a very entertaining movie...the anachronism was handled very well, and worked for the narrative.

[Argent Towers]

I don't subscribe to the view (which seems to be extremely and disconcertingly common, around here and in general) that if a movie is unrealistic in some ways, then it is okay for it to be unrealistic in all ways.

For example:

I would say (about some over-the-top action movie,) "he's operating that firearm incorrectly."

Other person: "Well...IT'S A MOVIE!"

OK, it's a movie. It's unrealistic in some ways. That's fine. But there are some things that are just factually correct, and what separates a great movie from a good movie is when they get those little details that are accurate.

As a historian, I love seeing historically-accurate details in films. What is A Knight's Tale? It's a story set in 14th century Europe, with a soundtrack by modern rock bands. That's the anachronism. OK, it's quite unrealistic, and proudly so.

But does this mean that they should not strive to recreate the aesthetic appearance of 14th century Europe? No, it doesn't.

See what I'm getting at here? Making some things in a movie comically unrealistic is not an excuse to cop out on everything in the movie - especially if, like this one, it's set in a historical setting.

During the 14th century, it is a fact that knight's tournament helmets were decorated with crests, which were often extremely outlandish and cool-looking. Here is one example; here is another one. It would have been cool as hell to see those in the movie.

[PapSett]

Add me to the Knight's Tale loving group. It's one of my very favorite movies, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen it. I can quote the script along with the movie.

Who cares about the inaccuracies? I watch it to be entertained, and THAT it does well. It has a kick-ass soundtrack, witty dialog, romance, action, beautiful horses, handsome men... what more can a girl want in a movie?

I may just watch it again this afternoon...

[twickster]

Another Knight's Tale-lover who doesn't care about the armor.

I think you're absolutely right that the reason the movie works is its unironic approach to storytelling, set within a delightful meringue of what-the-hell anachronism. The opening is great, yeah, and it's what sucked me in the first time a friend sat unsuspecting me down to watch it -- but even better is the scene at the ball when his beloved bails Heath out [sorry, haven't watched it out in almost a year, don't remember the characters' names] by joining him on the dance floor, and the music is ... David Bowie.

Definitely one of my favorites, and, yeah, forget Netflix delivering something-or-other and the two movies I have out from the library, I may just watch it tonight. I need something that will make me smile, and this does, from start to finish.

[Fretful Porpentine]

I liked it. Of course, I would probably like any movie that referenced The Book of the Duchess and borrowed a key fight sequence from Chretien de Troyes, and I'm not sure there are that many people like me out there, but it was fun to watch even if you don't recognize the medieval lit allusions.

[Nightingale]

I love this movie. Yes, it's kind of silly, but it was also clever, romantic, and entertaining. And it spawned my deep and abiding love for Paul Bettany, who stole the show as Geoffrey Chaucer.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by Nightingale

...And it spawned my deep and abiding love for Paul Bettany...

Definitely!

[HelloKitty]

Great movie, lots of fun to watch.

The only thing that bugs me is the splinters that come off of their jousting rods every time they run into each other. They look like sawdust and particle board pieces and I would think the rods were made of more sturdy materials!

Other than that, I love the costumes, the music and Heath Ledger is dreamy with his long flowing curly blonde hair. ::swoon::

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

What is A Knight's Tale? It's a story set in 14th century Europe, with a soundtrack by modern rock bands.

I think this is where we disagree. What makes you think that this is the anachronism, that the "difference" is that it has rock music by modern bands?

In my opinion, the anachronism is that "A Knights tale" doesnt care about any of the details. ANY of them. It doesnt care if the music is right, if the armor is right, if serfs and Knights would drink together, if Chaucer really did MC at big jousting tournaments, it doesnt care about any of that, because its intention is simply to make an enjoyable film in a new setting.



This:

I don't subscribe to the view (which seems to be extremely and disconcertingly common, around here and in general) that if a movie is unrealistic in some ways, then it is okay for it to be unrealistic in all ways.

misses the point completely I believe.

[Jonathan Chance]

Indeed. The long and short of it is, as many have said, that it is a tale devoid of any pretense and tells an uplifting tale of overcoming one's obstacles in life. All things are sacrificed or ignored as irrelevant to tell the tale. To get hung up on ANYTHING outside of that is to miss a large part of the point. The tale could be told at any time and any place and would still stand tall.

Plus, to point to the musical anachronisms and then get hung up on the armor is ludicrous. What about ALL of the others?

Jocelyn's attitude, mouth, and independence.
The clothing
The language issues
The presentation of Chaucer
and a million other things

Foolish, I say. Enjoy the movie for what it is: a smart, funny movie with a positive message.

- Jonathan 'also with degrees in history' Chance

[Harmonious Discord]

I just considered it a comedy that happened to involve knights. It was accurate enough for a rock music comedy romance set in a fictitious land of knights and maidens in need of deflowering.

[ivylass]

Originally Posted by twickster

- but even better is the scene at the ball when his beloved bails Heath out [sorry, haven't watched it out in almost a year, don't remember the characters' names]

Her name....is Jocelyn.

I love this movie, because it is fun and embraces the anachronisms with a relish. I think Jocelyn would have been hung as a witch for some of the outfits she wore, I doubt Chaucer looked like Paul Bettany, but it's a movie that must have been a blast to film.

It's called a lance....hello...

So, gentlemen...Kate or Jocelyn?

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty

Great movie, lots of fun to watch.

The only thing that bugs me is the splinters that come off of their jousting rods every time they run into each other. They look like sawdust and particle board pieces

They were designed like that for the visual effect.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Plenty of effort was expended creating lances that would splinter convincingly without injuring the stunt riders as well. The body of each lance was scored so it would break easily, and the tips were made of balsa wood. Each was also hollowed out, and the hole filled with balsa chips, uncooked linguine and sawdust to make convincing splinters.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I was just watching A Knight's Tale with the late Heath Ledger and I feel fairly certain that in time, maybe 10 years, this movie is going to be a cult film with a lot of fans. I remember when it first came out, it was widely mocked, and even now it's not taken very seriously. It's considered one of Ledger's stupider movies, especially in light of the really amazing performances he put in prior to his death.

That's not how I remember it at all. Well, the movie wasn't taken "seriously" in the sense that it wasn't a serious drama or something, but I remember it as getting decent (albeit not great) reviews and being moderately popular. It's at 58% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

[maplekiwi]

I loved "A Knight's Tale" To me the "We will Rock You" sequence was designed to show this wasn't going to be an accurate depiction of the times. It was just good fun - & heath has never looked better!

The movies I hate are the ones that pretend they are depicting a historical time accurately. The first one that comes to mind is one I haven't seen right the way through - Keira Knightleys version of Pride & Prejudice.

[ivylass]

Originally Posted by maplekiwi

I loved "A Knight's Tale" To me the "We will Rock You" sequence was designed to show this wasn't going to be an accurate depiction of the times. It was just good fun - & heath has never looked better!

Yes, it was pretty much in your face from the get-go, which I think was smart. It set up the whole feel for the movie right off the bat, so the audience knew what it was getting into and could play along.

[yastobaal]

Originally Posted by ivylass

So, gentlemen...Kate or Jocelyn?

neither. Chaucer's wife for me.

Originally Posted by IMDB Triva

Olivia Williams made a brief appearance as Chaucer's wife, but her scenes were deleted. They can be seen on the special edition DVD.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

But there are some things that are just factually correct, and what separates a great movie from a good movie is when they get those little details that are accurate.

I don't know that I've ever seen a single statement in Cafe Society with which I more strongly disagree.

Anyway, somewhere out there, there's someone who's as much a medieval music geek as you're a medieval armor geek, who's making exactly your argument in reverse. There's no particular reason to laud the anachronism of the soundtrack, and criticize the anachronism of the costuming, except that one happens to intrude on your personal area of interest, and the other does not.

[Lamia]

I personally found A Knight's Tale a fairly enjoyable sport comedy and the Chaucer character was great fun, but the whole blind dad thing was too cheesy and the romance plot ticked me off. I was in college when the movie came out and saw it in the campus theater with several of my friends. Afterward, and even the next morning at breakfast in the dining hall, everyone who'd seen it was saying "I could not believe he didn't wind up with Kate. What the hell was up with that?" FWIW this was at a women's college, so we were of course all young women. I don't know if guys would have felt differently about this, but I think the movie would have been more popular with women if Heath Ledger had ditched the noblewoman for the blacksmith.

[JSexton]

Originally Posted by Miller

I don't know that I've ever seen a single statement in Cafe Society with which I more strongly disagree.

Anyway, somewhere out there, there's someone who's as much a medieval music geek as you're a medieval armor geek, who's making exactly your argument in reverse. There's no particular reason to laud the anachronism of the soundtrack, and criticize the anachronism of the costuming, except that one happens to intrude on your personal area of interest, and the other does not.

I'm generally in agreement with you. That said, it's easy to make the argument that the music is intentionally anachronistic, whereas the armor is just laziness or sloppiness.

[Jonathan Chance]

No, I'd have to say that's completely undercut with the 'Nike' scene. That's another director's statement that this isn't about accuracy but story and fun.

[schnuckiputzi]

We're watching this right now in my freshman English class, because I'm introducing Geoffrey Chaucer. The look on their faces (the ones who haven't seen it before) when the opening sequence starts (We Will Rock You) is priceless.

[Declan]

Since my word is beyond contestation I dub this movie one of the funniest that I had seen in a while.

And you hit like a girl.

Declan

[winterhawk11]

Heath who? Oh, yeah--he was the one I kind of looked at when Rufus Sewell wasn't onscreen.

But yeah, I like the movie. In fact, I was just talking about wanting to see it again today.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by JSexton

I'm generally in agreement with you. That said, it's easy to make the argument that the music is intentionally anachronistic, whereas the armor is just laziness or sloppiness.

I would say this is correct, and no, I don't think it's necessarily undercut by having a small Nike marking on a suit of armour. They took armour very seriously back then (do I really need to explain that?) and the styles of armour that corresponded with each Medieval period were as emblematic of their era as styles of music, clothing or automobile design are emblematic of various decades in American history. It would be like having a movie that took place in 1965 have a a character driving a 1995 Ford Taurus. For the whole movie.

Nobody would say, "hey, it's just a car, it doesn't really matter." The cars of the 60s and the cars of the 90s are unbelievably different; so is the armour of 1370 and the armour of 1450 and of 1550. But the kind of armour they wore in A Knight's Tale was never worn by anyone, anywhere, at any point in history; it's Hollywood armour. With the exception of the Count of Anjou's armour which is somewhat historically realistic.

[ivylass]

So, are we agreed Roland was going to wind up with Jocelyn's maid, and Wat is going to die a lonely death, surrounded by cats?

[Ranchoth]

Originally Posted by ivylass

So, are we agreed Roland was going to wind up with Jocelyn's maid, and Wat is going to die a lonely death, surrounded by cats?

That, or an unfortunate accident with a lance through the ribcage...

As for the inaccuracies—look, I'm as big a nitpicker as the next nerd, but there are times where I simply have to make allowances. If the movie was a straight drama, or even a period adventure film, I could grumble. But the fact is, comedy or not, this movie is basically a fantasy movie that just happens to be set on Earth. It's about the magic and the spirit of the tale—the fact that it was any way more accurate than The Court Jester was just an enjoyable plus.

Now if it was a crappy fantasy movie, or if it got up it's own ass with The Message, I'd be more inclined to gnaw at it some more. But as it is, it pulled itself off marvelously, and with a lot of heart. 'Works for me.

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

Love this movie, love Paul Bettany and his blue eyes during the serious naked scene where William saves him from having his gambling debt taken out on his flesh. Love Wat and Roland and the drop-dead gorgeous Black Prince. Could do without the character of Jocelyn.

Originally Posted by yastobaal

neither. Chaucer's wife for me.

Olivia Williams made a brief appearance as Chaucer's wife, but her scenes were deleted. They can be seen on the special edition DVD.

And every time we watch it I point out enthusiastically, "That's Philippa, Katherine Swynford's sister!" and my husband rolls his eyes at me.

[Sleel]

I've written more or less the same thing about this movie before on this board. It was a fun little movie. I've only watched it a couple of times, but I like it.

I think all of the historical inaccuracies were deliberate. I saw the movie quite a while ago, but I seem to remember a few scenes where period music blended to modern, and a few where archaic formal speech patterns faded into modern casual ones. The movie was trying to make a point about how the people of the time thought and felt about things by relating everything to modern equivalents.

Logos are modern heraldic symbols. Instead of a lion rampant facing a unicorn passant on shield pale crimson and gold (totally made up heraldry, by the way) they have a Nike swoosh on the armor. They knew exactly what they were doing there.

Some of the spectacular stuff that is historically accurate wouldn't work in a movie like that. Ironically, modern audiences wouldn't buy it. Argent's fantastic-looking but historical helms would be way too elaborate for people to believe they were real. When you're pushing suspension of disbelief in one way, you sometimes find that they're resistant to accepting small details that may actually be real, but do not quite fit with what they believe to be true.

Romeo + Juliet did a similar treatment, keeping the original language, but making the settings and costumes thoroughly modern in an over-the-top action film kind of way. Let's face it, Shakespeare would have been closer to Michael Bay crossed with Spielberg than Hitchcock or Welles. He didn't consider a fight scene to be very good unless the first few rows were covered in pig's blood by the end of it.

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

, if Chaucer really did MC at big jousting tournaments, .

I have only seen the film twice, but I also love it...

as to whether or not Chaucer did MC at jousting tournaments I really don't care - Its easy to imagine that he could have. Someone great with words and a quick wit would be a natural for that, and its was very believable that an artist would need to make ends meet by doing whatever he could. This was what I liked more so that whether or not Chaucer actually did it (does that make any sense?)

[foolsguinea]

What do you mean "future"? I've always loved A Knight's Tale, & I think the OP seriously underrates its appeal.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by ivylass

So, are we agreed Roland was going to wind up with Jocelyn's maid, and Wat is going to die a lonely death, surrounded by cats?

Wat could have been Wat Tyler, who went on to lead a peasant rebellion in 1380 and was killed. His lifetime was consistent with the time frame of A Knight's Tale.

[Elendil's Heir]

I've seen it twice, and it's good fun. Bettany and Ledger are both great. I hold the movie to no rigorous standard - hell, no standard at all! - of historical accuracy. I just hope no impressionable teens are doing so.

[silenus]

I hold this movie to the same degree of historical accuracy I hold Shakespeare In Love to. That is, none at all. Go with the story and don't try to nit-pick.

For me, it's the David Bowie that makes the movie.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

Does anyone else like it? Or is liking this movie one of those things that none of the kool kids are supposed to cop to?

I like it a lot, it's got a lot of heart, and it's pretty rewatchable. Most of the criticism had to do with the anachronisms, but that was intentional, the point being to show 'the more things change the more they stay the same'. I didn't notice the Nike stuff but of course did with We Will Rock You and had heard about and so noticed the "Princess as fashionista" aspect. Besides being enjoyable in it's own right, it could be a useful tool in acting as a bridge for youngsters who don't realize the commonalities between modern times and older material they are asked to study.

Not sure if it will gain more cult status than it already has though. If it was going to, it probably would have gained some ground on Ledger's death but it didn't. And though it's highly rewatchable, it doesn't seem to actually get a lot of replay on tv the way films like Shawshank Redemption do.

Originally Posted by Lethal Babydoll

My favorite films are the ones I have watched the most often

There's definitely something to be said for the highly rewatchable film,among which I count Knights Tale. I wouldn't use that as my only criteria though. There are a few films which I count among my favorites, such as Se7en and Primer, which I loved and had great impact but I wouldn't really want to keep rewatching.

[Iridescent Orb]

I like the movie a lot. It's not perfect, but it has a lot of good actors, a decent story line, lots of action and cool use of music.

Even so, I can see how "experts" get upset with misrepresentations. If someone spends years of their life writing a doctoral thesis on the plumage adorning helmets in jousting tournaments... well, incorrect plumage probably comes across as a personal affront. For the vast majority of viewers, though, they really don't care. They have certain preconceptions of what a jousting knight should look like and the movie gives it to them.

For a movie such as Braveheart I expect more historical accuracy; for A Knight's Tale liberal use of artistic license is fine with me.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Iridescent Orb

Even so, I can see how "experts" get upset with misrepresentations. If someone spends years of their life writing a doctoral thesis on the plumage adorning helmets in jousting tournaments... well, incorrect plumage probably comes across as a personal affront.

In A Knight's Tale they didn't have plumes; they didn't have crests; they didn't have heraldic surcoats or indeed any heraldic identification on their armour or horses whatsoever. To anyone with even a basic knowledge of Medieval tournaments this is a ridiculously glaring omission.

It's like if they made a movie about NASCAR drivers and had them driving completely blank cars with no advertisements or decorations whatsoever. Or made a movie about NFL football and had all the players wearing blank jerseys! That's really the best analogy I can think of.

If you don't know anything about the historical setting of the film, it doesn't matter. If you do know anything about the historical setting, it seems absolutely ridiculous that they'd leave it out - and it's not just because I'm being a huge stickler for historical accuracy. It's because crests and heraldic decorations are cool looking and the movie would have been way more visually interesting if it had included them! They had a great opportunity to show off something that would be historically accurate and extremely colorful eye candy - and they missed it.

Doesn't make me dislike the whole movie but it is a strike against it.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

If you don't know anything about the historical setting of the film, it doesn't matter. If you do know anything about the historical setting, it seems absolutely ridiculous that they'd leave it out - and it's not just because I'm being a huge stickler for historical accuracy. It's because crests and heraldic decorations are cool looking and the movie would have been way more visually interesting if it had included them! They had a great opportunity to show off something that would be historically accurate and extremely colorful eye candy - and they missed it.

As a dissenting opinion: I know a frakking lot about about the historical setting (European History minor, teach AP Euro). The lack of heraldry doesn't bother me a bit. The lack of copious gratuitous nudity on the part of Sossamon bothers a good deal more.

[Siege]

While I'm pleased by Paul Bettany's gratuitous nudity!

I like A Knight's Tale. It's a good, dumb movie, the kind where you can cheer the good guys, boo the bad guys, and happily waste a couple of hours.

Ivylass, I disagree with you. Roland, the only one of the bunch with any sense, winds up with Kate, the Smithess. I'll give Wat one of Jocelyn's maids, but only if he cleans up a bit.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by silenus

As a dissenting opinion: I know a frakking lot about about the historical setting (European History minor, teach AP Euro). The lack of heraldry doesn't bother me a bit. The lack of copious gratuitous nudity on the part of Sossamon bothers a good deal more.

Heh.

Anyway Argent Towers if you're the type to get pissed off about armor, never watch The 13th Warrior ( which I personally like better than A Knight's Tale ). A purportedly "serious" film, rather than a sly wink of one, where the anachronisms are rife. Don't bother me none, though - I just watch the scene where Antonio Banderas cuts an anachronistic two-handed sword ( they've never found a Viking example ) down to an anachronistic scimitar ( not yet established in the Arab world in that period ) on a grind wheel without destroying the temper and smile. I know it's bullshit, but it is enjoyable bullshit in a fictional context.

Now quasi-historical films that take insane liberties with historical facts, for example Elizabeth - those are the ones that truly annoy my inner geek. But heck, the costuming in that one is apparently pretty good .

[Glory]

Jocelyn's appearance completely ruins the movie for me. She's a lovely girl, but she doesn't look European at all.

[Lamia]

I've mentioned before on here how I dislike quasi-historical stories that want to have "girl power" type heroines without addressing any of the real hardships faced by women at the time. I give A Knight's Tale credit for bothering to make Kate's background fairly plausible. (As plausible as anything else in the movie, at least!) It would have been pretty unlikely for a young, unmarried woman to be working independently as a blacksmith, but for a young widow who'd worked with her husband in his shop to maintain the business after his death is more believable. It's also made clear that "respectable" people consider a female blacksmith good enough for repairing household goods or shoeing a horse, but don't take her seriously beyond that -- despite her talents when it comes to armor.

None of this is of great importance to the story and it would have been easy enough for the filmmakers to leave it out, but I appreciate that they did not.

Originally Posted by Glory

Jocelyn's appearance completely ruins the movie for me. She's a lovely girl, but she doesn't look European at all.

I agree. She has a very modern and "exotic" (mixed race) look that would be great in plenty of movies but seemed out of place in the role of a European noblewoman.

[DesertDog]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I would say this is correct, and no, I don't think it's necessarily undercut by having a small Nike marking on a suit of armour.

I don't know about armorsmiths in particular, but when a blacksmith was done with his apprenticeship and ready to be a journeyman he would make a touchmark which was closer akin to a silversmith's hallmark or a trademark rather than something heraldic. The design would be carved into a soft steel plate which was then hardened, oiled, and kept in a safe place. From time to time when a new touchmark was needed, a piece of bar stock would be heated to yellow, driven into the plate, then hardened itself. the smith would then use it to mark his work. Maybe hand-cutting a swoosh was the way the did it in 1340

the movie is one of my guilty pleasures: Dumb but I like it anyway. It was about the sixth time seeing it before I noticed a saluki at the beginning. It was in the king's box, just standing there looking around in the background. Nothing much was made of it so I've wondered if someone just brought his dog onto the set because it looked neat or something.

Oh, and Kate, definitely. Jocelyn is a game player.

"What are you doing!?"

"Losing."

". . . I don't understand."

"Neither do I."

[Miller]

The fact that there really was a knight named Ulrich von Lichtenstein who had some fame as a great jouster makes me suspect that just about all the anachronisms, armor included, were deliberate.

Particularly when you consider that the historic Ulrich allegedly rode around with a little doll of the goddess Venus on top of his helmet. Sometimes, reality is just too goofy to pass off as credible fiction.

[Always Brings Pie]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

In A Knight's Tale they didn't have plumes; they didn't have crests; they didn't have heraldic surcoats or indeed any heraldic identification on their armour or horses whatsoever. To anyone with even a basic knowledge of Medieval tournaments this is a ridiculously glaring omission.

It's like if they made a movie about NASCAR drivers and had them driving completely blank cars with no advertisements or decorations whatsoever. Or made a movie about NFL football and had all the players wearing blank jerseys! That's really the best analogy I can think of.

If you don't know anything about the historical setting of the film, it doesn't matter. If you do know anything about the historical setting, it seems absolutely ridiculous that they'd leave it out - and it's not just because I'm being a huge stickler for historical accuracy. It's because crests and heraldic decorations are cool looking and the movie would have been way more visually interesting if it had included them! They had a great opportunity to show off something that would be historically accurate and extremely colorful eye candy - and they missed it.

Doesn't make me dislike the whole movie but it is a strike against it.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Glory

Jocelyn's appearance completely ruins the movie for me. She's a lovely girl, but she doesn't look European at all.

So what? There was plenty of non-European blood introduced by the Moorish conquest of Spain and invasion of France.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Quartz

So what? There was plenty of non-European blood introduced by the Moorish conquest of Spain and invasion of France.

Maybe so but S.S. doesn't look Moorish, she looks Asian. I'm pretty sure she's at least half Filipino. That kind of look would have been really unlikely in 1370 England.