Princess von Bitchenstein prevented me from being able to enjoy this movie. For the early part of the film I was convinced she was being set up as a false love interest, and Our Hero would see through her by the end of the second act and reject her in favor of the much more appealing blacksmith Kate. Without exception every single person I have spoken to about this film felt the same way. I can only imagine they failed to focus group the movie properly.
I felt the exact same way; they really seemed to be laying the groundwork for it. Quick, sidelong glances from Kate; the lack of any real chemistry between William and Jocelyn; it all seemed to add up to: “Kate will eventually win his heart”. I fully expected that he would end up with her until about midway through the movie (when I realized there wasn’t enough time left for that plotline to develop).
Rufus Sewell is sex.
My favorite line is “The Pope may be French, but Jesus was English!”
I think you’re going to implode over this project.
Both the armorer and the servant girl were quite cute. I didn’t find Jocelyn to be particularly attractive.
Of course, one of the deleted scenes has a joke involving a relationship between Kate and Wat.
I love this movie. I think the choice of soundtrack was brilliant.
I wished William would have ended up with Kate in the end, too. I think that would have been a much better ending.
It’s been a few months since I’ve seen it. I’m going to have to pop it in the DVD now.
I guess I’m in the minority. I like William and Jocelyn. I would have liked to see Roland definitely end up with Christiana. There was a lot of shy smiles and sidelong glances between those two.
Not to get bogged down in history, but how does Jocelyn get to go flitting around Europe, following the jousting circuit? There’s mention of her father, but we don’t see him. I assume she’s traveling with her father, since Ademar enters marriage negotiations with him, so he must be around.
Shannyn Sossamon and Heath Ledger starred together in another film, so someone thought they had chemistry.
Hm. That’s funny. I actually don’t remember the lady-in-waiting. Now, I know there was one, but … no visual memory whatsoever …
I remember the armorer (Kate the Farrier), Ledger/Wat/other guy, Chaucer, Sewell, the Prince, sort of remember the Princess, the senior knight, the Dad, the other herald; the music, the verbal jokes, the visual humor, the combat, the subplots, and comic bits, the change-your-stars theme, even the London Eye though I didn’t know what it was; I even remember who I saw the movie with, where, when, the weather that night, etc. And Kate the Farrier. Whereas the Princess is kind of vague; and the lady-in-waiting is a complete blank. (!)
Guess I’ll be first in line for the sequel, The Farrier’s Tale.
She had a wonderful soft accent, Roland was making eyes at her, and she was the go-between for Jocelyn and William.
“My lady said to tell you…her name…is Jocelyn.”
“My lady said, if you love her, you will win this tournament for her.”
Ring a bell?
Maybe this will help you remember.
Oh, I remember the stuff she did, was involved with, talking with the princess, relaying messages, Roland now too, and the voice. But …
That did the trick.
–
Since you all appreciate KT, here’s an artistic defense of “anachronism,” in case you ever need one.
The Story vs. The History
We’re telling a story from Chaucer’s time. We want the audience to be involved in the story, like they’re really there, experiencing it. That doesn’t mean making an accurate, detailed historical period piece. On the contrary.
Suppose they made KT a totally accurate period piece. We would need subtitles. We would look upon it like tourists in a museum, gawking at strange things from long ago. The medieval jousting audience, for example, wouldn’t do the stomp and clap to Queen, they’d do something else from their time. If we saw them doing their historically accurate thing, we would see a documentary.
But how did medieval peasants feel when they did whatever they did at their sporting events? They feel like we feel when do the stomp and clap at our modern sporting events. So, in order to get the modern audience to experience the event the way the medieval audience did, we must convey the feeling of event. Hence, stomp and clap to Queen. Now the modern audience is no longer clinically observing a quaint medieval scene, but has started to become part of it, and feels the peasants having fun at a sporting event.
In short, the anachronisms, though less faithful to history, when properly used are more faithful to the story, as they more effectively convey the feeling of events, of places, of people, to the modern audience. And we’re here for the story, not the history.
Hm. Wonder if you’d get banned from one of those Renaissance Faires if you started playing Lowrider during their jousting practice.
Hey I was there. Cool.
It would have thrown the movie , the whole point was that a commoner could change his stars, and become royalty. Kate was the sort of girl he would have married if he decided to stay what he was, while jocelyn was always going to be above his station. Fine for a romp in the hay , but marriage and titles would never have been his.
Declan
Trust me, we play it (and others) when you’re not there!
Baz Luhrman had similar things to say about Moulin Rouge. I’m paraphrasing, but it was basically that if he had a bunch of dancers doing an actual can-can to actual music from turn of the century Montmarte, we’d be distanced from the film at best and snoozing at worst. He was interested in drawing us in and giving us the “experience” of the time and place: youthful energy, music your mom wouldn’t approve of, fast-paced, heartthrobbingly sexy music. In other words, Fatboy Slim nightclub music. Lots of the costumes weren’t “period,” but they were all carefully designed to engage us in the movie at a level we could relate to.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get really titchy about anachronisms in movies. But in things like Moulin Rouge and A Knight’s Tale, it’s very obvious what they’re trying to do and why. It serves a purpose. Although, surprisingly enough, all the costumes in A Knight’s Tale were actually historically accurate. Including those monstrosities the chick wore on her head.
I’m much more annoyed by Guinevere’s “outfit” in that latest King Arthur debacle, or Elizabethan peasants wearing white blouses in an otherwise historically representative film.
Oh, and I forgot to add: we have plenty of anachronisms at Ren Faire, too. Even mine, which is known for being one of the most “tight-ass accurate” ones in the country. See, we thought patrons might like garbage cans and flushing toilets, rather than being asked to shit in the pile of rotting garbage lining the street. And we try to keep the rat population way down while we’re at it. And most of the food is relatively fresh, with only a few maggots for spice. 
I’m with you there, there definitely should have been more made of that. There is a deleted scene on the DVD, though, of the whole gang talking before heading off to bed. William leaves with Jocelyn, Chaucer heads off to bed (although I can’t remember if his unnamed wife was with him or waiting there for him) and Roland takes Christiana’s arm and leads her away too. Kate subsequently tells Wat where to go when he gives her the “well it’s just us two then” look.
From that, I’m assuming that Roland did get his girl (the lucky git 
)
Surely not the black sheer thing she wore, with strategically placed black stripes running down over her breasts? I would think she would have been put in the stocks for that outfit!
Well, the technology existed to make such a garment, and similar ones have been found. However, you’re absolutely correct that it wouldn’t have been worn in public. There has always been a market for “dirty” lingerie, however.
I’m more or less a former SCAdian, but this movie is a guilty pleasure. No, it’s about as far from period as you can get, but it’s fun, and I loved Chaucer in the movie.
However, you can keep Jocelyn. Let me get this straight. We have a woman who, while she is beautiful, manipulates a man in a way which is likely to get him broke in body as well as in pocket. (I’m thinking of the whole, “If you’ll love me you’ll lose” . . . “If you love me you’ll win” scenes.) From the look on Heath Ledger’s face, he knows he’s being manipulated, but he does it anyway. Meanwhile, he’s got a cute, smart, competent girl with a sense of humour who’s even willing to teach him to dance. Methinks our hero took one too many shots to the head with a lance.
As far as what happened to the horses, I assumed our heroes had been selling them off, just like they had the various golden trinkets they got as prizes.
Oh, and for those of you who like Rufus Sewell, as it happens, among the first three DVDs I bought were two which feature him. The second wasDangerous Beauty in which he’s the main love interest.
CJ
I truly, madly, deeply looooove that movie. It’s a real shame it was (barely) marketed as Skinemax soft-core porn, because it’s really not. It’s a wonderful character-driven drama about a time period and city we hardly ever see represented on film.
And if you though Rufus was sexy in AKT? Ohmigod. You have *no *idea.
And Catherine McCormick could not be any more beautiful.