Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 17 March 2011

Film: British / American C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

King Arthur Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

just a passing comment but it's sometimes hrd to believe that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was made about six years before Excalibur and that the former isn't at least partially a parody of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.226.42 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Music

"The barren land blooms with life as they pass and is reborn with its King" -- what's the music during this part?

rousing music as the knights ride out of Camelot, and the land magically blooms as they pass by ? It's "O Fortuna" from the Carmina Buranas, by Carl Orff... and that scene is surely one of the most rousing in any movie... :)

86.25.122.221 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no "s" in "Burana" - see the article, Carmina Burana (Orff). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I know there isn't... I made a typo :(

86.25.120.113 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

There are so many POV problems with this article, especially on the "reputation" area.

It's a nice essay, about as good as a 9th grade English homework.--76.21.81.118 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious error in my opinion

I came very close to simply editing this section to (in my view) correct it, but I'll put the issue up here for discussion first:

"Also, in both films Arthur takes a gamble by challenging his rival lord to strike him down with Excalibur, but his enemy relents — implicitly in Excalibur, where Uryens refuses to surrender to Arthur, a mere squire, so Arthur makes Uryens knight him on the spot with his own sword - and Uryens does so, impressed by his courage; and explicitly in Merlin, where Arthur tells Lot to kill him with Excalibur if he thinks he is the true king - but Lot relents, influenced by the magic of the sword."

This is completely incorrect, as to what happened in Excalibur. Uryens is VERY clearly being forced, by the magic of the sword, to knight Arthur, to the extent that his face contorts as he tries to resist it and strike Arthur down. — SMcCandlish - 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is all POV as to what is making Uryens do it (his concious or the magic of the sword). Just MHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: until now I'd never considered that magic from the sword made him knight Arthur, though that interpretation makes some sense. I wonder what John Boorman says on the DVD commentary about that scene, it's a long time since I listened to it. Mark Grant

I've always thought it was the power of the sword that convinced Uryens (in mid-swing) to knight, rather than strike Arthur. The music adds to what is a very powerful scene. ComaDivine 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Photography

The article only talks of "garish colors", but I guess I am not the only one that sees in the indoor scenes and the bright armors a visual quality similar to that of Superman II and Playboy pictures. Probably there is a technical name for the style or technique but I don't know it. Do you know what I am talking about? --Error 23:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the technical terms but in the director's commentary he talks about shining coloured lighting on the actors. E.g. when they're in the forest you can see bright green lights glinting off the armour to make the colours even more vivid. The Singing Badger 01:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Orff

The theme was used in ads for Old Spice from the early seventies and The Doors had used it in a post Morrison album so no credit to this film for the use.

An ad virtually no one remembers (rubbish ..this is something of a cult advert), and an album even hardcore Doors fans didn't buy. Please. Excalibur most certainly did introduce more people to that piece of music than anything before its time, and most certainly did seed its popularity, which remains high even today (I've heard at least 8 different techno/trance, gothic and industrial tracks that make heavy use of it, in the last 5-6 years, including a new one this year.) — SMcCandlish - 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Surgical insertion of a prop

Just where did THAT rumour come from? Bizarre and really in need of a definite cite! Alastairward 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I wish I could find one (I added it). I read about it in high school in an article in a movie magazine (forget the name). It also questioned whether Robert Shaw should've had one of his teeth removed (for real) for a scene in Jaws. I wish I could find something to back this up, as it impressed me at the time. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackson influence?

I have some doubts about Jackson really being influenced by "Excalibur". Excalibur had no qualms portraying characters as mythological archetypes. Jackson, on the other hand, considered it necessary to make such archetypes "more realistic". And where Boorman created a gripping final battle with just a handful of actors, Jackson needed huge computer-generated armies and monsters. Jackson, as he himself put it once, retold LotR as a modern "fantasy adventure story". Boorman retold Arthurian myth as just that: myth, with no holds barred and no watering down of mythological elements for the sake of a "modern audience". If Jackson felt indeed influenced by Excalibur, in my eyes he understood as little about the movie as he did about Tolkien who had far more in common with Romanticism than with his own modern imitators. --OliverH 10:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Charm (chant) of making

I don't know if this means anything, or whether there are any references to it, but when played backwards, the last few syllables of Merlin's Charm of Making (which are the first syllables of the chant, "Anál nathrach") sounds a lot like "hearth and home", which is a phrase spoken by Merlin elsewhere in the movie. Has anyone else heard of this? — Loadmaster 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's Old Irish. See my essay on the Charm of Making. -- Evertype·✆ 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be integrated into the article. Many fans of the film can repeat the chant, the source of which was a mystery. Upon seeing "nathrach" given as the genitive of serpent in a grammar of Old Irish I noticed the similarity and then found Evereson's explanation on the web. I would suggest that he would be best to add a comment. Should anyone fear that his doing so would be original research (I would argue it's easily verifiable with an OI dictionary and grammar) I will add the section if need be. I would add the section afterr the plot summary. Comments? Wrotesolid (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article. I am not surte about capitalization, but the placement looks right. Wrotesolid (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, your section was crappy. I know Irish, I've done the research, and the interpretation that it's old Irish doesn't stand, if only because the charm uses sounds unknown to Irish (and the same spelling is pronounced in a radically different manner, due to the language working that way since the fist records we have of it) . As for the "translation", I've seen straw grasping and deciding that an unknown term means something because "it looks like that word" used a lot in crap scholarship, like the multifarious attempts at deciphering the Phaistos disk or Voynich manuscript--Svartalf (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it's what is called Original research. (The fact that you don't approve of a modern actor's attempted pronunciation of a made up spell in a movie hardly refutes the fact that anal nathrach does mean serpent's breath. And, since there is no text, just the spoken dialog on the video, it is odd that you complain about words that "looks like.")

A cursory inspection of etymological dictionaries will confirm that anal nathrach is perfectly grammatical old irish for serpent's breath:

Anal :to breathe, to blow *anǝtlo-: OIr anāl `spiritus'; Cymr anadl `Atem'; MBret alazn (Umstellung), Bret holan; *anǝtī-: MCymr eneit, Cymr eneid `Seele'; *anamon-: OIr animm, gen. anman, Ir anam `Seele' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=1276&root=config

Nathrach: Celtic: *natrī > OIsl nathir, gen. nathrach `natrix, serpens'; Corn nader `Schlange', OBret pl. natrol-ion `Basilisken', MBret azr `Schlange', NBret aer ds., Cymr neidr, pl. nadroedd `ds.' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=799&root=config

You are quite welcome to find some source to back up your opinion and add it to the article as an alternate opinion. Repeatedly deleting this documented material and inserting your own personal opinion is vandalism. Wrotesolid (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw all that material years ago, thank you... it's still after the fact artificial reconstruction of a nonsense formula. Problem still stands that the chant sounds perfectly good as it is, while it would be meaningless gibberish to an Irishman (yes, even a 5th century Irishman), and could never be easily chanted in the language. If the chant was traditional in any way, the actor would have had some access to the true sound of the chant, and the fact the chant sounds so well with Anglo-Germanic pronunciaion points to it being devised for that phonology. Also, while the dictionary you cite is good, it's publishing your own interpretation (or one you read somewhere) of the text without proper reference to it really and fully being redacted in Old Irish, rather than including words borrowed from that language in a nonsensical matrix that is OR. I'm the one keeping the article to verifiable fact and not pushing for dubious interpretations. --Svartalf (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

First, you seem to be confused about the nature of OR. Removing citations to reliable sources is vandalism, and replacing them with your own unpublished editorializing is original research. I have no problem with you editing the section to say that the interpretation is that of one person, or that it is uncertain, which the translator himself says about the third verse. . But you are not entitled to assert on your own opinion that it is not Old Irish, (Absurd in the face of Walde-Pokorny)) and you are definitely not allowed to remove citations and replace sourced material with what you yourself describe as your own research: "I know Irish, I've done the research, and the interpretation that it's old Irish doesn't stand."

Please suggest some additional verbiage that leaves the current information in place but draws attention to any controversy you see.

Also, be warned of the WP:3RR rule. If you revert this sourced material a third time today you will be reported to an administrator and your editing privileges can be subject to suspension. Wrotesolid (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully warned about edit warring and the 3rr rule, and am moving this to conflict resolution. I must still mention thatYou seem sadly confused as to what constitute "sourced material".

a) "Published on the internet is definitely not a standard of reliability. While I won't use that to discredit the etymological dictionary you cited, I still notice it's remarkably obscure and jumbled, and maybe not of true scholarly standard.
b) The thesis you are pushing is not directly supported by your citation, as all it does is show that one old Irish word is indeed compatible in form and meaning with your allegations. You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, not account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's"), the fact that the formula as a whole is gibberish from a Gaelic speaker's viewpoint, or the fact that, as an incantation , it sounds better as pronounced by the English language actor than it would if chanted by an actual Irish speaker. Also, if it's really meaningful or traditional, there's also a complete lack of pre 1981 sources for it, indicating that it's not Old Irish, but at best a made up formula for which the author looked up old Celtic words, but had no idea as to how they should sound, or how to write them correctly in any respect.--Svartalf (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Svartalf, you said on my talk page:

"b) The thesis you are pushing is not directly supported by your citation, as all it does is show that one old Irish word is indeed compatible in form and meaning with your allegations. You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, nor account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's"), the fact that the formula as a whole is gibberish from a Gaelic speaker's viewpoint, or the fact that, as an incantation , it sounds better as pronounced by the English language actor than it would if chanted by an actual Irish speaker. Also, if it's really meaningful or traditional, there's also a complete lack of pre 1981 sources for it, indicating that it's not Old Irish, but at best a made up formula for which the author looked up old Celtic words, but had no idea as to how they should sound, or how to write them correctly in any respect."

(1) I am not pushing any thesis. Michael Everson is the person who has identified this fictional charm as being composed in Old Irish, and his writing is given as the source. Have you read it? He identifies the charm as apparently made up by the film producers, and he himself indicates that there are problems with the pronunciation. If you wish to add some short relevant wording to the article along those lines (e.g., identify the translation as Everson's in the text and mention his own admission as to the problematic nature of the third line) then feel free to do so. As for the citations I have added for anal nathrach, it was done so in a good faith effort to show that the words are indeed Old Irish, which you explicitly denied.

(2) Regarding your comment "You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, nor account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's", you evidently don't know or understand that nathrach is the genitive form of the noun. See the source: Nathrach: Celtic: *natrī > OIsl nathir, gen. nathrach `natrix, serpens'; Corn nader `Schlange', OBret pl. natrol-ion `Basilisken', MBret azr `Schlange', NBret aer ds., Cymr neidr, pl. nadroedd `ds.' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=799&root=config . Anal nathrach is perfectly good and grammatical Old Irish.

Finally, Perhaps you would like to change the words "evidently composed in" to "evidently made up based on" Old Irish in the text of the article. That would be fine with me, and it represents Everson' opinion. Wrotesolid (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made the edit to show that this is Everson's interpretation, and changed "composed" to "made up". Wrotesolid (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Michael Everson, whose thesis is about as reliable as anything pushed by David Icke or YEC creations "science". The fact that it was originally pushed by somebody else does take the OR accusation off, but does not make it right, or are you implying that Jesus was an initiate of Egyptian mysteries who also fathered all the important dynasties in the las 200 years of history is also fact because it was published by identifiable authors?

Oh, oops... My bad on "nathrach", I'd forgotten that it was indeed a genitive form for that word. --Svartalf (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stick to the issue at hand and maintain a civil and adult attitude? Rhetorical questions about irrelevant nutcase theories which you suggest I might also hold are ad hominem attacks. "Twaddle", "crap" and "bullshit" are not helpful comments. Everson does not maintain anything such as this being a real historical spell. He simply identifies the large part of the words as identifiable as based on Old Irish, which you now seem to concede. Since the text of the article now identifies the interpretation as Everson, and says "invented" upon which you, I , and Everson agree, do you have any other relevant and civil concerns? Wrotesolid (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to request at Misplaced Pages:Content_noticeboard#User:wrotesolid_and_the_Excalibur_chant_of_making: I have made no previous edits on this article and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. I am responding as a third party neutral and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Opinion: The questionable sources subsection of the Verifiability policy says:

Questionable sources are those ... with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites ... which rely heavily on ... personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

The Everson webpage makes clear that it is his personal analysis and opinion. The Everson webpage is not therefore an acceptable source. (And since the author of that webpage is himself self-admittedly — as set forth above and on his user page — a Misplaced Pages editor, Evertype, selfpublish may apply, as well.) Thus both the transcription from the spoken words in the film and the possible source and meaning of those words are unsourced. The Charm of Making subsection and everything in it should be removed unless someone can come up with verifiable reliable sources which state the words used in the film — not a transcription of the spoken words, since they're not unmistakably in any particular language, but a verifiable reliable source which says what the script, the producers, the actors, or someone has said what they are — and which states their provenance and meaning. The Evertype article is not such a source and any editor's transcription or analysis of them, such as set out above and in this article, is original research — Misplaced Pages does not analyze and give results: it only reports pre–existing facts. In keeping with Misplaced Pages policy, the unsourced material should be properly tagged but left in the article and a generous amount of time should be allowed to find sources, but if they cannot be found then the unsourced material, perhaps the entire subsection, should be removed. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of self publishing is a red herring. The section was added by me with no input from or contact with Michael Everson or the user Evertype. For me to cite him is to give credit where credit is due.

There is no controversy here or in academia other than one editor's insistance that he has studied Old Irish and he knows the truth. That's his OR and his POV. His insistence on what he "knows" as a source, his crude language, and his replacing third party references with his own editorializing are all violations of WP policy. Look at the edit history. His objections have not been about the reliability of the source, but about his strongly held and mistaken belief in the falseness of the claim. You would do well, TransporterMan, to read Svartalf's edits and summaries.

Finally, regardless of Svartalf's personal objections, the phrase itself is transcribed and identified in Un espace colonial et ses avatars: naissance d'identités nationales p251, Florence Bourgne, Leo M. Carruthers, Arlette Sancery, Sorbonne. http://books.google.com/books?id=OEs4JyShTLQC&pg=RA9-PA251&dq=anal+nathrach&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&ei=j1CDS4a_HYGYygSCo5iICw&cd=2#v=onepage&q=anal%20nathrach&f=false

Case closed. Wrotesolid (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion

My essay on the Charm of Making was written in February 1993. It was my original research. I transcribed the text, and determined that the language is Old Irish. I published this on my website. Other people have found this. If you google the URL of my essay, you will find 2,140 or so hits. If you go to Amazon.co.uk and search for "evertype", in addition to a number of books I have published, you will find at least two pagan-related books which cite the essay. It seems to me, as a Wikipedian of long-standing, that those external citations of the essay give it some credibility. In December 2008, somebody made a daft suggestion about what the Charm meant when played backward. I indicated that this was false, and that the Charm is in Old Irish. A year later, you guys had a big fight about it. I've read through the fight, and in my opinion—and I was not asked for my opinion; I only came here because the Excalibur film page is on my watchlist—Svartalf has made a whole lot of completely unfounded assertions which suggest to me that he never even read the original essay. Ní ionnan fuaimeanna na Sean-Ghaeilge agus fuaimeanna na Nua-Ghaeilge, a Svartailf, cé nach bhfuil sé soléir go bhfuil a fhios agatsa faoi. TransporterMan's comments seem to me to be irrelevant. The transcription from the spoken words was done by me in 1993 using my training as a linguist, my ears, and my knowledge of the IPA. My subsequent work to figure out what the sounds indicated readily that the language was Old Irish. Evidently Boorman hired somebody (probably an Irish academic) to write the charm. In the absence of a document from Boorman, that's the best you're going to get. From anybody. I can't say I'm displeased to see my essay cited here. But, TransporterMan, it was not written by a Misplaced Pages editor for this article. It was written in 1993 by a linguist. That was seven years before the Misplaced Pages was born. -- Evertype·✆ 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge of Old Irish is very limited. But I wonder whether "thy omen of making" oughtn't more precisely be translated as "thou omen of making". Others' understandings? Firstorm (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do doesn't mean 'thou'. -- Evertype·✆ 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

recent edit

I have no problem with expanding the reception section. But the recent edit to the lead has changed a balanced reaction to a positive one, and has removed the citation for a verbatim quote, among other things. Given the editor in question has not justified his actions, I am reverting them. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Unassessed King Arthur articles
• Unknown-importance King Arthur articles
• WikiProject King Arthur articles