The Green Knight (2021) (1 Viewer)

[JoeStemme]

Joel Edgerton is truly excellent in his role bringing a very vivid persona to the screen that acts as quite a contrast to the timid Gawain.

Spoiler: SPOILER

The truth is it is an important role because Edgerton's lord is also The Green Knight. At his manor he strikes a deal with Gawain that he turns over to him all he gains on his hunts and Gawain is to give him all he gains while at his manor. What he gains outside of a hand job is the green belt which Edgerton's lord asks him to hand over but Gawain does not want to give up mommy's shameful green belt. So, when Gawain openly fails that test, the kiss on the mouth he gets is basically a kiss of death. Gawain again proves he is no knight.

A lot of good stuff in your post, but, as to the first SPOILER:

Spoiler: SPOILER to a SPOILER

Yes, most versions of the classic tale posit the Lord to really be The Green Knight. But, here, Lowery keeps that very vague. He also adds that extended montage where Gawain imagines his future if he hadn't been beheaded. I interpreted it slightly differently, with Gawain finally becoming worthy when he allows himself to be decapitated. And, the Green Knight's true identity is still a mystery.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A lot of good stuff in your post, but, as to the first SPOILER:

Spoiler: SPOILER to a SPOILER

Yes, most versions of the classic tale posit the Lord to really be The Green Knight. But, here, Lowery keeps that very vague. He also adds that extended montage where Gawain imagines his future if he hadn't been beheaded. I interpreted it slightly differently, with Gawain finally becoming worthy when he allows himself to be decapitated. And, the Green Knight's true identity is still a mystery.

I do think that Lowery does leave several things so the audience must ponder them and in doing so leaves certain outcomes and representations up to you. I liked that he did this and thought it was smart. The ending was excellent in part for this reason. Two people seeing the movie together could walk out with different feelings and different takes on the ending and really it is not a right or wrong thing, just a how do you feel about it deal.

In terms of who the Green Knight is, my feeling is that Lowery drops several hints and essentially does stay with the idea from the poem. However, as with several things in the picture he does not spell it out and certainly not in a way that may get caught on the first viewing. In fact having only seen the picture once there is something that happens at the end with the Green Knight which I don't think I caught all of that Lowery says happens. I think he wanted to make a film people would talk about and discuss and discover different things in when watching it again.

That's kind of cool and means that there is nothing wrong with how we each see it and it means when we watch it again we could change our minds. He went less for definitive and instead wanted viewers to answer the questions.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Saw my second post-pandemic film, partially based on our discussion yesterday (and my melancholy over it ). I'd wanted to see this ever since the trailer blew me away some months ago. Excalibur is a hugely influential movie from my younger years, visionary takes on Arthurian England are absolutely my cup of tea.

Hadn't read the tale for long enough that I remembered almost none of it, so I had no preconceptions. I quite enjoyed the experience, though it was occasionally difficult (though never tedious) viewing. A meditation on courage, manhood, responsibility...viewed through an ordinary (not bad, though neither good) man pretending and desiring to be more. It was probably difficult, because we all want to be a knight, though few of us are. As the film briefly hinted at when the titular character appears at the Round Table, even few of the knights are actually knights. Courage is hard, and the road to it equally hard and often confusing and confounding.

This film is beautiful to watch. Patel really shoulders a hard task for an actor, though ably assisted by stellar supporting turns by Vikander, Harris, and Edgerton (who is always great - he should be a much bigger deal). I felt the Scorsese nod coming, and saw a bit of Aronofsky's Fountain in this as well. That's intended to be praise...both of those were hard looks at genuinely meaningful concepts as well. I very much appreciate the discussion in this thread, and look forward to reading through some of the reviews, interviews, and articles that have been shared. It was nice to be in the theater (I was completely alone for a late matinee, surprise).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I've continued listening to and reading people review and discuss this picture. Because it is the only picture I have seen in a cinema this summer and it was a damn good one, it has been very easy to focus on this film.

I am struck by a couple of things, first that the picture confuses a lot of viewers and second that most of them like it despite this fact. Most of the confusion seems to be based on the idea that some people saw this because they saw the trailer and really liked it but went in not knowing anything about the subject matter except what they saw in the trailer. I guess that would mean this was an effective trailer as it drew people into the movie that knew nothing about it which is what you want a trailer to do. However, they did think based on the trailer that the picture was going to be about a grand battle between the Green Knight and Gawain. I can understand this based on how the trailer sets up expectations of the Green Knight. He's big, green, has a big axe, gets his head lopped off and chuckles about it. So granted if you knew nothing about the Arthurian legends and the trailer was all you saw then I can understand your expectations being that you were getting some sort of fantasy battle deal.

In 9th or 10th grade we read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight but I guess this has long not been part of many curriculums and so the whole Arthurian thing has faded a bit from public memory. I, like Chuck, did not have a great memory of it but it seemed to play to the spirit of the tale.

A couple things seem to be brought more into focus in Lowery's version. First, there felt like there was a big mommy thing going on in this version. I mean, Gawain's mom kind of lingers over the whole thing. She summons the Green Knight, she gives him the green belt to protect him, and she makes multiple appearances along the way.

Spoiler: SPOILER

She is the fox, she is the old woman in the blindfold, she may even be the ghost that lost her head depending upon how you want to interpret things. Essentially, this whole journey he takes seems to be her show and she appears to be driving the bus because she was fed up with how useless her son was. Some people interpret the film as all the characters Gawain meets along the way are conjured by his mother to test/teach him. This is why as he fails his tests over and over and losses his belt and the Green Knight's axe the items are returned to him as he meets other characters. Gawain keeps blundering along and mom has to keep fixing his screw-ups.

The other thing Lowery does to alter the focus is he has Gawain fail all his tests. I mean to some extent Gawain seems to be the spoiled rich kid that has everything handed to him but generally is a useless boob. Does that ever have echoes in our present day, ha. This does provide some humorous moments and leads us to the ending we get.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Lowery's take on the ending is that the Green Knight beheads Gawain in many ways saving the world from a kingdom ruled by such a putz. I certainly see that as the most justified ending as he fails each test miserably and this is certainly not the guy you want to be the next king. All this is highlighted by Gawain's vision of his life prior to the Green Knight chopping off his head. So, it does make sense that when the Green Knight says "Now off with your head." he means it. So, while the poem had Gawain pass his tests and the Green Knight did not kill him, in this version he fails his tests and is, justifiably, beheaded. Although because it is not shown Lowery leaves it to the audience to discuss it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

For anybody who can't go to the theater right now, The Green Knight is now available to rent from streaming vendors such as Amazon as a premium rental for $19.99. I'm pretty sure this grants a 48-hour viewing period.

I really enjoyed the movie, but I will wait untill the Blu-ray release to see it again.

 

[Tino]

For anybody who can't go to the theater right now, The Green Knight is now available to rent from streaming vendors such as Amazon as a premium rental for $19.99. I'm pretty sure this grants a 48-hour viewing period.

I really enjoyed the movie, but I will wait untill the Blu-ray release to see it again.

I had a free rental so I rented it in 4K/Dolby Atmos from iTunes. I have 30 days to watch it and then 48 hours to finish it once started.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I haven't seen this posted here yet. Here is David Lowery going over the scene in which the titular Green Knight is introduced. Obviously, don't watch this if you haven't seen the movie yet.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

For anybody who can't go to the theater right now, The Green Knight is now available to rent from streaming vendors such as Amazon as a premium rental for $19.99. I'm pretty sure this grants a 48-hour viewing period.

I really enjoyed the movie, but I will wait untill the Blu-ray release to see it again.

It's a tremendous film, and it's also one I'm really looking forward to watching again at home. It's filmed very dark and the theater I saw it in didn't really project it bright enough. I'm sure at home, it'll be much better.

 

[Scott McGillivray]

I have not seen this film yet. I was, however, surprised that in the articles I have read and previews I watched, nowhere do I see any reference to it being a remake of "Sword of the Valiant" with Sean Connery. I really thought that there would be some folks mentioning that.

Sword of the Valiant (1984) ⭐ 4.4 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

1h 42m | PG

www.imdb.com

 

[JoeStemme]

I have not seen this film yet. I was, however, surprised that in the articles I have read and previews I watched, nowhere do I see any reference to it being a remake of "Sword of the Valiant" with Sean Connery. I really thought that there would be some folks mentioning that.

Sword of the Valiant (1984) ⭐ 4.4 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

1h 42m | PG

www.imdb.com

Well, considering that the Arthurian legend dates from the 14th Century, some semi-forgotten 80s flick can hardly be called the true inspiration for the current movie

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have not seen this film yet. I was, however, surprised that in the articles I have read and previews I watched, nowhere do I see any reference to it being a remake of "Sword of the Valiant" with Sean Connery. I really thought that there would be some folks mentioning that.

Sword of the Valiant (1984) ⭐ 4.4 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

1h 42m | PG

www.imdb.com

Yes, it is certainly not a remake of that picture. In fact the director of Sword of the Valiant had already directed a version of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight...so he was taking his second shot at it with a larger budget. I am planning on watching Sword of the Valiant soon, I have virtually no recollection of it though I am pretty certain I have seen it. Generally, not a good sign.

 

[Sam Posten]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, everything he says is true, which is why it is so funny, except that Gawain is not a knight. He is just failing miserably as he tries to become one. I think Lowery probably chose Dev Patel to play him because if the character has no redeeming values at least Patel is a likable actor. So, having him play him allows you to like him a bit even though Gawain is a total putz.

I guess you could say that it is interesting casting having a likable actor play a pretty unlikable character. I would think it was intentional.

He is sort of the opposite of a Howard Hawks central male character. Hawks liked to have his men be skilled professionals that have command over the situations they are in. Would be funny to have watched this film with Howard Hawks and heard him comment on it. Gawain is no John Wayne that's for sure.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I do think Sir Robin would be the closest to Gawain...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I do think the thing you have to ask is, is Lowery attempting to show Gawain as a hero? I would say that the actual point of the story is try to be a better person and interact with the world in better ways. The message is don't be a Gawain.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think it is intended to be a bit more complex than "don't be this guy" myself. I think the film honestly takes a look at why he is the way he is, and how his intentions and limitations conflict. Yes, it's hard to watch a film where the main character makes weak-willed decision after weak-willed decision, but that is the point of the film. The line about being a good man instead of a great one resonates, and at the end colors Gawain's decision. Having an actor of Patel's ability and charisma were key to the story and how they wanted to tell it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think it is intended to be a bit more complex than "don't be this guy" myself. I think the film honestly takes a look at why he is the way he is, and how his intentions and limitations conflict. Yes, it's hard to watch a film where the main character makes weak-willed decision after weak-willed decision, but that is the point of the film. The line about being a good man instead of a great one resonates, and at the end colors Gawain's decision. Having an actor of Patel's ability and charisma were key to the story and how they wanted to tell it.

Yes, I do think there are a lot of layers and things you can find in this tale. The thing I was sort of commenting on was that people can have a laugh at what Gawain is and how he is essentially failing his way through the story but I think some people probably went in with the false expectation that Gawain was going to be some sort of warrior/hero...something he is certainly not. So, it is funny when people point out his flaws and failures because they are certainly there for us to notice.

He's not a hero or really even a good guy. He's essentially a spoiled brat that does not have a clue about how to be a decent person and yet, we root for him to figure it out.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I read a great piece at one point on who is destroying our world and it came down to it was the super wealthy and their super stupid offspring. Primarily because they have the power, money, and leverage to be far more destructive than a guy working a 9 to 5 job. I sort of feel like Lowery has also read this. His take on this story seems heavily weighted toward the idiotic offspring and how these people are sitting there positioned to take over most of the world's wealth and in doing so will control the destiny of most of the people on the planet. This story seems somewhat about that to me.

Spoiler: SPOILER

You have the old King Arthur, that is loved and has been a good king, and Gawain sitting there as basically next in line to the throne through nothing but a bloodline. He is a lazy, do nothing, nitwit that wants to screw hookers in a brothel and nap. He can't grasp how to do more than that and his mother sees it in him. Given the chance, he will continue on this path. Just enjoying the fact he was born into wealth and privilege and just asked to sit his ass next to the king because he is related.

So, she summons a real knight, the Green Knight to set this useless bastard off on a quest. In real life I'm sure the best thing for the world would be to send these offspring of the super wealthy off on a quest to test them...or kill them if they fail. However, hilariously and in reality that will never happen. And they will having everything, ask as Gawain does "But what will you do for me?"

And the world will reply as the poor headless woman does "Why would you ever ask such a question?"

So, I see layers here, things the picture is very likely commenting on and saying that provide a lot to delve into. It is both a film about an ancient yarn but also one that comments on our own times.

As we all know, snorting coke off the ass of some 3000 dollar a night hooker does not make you a hero. Not in King Arthur's time and not now.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Supposedly coming October 12, although I haven't seen a press release yet.

 

[JediFonger]

i be said if it was just bd, the dark scenes practically require hdr to see whats going on sorta like got s8