Home Page

Stefan's Florilegium


This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

movies-msg - 3/17/08


Reviews of medieval and renaissance movies.


NOTE: See also the files: info-sources-msg, med-letters-msg, publications-msg, videos-msg, masks-msg, puppets-msg, theater-bib, theater-msg.


KEYWORDS: movie review medieval period renaissance





This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.


This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org


I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.


The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.


Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).


Thank you,

    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous

                                          Stefan at florilegium.org



From: donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca (Donna Hrynkiw)

Date: 3 Jan 90 18:15:00 GMT

Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism

Subject: Movie Review: Henry V


I can't believe that nobody else has posted about this yet...


Went to see the new Henry V movie on New Year's Day with some other SCA

folks (in our party of 4 there were two Laurels and two Knights - and I'm

not a peer).


Overall impression: Excellent. An SCA must-see. Don't wait for the video,

see it on the big screen.


Diverse comments:

- remembering that this is Shakespeare and not necessarily real history...

- a young welshman (who's name escapes me at the moment - d*amn!)

  adapted the play for screen, directed AND starred as Harry.

  Did an excellent job.

- costumes are not magnificent/opulent/glittery, but IMHO fairly accurate

  and probably very close to what a nobleman would wear day-to-day. They

  reminded me very much of SCA-wear. (Especially the cloaks and surcoats.)

- effective use of narrator ("Chorus").

- Too many close-ups of Henry's face during his speeches.

- good to see Henry and other nobility wearing heraldic surcoats. I wonder

  if the mundanes realized the significance? Also: watch for French nobility

  in their fancy-quilted gambezons.

- armour is a bit sparse, but according to the Laurel-for-Armour in our

  party: "Wow! I want that!" Watch for the brass stars and trim.

- helps to know a little French. Used in two scenes: Catherine,

  Princess of France in conversation with her Lady-in-Waiting and near the

  end where Henry is asking Catherine for her hand. (Both scenes very

  amusing, understanding French or not.)

- Agincourt battle scene: awesome. If for no other reason, you *must* see

  this movie for the battle scene. Don't wait for it to come out on

  video - this deserves the big screen.

- Personally, I think they placed too much emphasis on the showers of arrows

  from the English longbows. But then again, it *is* an English production.

  (And Knight in our party claims that the English didn't charge at


- I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Henry V - does Part I really end

  with the humorous scene of mostly English-speaking Henry asking mostly

  French-speaking Catherine for her hand in marriage? I found the contrast

  between the desperation, violence and gore of the battlefield with the

  light love-banter a little jarring.

- Effective use of humour. In one scene, the night before the big battle,

  Henry dons a cloak and goes among his men anonymously to hear what they

  have to say. One soldier, in the course of his discourse, strikes the

  "stranger" with a glove. His reaction when the King returns the glove

  is priceless.


But after all is said and done, I want to see this movie again before it

leaves the theatre. And then I want a copy for my video library and maybe

I'll even look for the soundtrack (great welsh chorus).


Elizabeth Braidwood                       Donna Hrynkiw

Barony of Lions Gate, Kingdom of An Tir   Kwantlen College

donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca                 Surrey, B.C.

*/   Things won are done; joy's soul lies in the doing.

                                   -Troilus & Cressida   /*



From: inmet!justin at UUNET.UU.NET (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks)

Date: 4 Jan 90 15:07:16 GMT

Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism


Elizabeth Braidwood asks why no one else has posted to recommend the

new film of Henry V. Good question; I'm not sure how I overlooked doing

so myself. (I've only been telling everyone in Carolingia (at some

length) to go see it for the past two weeks!)


Well, I'll echo her recommendation: this is a *marvel* of a movie, one

of the best adaptations of Shakespeare to film I've seen yet. The director/

producer/adaptor/star is named Kenneth Branaugh, as I recall (spelling

probably mangled); his acting is quite good, the production and adaptation

are excellent, and the direction is top-notch. (The only fault in the

direction is that he isn't as good directing himself as he is the rest of

the cast.)


Lessee; little points...


The heraldry is *really* neat, and looks quite authentic to my half-

trained eye; I suspect that the heraldry used is generally historically



Brian Blessed is marvelous playing Essex. (Granted, he's playing Essex

playing Brian Blessed, but he's always *so* entertaining...)


I have mixed feelings about the Agincourt scene. It's very ... realistic.

That is to say, it's *very* long, and *very* bloody. On the other hand,

it's quite dramatic, and seemed pretty true to what history I know about

the battle. Yes, they put quite a bit of emphasis on the archery; on the

other hand, those arrows *were* pretty important in the battle. (Of course,

I went to see it on a Carolingian Company of Bowmen field trip, so it's

a tad hard to be impartial in this matter...)


As for buying the tape when it comes out: yes, yes, yes! This is the

fourth movie I've ever decided is worth full price, *whatever* the full

price is, out of my fairly huge tape collection. (For reference, the

other three are Knightriders, Lion in Winter, and Fantasia.) Definitely

a film worth keeping for posterity...


Ah, I'm missing it already. Fortunately, I'm running another trip to

go see it tonight...


                                -- Justin du Coeur

                                   Fan of good medieval cinema



From: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Goldschmidt)

Date: 4 Jan 90 20:04:01 GMT

Organization: Stanford University


I saw the film in Berkeley before Christmas.  The Agincourt scenes are

definitely a must-see, but I found the dialogue quite difficult to

understand, (esp. the heady dialects and French parts). Perhaps it was

partly the acoustics of the theatre.


The Herald (Montjoy) and the heraldry were extremely well done.  The

St. Crispin's Day speach should be memorized by every King who ever

hopes to lead troops in battle.


Those were my impressions.


mka: STephen Goldschmidt

aka: Juls Siwaldsen

net: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (If your mail bounces, don't post it!)

geo: Palo Alto, California USA

phone: (415)494-1748



From: joshua at paul.rutgers.edu (Joshua Mittleman)

Date: 8 Jan 90 17:50:19 GMT

Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Greetings from Arval!


My lady and I went to see Henry V last weekend, and loved it.  It is

grand, splendid, spectacular, and good Shakespeare.  Derek Jacobi

makes a fine chorus.  The interpretation is different from Olivier's

version, but quite valid.  BTW: If anyone out there HASN'T seen

Olivier's Henry V, Shame on you!  Rent it & watch it. It is better.


However...  Any medievalist seeing the new Henry would have some

quibbles.  If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to skip the rest

of this posting.  It has a few minor spoilers


Did anyone else notice the following, positive and negative?




...The only full suit of armor in the movie was 3 or 4 hundered years



...Why don't warriors in movie wear helmets in battle?


...Why did they all get off their horses to fight in the mud?


...Why didn't they show us the French charge.  I know it would have

been expensive, but after that build-up, it would have been WONDERFUL!


...In the scene after the battle, did you notice that two of the dead

bodies twitched?


...Are we really supposed to believe that the King of England lives in

such Spartan surroundings?


...Phooey.  They cut the scene where Fluellen makes Pistol eat a leek.

Olivier's version did that so well.


...There were only two pieces of heraldry used before the battle.

Seems odd to me.


...Where was the English herald?  He's in the script, and should have

been there (Professional jealousy).  And, they cut my favorite line,

when, after one of the scenes between Henry & Mountjoy, Henry tooses

him a bag of gold, saying "Here's for your troubles."  :)




...Did you notice that the treaty signed in the last scene has an

illuminated capital?


...The heraldry in the battle made up for lots of the negatives.  Wow!


...Period tennis balls!!


...I love that they made all the noblemen young, just like they should

be!!  A lot of the play is much more believable when Henry, the

Dauphin, etc. are in their twenties, rather than their forties.


...Was the actor who played Essex REALLY the same guy who fought Danny

kaye in the Court Jester?  No, not really, but he sure looked the



Awaiting your flames :)




Joshua Mittleman (joshua at paul.rutgers.edu or mittle at ibm.com)

H0-E12 T.J. Watson Research Center

PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598




Date: 8 Jan 90 16:57:58 GMT

Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism


William de Corbie mentions Polanski's Macbeth, which appeared here in

late '72 or early '73 and then vanished.  It's a very real-feeling film,

not stagey or self-conscious; it was so real I found it terrifying.  It

is a very good film nonetheless.    -Gwdiauwen


Gwdiauwen ferch Gwdolwyn                            Wendy Alberg

Dominion of Myrkfaelinn                             Ithaca, NY


Internet: waxy at cornella.cit.cornell.edu



From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Edward Fitzgerald)

Date: 22 Feb 91 08:32:24 GMT

Organization: Open Communications Forum


Mercy,mercy ME! My dear, hast thou not heard that "Henry V", new version, is

now available? And what about Ladyhawk, Dragonslayer, and Highlander?

(Admittedly the last three have a strong streak of fantasy/SF...but my friends

all have copies! :) Oh, and despite the terrible fantasy armor, Excalibur has

some good points...certainly no worse than Black Shield of Falworth!


(And to soothe the nerves of us high-strung Gaels I very strongly recommend a

little thing by Tapestry Productions/Paramount called "Portrait of Ireland" with NO dialogue...just swooping vistas of Ireland accompanied by music by Enya, James Galway, and The Chieftains. May be hard to find, but very lovely!)


For the smalls..."Castle" and "Cathedral", educational partly animated videos by the same fellow who drew the books of the same name. (Look in your local library for these last three if you're lucky enough to have one that has videos like ours does!


Oh, and in the same vein as "Portrait" is a video of "Prague Castle" with some

lovely, spooky effects as the camera plunges and swirls through the huge castle

and its many chapels, accompanied by music. Whoever the Czech film crew were,

they were true artists! Distributed in the US by Kaw Valley Films.


Happy hunting, and enjoy! :)


Elaine NicMaoilan, who hopes you are as thrilled with Henry V, Portrait, and

Prague, as she!   :)



From: Colin_Hart at mindlink.UUCP (Colin Hart)

Date: 21 Feb 91 13:47:59 GMT

Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada


One more movie not to forget or miss is REVENGE OF THE BARBARIANS, despite its

title an excellent movie on the Norse and a raid on Ireland by some Vikings and

the problems that it leads to. This is a Swedish film and really good. On the

other hand their is Lee Majors starring in the Norsemen. This should be junked

for starters! Norsemen in furry bikinis horned helms etc! It gets even better,

the leader Lee Majors often dons his armour, looks suspiciously like Italian

Renaissance Parade Armour! also the Longship has a cabin below deck with a

least at a guess a 12 foot ceiling! One of our local Norse types would like to

buy every copy in existance and destroy them! Great movie for all the

Hollywood Cliches, but definately not period!


Colin Mackay of Balmaghie, Lions Gate An Tir



From: david at twg.com (David S. Herron)

Date: 25 Feb 91 21:32:37 GMT

Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA


Jabberwocky     -- humorous, yes, and at the same time rather accurate

                   in some more gruesome period aspects. (Monty Python)


Pathfinder      -- An old Lapp legend about a kid who returns home from

                   hunting to see his family be murdered. Runs away &

                   has adventures & eventually revenges the murder.  The

                   acters & producers & everything is by native Lapp Landers.



                   It was circulating about the bay area last summer


Cyrano          -- George Depardieu playing the ultimate fop.  It's

                   waaaaaay out of period for me, so it wasn't so

                   interesting.  But still very good and gave me a

                   good chance to practice listening to French.  It

                   is currently circulating about the bay area.


Knight Riders   -- Er.. well, it's not period.  But is SCA-related ;-).




<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david at twg.com>

<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david at ms.uky.edu>



From: lefaivre at lclark.UUCP (Rick Lefaivre)

Date: 27 Feb 91 00:43:46 GMT

Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR


A really good movie that seems to have been overlooked is "The

Return of Martin Guerre."  It is a French movie with English

subtitles and does a most fantastic job of recreating a French

medieval village and has a captivating plot line to boot. I

highly recommend this film to everyone.


-- Rick LeFaivre



From: CONS.ELF at AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg)

Date: 28 Feb 91 22:28:01 GMT

Greetings from William de Corbie!

If you aren't determined to see all films in a cinema, there is a

very good Ivanhoe on Video. It was made for television, as far as

I can see from the text on my copy, but it has the format of a

real movie theatre film. Starring James Mason, Olivia Hussey

and several other stars. Contains VERY GOOD jousting scenes

and has very good, authentic equipment (though at least parts

of it is a little later in style than the 12th century, but

nothing that sticks out as out-of-period).

I recommend this wholeheartedly if you can find it over there.

I believe it was made around 1980.

There is also a very long video film entitled "The power of

the Sword" in Swedish -- original title unknown -- which comes

on two cassettes and tells the life and times of William the

Conqueror. This has a lot of fighting and very good costuming,

but rather poor actors. Worth seeing, though.





From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)

Date: 27 Feb 91 18:52:24 GMT

Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


One more to add to the list is a VERY hard to find film,

*The Sword and the Dragon*

  This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of

the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale!  The

movie was wonderful!  Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it,

it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also... Costuming was great, story

was charming, acting was of the "Larger than life" style that one finds in the

Kalevala or Mabinogian type of tales.  My squire and I got it because it had

"cast of dozens, ten thousand horses!" on the credits, and it was correct.

The ten-thousand horses part came towards the end during what looked like a

real Mongul horse-charge!  The story is kind-of an Ivanhoe sort, I can't

really explain it, I guess that I'll need to see it again!


Kevin - Outlands



From: 0002853615 at mcimail.COM (William Linden)

Date: 5 Mar 91 02:37:00 GMT


Reply-to: Alfgar the Sententious (0002853615 at MCIMAIL.COM)

  In <9040005 at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Dennis Clark <dlc at hpfcso.fc.hp.com> writes:

>*The Sword and the Dragon*

>  This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of

>the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale!  The

>movie was wonderful!  Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it,

>it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also... Costuming was great, story

No, Russian! It is a very loose adaptation of the sagas of Ilya Murometz and

the Golden Table champions of Kiev.



From: CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")

Date: 16 Apr 91 03:47:59 GMT

Organization: The Internet


Greetings from William de Corbie.


I just got home after seeing a really good movie which

should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's

"Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who


The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with

the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful.

The photography is masterly, there are great battle

scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and

Hollywood could never have made it.

See it.





From:_Hollie Domiano

Subject: A great film

Date: 18 Apr 91


On the <Apr 16 20:13>, "]ke Eldberg" (1:114/15 at v_p) whispered in my ear:

"E>Greetings from William de Corbie.


"E>I just got home after seeing a really good movie which

"E>should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's

"E>"Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who


"E>The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with

"E>the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful.

"E>The photography is masterly, there are great battle

"E>scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and

"E>Hollywood could never have made it.

"E>See it.


Greetings, m'lord William.

I saw Cyrano myself and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Gerard Depardieu was “fantastic, and the nose was very convincing makeup.  As for the period, well, “there is some controversy about it, but I like cavalier costuming.  Our barony “had a cavalier event last year.

Four stars!


Ysabeau Madeleine deRouen

Axemoor, Meridies



From: esp at cup.portal.com (Emily Sue Pinnell)

Date: 16 Apr 91 04:56:21 GMT

Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca


Another great film for SCAdians starring the same actor is "The

Return of Martin Guerre."  Also French, it is period, and is fantastic.

Everyone should see it.  (My own humble opinion.)


                        Amelie d'Anjou



From: klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Karen Williams)

Date: 4 Jun 91 20:56:22 GMT

Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes:

>From the latest Robin Hood movie (the one with Patrick Bergin)

>I quote:

>(Will Scarlet berating a Norman baron:)

>       "A land ruled by thieves, robbers, murderers and autocrats!"



I got a chuckle out of that one, too.


I saw this movie last night (through the magic of videotape), and I was

impressed. When I first saw Robin Hood, I thought, "Hey, he's dressed like

a Saxon!" And the Normans were dressed like Normans, and had Norman haircuts,

and carried Norman kites and spears, and had Norman helms. And the Saxon

clothes were different from the Norman clothes, and everything.


Of course, I wasn't surprised when I saw in the credits that the historical

advisor was Professor Sir James Holt, who is the premier Robin Hood scholar



Branwen ferch Emrys

The Mists, the West


                                                   Karen Williams

                                                   klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com



From: mittle at blinn.watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)

Date: 14 Jun 91 20:05:14 GMT

Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research


So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw.  Better to rent the Errol Flynn

version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home.






(excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1)


by Vincent Canby


If you let a bunch of unskilled carpenters loose in Sherwood Forest, don't

be surprised if you wind up with a load of kindling.


That's about the only coherent response to Kevin Reynold's "Robin Hood:

Prince of Thieves," starring Kevin Costner as that once-merry man Robin of

Locksley, aka Robin Hood.  The new movie is a mess, a big, long, joyless

reconstruction of the Robin Hood legend that comes out firmly for civil

rights, feminism, religious freedom, and economic opportunity for all.




It's a measure of hwo muddled the movie is that the only two entertaining

characters are subsidiary: Robin's beloved Marian, a beautiful,

intelligent, strong-willed woman played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and

the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman

with a wit and humor that are otherwise not found in the film.


Mr. Costner and his associates seem to ahve approached their subject

without a clear idea about the kind of move they wanted to make.  In the

production notes, there are jokey references to the classic 1938 version

and the fact that Mr. Costner refused to wear the sort of green tights

sported by Errol Flynn's Robin Hood.


It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters.




It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have

their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20

pounds heavier than he does that same evening.


With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem.

He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his

fans.  He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself...  This Robin Hood gives

the impression of being lethargic and dull.  Sometimes he may be

under-acting.  At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all...


From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)

Date: 19 Jun 91 22:33:09 GMT

Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


/ badorion at watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian A. Dorion) / writes:


>In article <9106171724.AA20900 at inmet.inmet.com> justin at inmet.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks) writes:


>>The cast was fine, except for a minor annoyance named Kevin Costner. Having

>>the only really conspicuous American accent in the cast, he managed to mouth

>>pretty speeches in a rather lifeless manner.




>I have to ask, wasn't Christian Slater in the movie you saw?  Every time

>"Will Scarlet" opened his mouth, it was like getting kicked in the teeth.

>I thought his american accent was much, much worse than Kevin Costner's.


>Overall the best comment that I heard was that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

>was a live action cartoon, and the actors who did best were those like the

>sheriff who recognized that they were in a cartoon.


  I agree completely.  Azeem, the Sheriff (and his cousin), Marian, and several

others overplayed their parts to the larger-than-life theme quite well.  Rather

like the job that Kurt Russel did in _Big Trouble in Little China_.  Costner

_underplayed_ his part, he almost seemed embarassed to be Robin; he would have

done better to ham it up for this movie.

  Still, it was a fun movie.  Good action, good characterization, even the

majority of the garb was period, though not all of the same period, rather like

the SCA...

  I had hoped for better, but for the price I payed it was worth it.  I and

about 50 other SCA-types got in for free by doing a demo for opening night.

The theatre asked us back in the fall, to do one for this movie in the fall!?


>Brian Dorion                   Konrad Matthias Jager


Kevin MacKinnon - Unser Hafen - Outlands



From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair)

Date: 17 Jun 91 02:15:19 GMT

Organization: Wesleyan University


> So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw.  Better to rent the Errol Flynn

> version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home.


    I had a somewhat better appraisal of the film, but that IS a damn good time

at home.



> (excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1)


> by Vincent Canby


> the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman


      Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend prior to

the Douglas Fairbanks film.

      I found the more fully fleshed Will Scarlet intriguing, and Alan Rickman

( the Sherrif) gives a typical good performance (mixed w/ off-center humor).


> It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters.


  True enough.


> It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have

> their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20

> pounds heavier than he does that same evening.




> With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem.

> He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his

> fans.  He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself... This Robin Hood gives

> the impression of being lethargic and dull. Sometimes he may be

> under-acting.  At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all...


    True. But, perhaps the view of Robin not a charismatic Hero, but as

(roughly) highly-motivated Everyman is the look he was after.


            I recall your review of HENRY V. What do you think of the actual

LOOK of the film (Grimy castles, costumes, etc.)?




From: Ioseph

Subject: Re: Arval's Robin Hood review

Date: 21 Jun 91


TU>From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair)

TU>> the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by

TU>Morgan Freeman


TU>      Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend

TU>prior to the Douglas Fairbanks film.

???????????? Would you tell me -where- he appears? As a -rabid- Robin Hood

fan <grin> I would remember such....and such a person appears nowhere in the  ballads (to my knowledge) nor in the published versions of the story (of which I prefer Howard Pyle's).....

                                                -Ioseph of Locksley

                                                  (the -original-)



From: jakos at DPW.COM (Ceilene Jakos)

Date: 19 Jun 91 13:49:07 GMT

Organization: DP&W, New York, NY


Rented "King Arthur--Young Warlord" last night and thought it

was murky, messy and muddy enough to be an accurate accounting

of an 'historical' legend!  To my untrained eye, it was GOOD.





From: artemis at hlafdig.stonemarche.ORG (Diana Goldsmithe)

Date: 14 Jul 91 06:00:47 GMT


        In all this talk of period matches and movies I had to

share this one: we took out an old movie called *Knights of the

Round Table* starring Robert Taylor and (I think) Ava Gabor.

It said on the box it was a classic, and I certainly think

everyone in the SCA would enjoy it- especially the tournament

they have for Lancelot when he comes back from Scotland ("the

Scots are revolting" says Lancelot, "The Scots are always revolting"

says Arthur. Well, `in revolt', but my mind turned it around the

right way) I won't tell you why you'll like the tourney- when

someone goes out and rents it and sees, they can tell you.

        But anyway, while Lancelot is up in Scotland he is caught

by a Pictish ambush, and his archers use this nifty little

gadget with a tiny bellows attached to a fire box to light

their flaming arrows. If someone could tell me whether the

producers made it up, or whether they really had something like

that, it would ease my mind considerably.


        Thank you                       Arastorm



From: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko)

Date: 26 Jul 91 23:09:21 GMT

Organization: Benden Weyr, Saskatoon Sk. (306)-382-5746


Greetings from Werewulf of London! Yes, that's documentable! Seriosly,

though, an excellent period movie is Lion in Winter. It stars

Elizabeth Taylor as Elenor of Aquitaine. Peter O'Toole plays King

Henry. a much more recent one is called Sorceress. It is in French

with English Subtitles. It is a true story based on a manuscript in

the French equivalent of the British Museum Library. There is Erik the

Viking, if you want something silly. It stars John Cleese as Halfdan

the Black.

These are the only ones I can remember right now. There is an early

film about Henry and Elenor. I can"t remember it's name right now.

Avoid it like it was plutonium- laced plague rats.

By the way, my persona's name is actually Layamon of York. Werewulf is

my alter ego persona.


Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22

UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko

Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG

Standard Disclaimers Apply...



From: moss at cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)

Date: 27 Jul 91 15:42:41 GMT

Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)


Elizabeth Taylor as Eleanor of Aquitaine in Lion in Winter? It was Katherine

Hepburn and she got an Academy Award for it. Still a great film, though!


Aell Aethelwita, called Ellethel

Bergental, East Kingdom



                J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor

                Department of Computer Science

                Lederle Graduate Research Center

                University of Massachusetts

                Amherst, MA  01003

                (413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss at cs.umass.edu



From: rhe6 at quads.uchicago.edu (mindy miriam rheingold)

Date: 27 Jul 91 16:34:47 GMT

Organization: University of Chicago


_Lion in Winter_ stars Katherine Hepburn, not Liz Taylor, as Eleanor.  It

also features Timothy Dalton and the actor who played Arthur in Excalibur.


Another great movie is _The Return of Martin Guerre_ (French, with subtitles),

which is based on actual 16th century French court documents.


One caveat about Lion in Winter: even though it has some of the best lines

in cinema history ("I made Louis take me on a Crusade, etc...), some of them

are rather anachronistic.  I do not think, for example, that Eleanor of

Aquitane would really have said "It's 1193, we're all barbarians," a)

because seh would have felt no need to mention the date, and b) because

she wouldn't have thought of herself as a barbarian (The English, on the

other hand...)


Mindy/ Madeleine



From: rick at olivee.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Rick Meneely)

Date: 30 Jul 91 01:21:55 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca


An excellent non-historical fighting scene is in "The Princess Bride"

Staged between Cary Elwess ('The man in black') and

Mandy "... Prepare to die" Pankin (sp???).  It does an excellent job of

playing with the audience.  First it starts out as a simple line fight as

in modern fencing but bursts into evermore complex exchanges.  I would

not say that it is the most realistic fight scene but it is certainly one of

the best staged.


Romeo and Juliet:  There is an old version with Basil Rathbone (no - not as

Romeo).  He does an excellent rapier and dagger duel (and loses of course).

This is no surprize as Basil I believe was an international fencing master.

Unfortunately he made too good of a bad guy and always had to lose to that

Errol Flynn guy.  Errol Flynn by the way - was a very poor swordsman.


Robin and Marion:  This is simply an all around great film.  It has

Sean Connery (Robin), Audrey Hepburn (Marion), Robert Shaw (Sheriff) and

Nicol Williamson (Little John) - remember him from "Excalibur" (Merlin) and

"The 7 percent solution" (Sherlock Holmes).  The armor is real

(yes - even the mail) and correct for the time period. The fight scene

between Robin and the Sheriff is excellent.  It demonstrates the weight of

the armor well, they even take a break during the fight to recover

their wind.  Probably one of the more realistic fight scenes I've seen.

This film also does something that is very hard - it actually adds to the

Robin Hood legend instead of simply retelling it.


Some other good historical films:


The Conqueror:  Charlton Heston, Tony Curtis (blaah!), Richard Boone (I think)

Very good film of the Norman era in England - even the haircuts are right.


El Cid:  Charlton Heston

The screenplay is a bit to much like a stage play but it's still worth watching.


The Return of Martin Gueirre (sp??):  Someone has already mentioned this film.

It is very well made and based on a real person.


                                        - Anatar Mael Duin


| Rick Meneely                        | Internet: rick at .ATC.Olivetti.Com    |

| Olivetti Advanced Technology Center |                                    |

| Cupertino, Ca 95014                 | When in Rome, do as the Visigoths...|

| Disclaimer: The buck stops...There! |            SACK IT!!!               |




From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)

Date: 1 Aug 91 05:26:30 GMT

Organization: Open Communications Forum


In article <416.28965438 at weyr.FIDONET.ORG> Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko) writes:

>Greetings from a much repentant Layamon of York! Terribly sorry to get

>Katherine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor mixed up.

>another good period movie is The Name of the Rose, Starring Sean

>Connery as a 13th or 14th century Franciscan who solves a series of

>murders at an italian[?] monastery. Several caveats, though. I don't

>think that monks ewre quite as depraved and lecherous as Umberto Eco,

>the Author, woul like us to believe. Second, the theory behind

>witchcraft was not as well developed in the forteenth century as it

>was portrayed in the film. F. Murray Abraham plays an excellent

>Inquisitor. Another strongpoint is that the various theological,

>philosophical, and social currents of the time are accurately

>portrayed. It is a "heavy" film, in the sense that it helps to have at

>least some idea what the nominalist/realist debate was all about.

>Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every

>person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be

>wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The

>Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it.

>I can't remember his name offhand.


>Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22

>UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko

>Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG

>Standard Disclaimers Apply...


Milord, you will find the movie a good deal less confusing (though no less

"heavy") if you read the book, which does give some better clues as to which

heresy was which. It also makes a lot of the motivation easier to understand.


(I recommend *both* forms.)



trifid at agora.rain.com



From: cctimar at athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles de Mar)

Date: 1 Aug 91 07:18:46 GMT

Organization: Vanderbilt U. Student of Numerology


To all the fisher folk upon the Rialto doth Charles de Mar send his greetings!


Layamon of York hath written:

> Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every

> person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be

> wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The

> Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it.

> I can't remember his name offhand.


Is it not trouble enow to correct errors of historical fact, without

trying to make others know the same myth thou dost, with the same details

thou knowest?


The sword in the stone, to the best of my knowledge, was not a historical

fact, so its name is also not historical fact.  The best we can do is say

what the various authors say.  In the English tradition, Sir Thomas Malory

is probably the most "authoritative."  


Almost every author is agreed that Excalibur was the name of the second

sword - the one that the Lady of the Lake told Arthur to take from the hand

sticking out of her lake.  Some authors use the alternative version,

Caliburn, for the first sword, drawn from the stone, but this probably

shows a desire just to name it something.


The confusion of calling the first sword Excalibur is quite understandable:

it is the only widely accepted name of Arthur's sword.  In fact, the

mistake is made by Malory himself, making it a documentable, period error.


Arthur receives the second sword at the end of Book I, entitled, "Merlin."

Prior to that point, he uses the sword he drew from the stone.

Nonetheless, about a third of the way through this book, when Malory

describes Arthur's battle against the six kings (on p. 19 of the Vinaver

version, representing p. 9 of the Caxton edition, and probably the eighth

leaf of the Winchester manuscript (the first eight leaves are missing)) we



    Syr said Merlyn to Arthur fyghte not with the swerde that ye had

    by myracle til that ye see ye go vnto the wers. Thenne drawe it

    out and do your beste. ... and euer sir Arthur was in the formest

    prees tyl his hors was slayne vndernethe hym.  And therwith kynge

        Lot smote doune kyng Arthur.  With that his four knyghtes rescowed

        [receyved?] hym and set hym on horsback.  Thenne he drewe his

        swerd Excalibur but it was so bryght in his enemyes eyen that it

        gaf light lyke thirty torchys and therwith he put hem on bak and

    slewe moche peple.


Incidentally, the movie, _Excalibur_, remained very close to the tradition

of Malory.  Not exactly authentic, but otherwise good.


    -- Charles de Mar, Vanderbilt University student of numerology and geometry



From: KGANDEK at mitvmc.mit.EDU (Kathryn Gandek)

Date: 5 Nov 91 18:41:19 GMT

Organization: The Internet


The other day I picked up The Black Arrow by Walt Disney in the children's

section of the local video store.  The background of the movie is supposed

to be the War of the Roses.  It has lavish costumes, okay fighting (there's

only one actor who appears to have had any serious training, Oliver Reed,

and I'm told the archery was awful), a nasty villian, a spunky heroine and

a happy ending.  The number of costume changes was actually quite amazing.

I don't know if the style of clothes all belonged in the same time period, but

they were quite lavishly constructed.


The plot is a frothy one (minimal substance) about an evil man with innocent

wards and an avenging figure from the past.  A thoroughly enjoyable no-brainer.


Catrin o'r Rhyd For          Kathryn Gandek

Barony of Carolingia         Boston area

East Kingdom                 kgandek%mitvmc.bitnet at mitvma.mit.edu



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU

Subject: Russian garb (was Polish garb sources <was Re: Headdresses & Colors)

Organization: New York University, NY, NY

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 20:49:20 GMT


Genevieve asked after Polish and Russian costume sources.

Soviet movies often did an incredible amount of historic research.

I hardily recomend "Andrey Rublev" - a movie about the life of an

important 15th cent. artist (it's also got lot's of blood and gutz

and quite a bit of philosophy). Aside from Russian costume it's got

a few Mongols running around.

   Incidentally, since both Polish and Russian clothing has a strong

Persian influence I'll mention this:

Look at clothing on DuraEuropos synagogue paintings (Persian 2nd cent.)

and that worn by some of the more traditional Hasidim (based on Polish

18-19th cent.) - not much difference, ius there?

Also, some of the Russian peasants still have not changed their clothing

(since the 15th cent.).


Nahum haKuzar       <FNKLSHTN at acfcluster.nyu.edu>



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark)

Subject: Re: Mailed feet (again...)

Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 03:33:18 GMT


        OK, I'll bite. I didn't see your original post, but I take it

you're looking for references to armoured footwear.  I'm not

an armourer, but I have seen a terrfic video called "How a Man

Schall be Armed"...it's put out though the Tower of London musuem,

but I got my copy at the Metropolitan Musuem of Art in New York. I'm

sure you could order it through one of these museums. Anyway, there

are nifty close-up shots of a man putting on 16th century armour, including

sabotons.  BTW, there is a nother vido on the tape called "Masters

of Defence"  which describes the beginnings of fencing.


Hope this helps...




From: odlin at reed.edu (Iain Odlin)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights

Date: 2 Aug 93 06:33:33 GMT


  And to Moreach's note of "Robin Hood: Men in Tights"'s existence, I add a

  rousing:  Grab your friends and see it!  It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and

  it's great fun!  And a bloody good laugh.  It helps if you're a movie trivia

  buff (There're dozens of sight gags referring to other movies -- I love

  being the only person in a theatre giggling at certain moments!), but that's

  only for the (sometimes not-so-) subtle stuff -- there's plenty of slap-

  stick, too.


  Besides: Cary Elwes almost does Errol Flynn better than Errol did!  And he's

  cute to boot! ;)


  [And for those of you wondering about my 'orientation' right about now:

  I'm straight, but I'm able to appreciate beauty where I find it.]


  Your mileage may, of course, vary, but I've met noone who didn't at least

  find the movie amusing.



  -Iain Odlin, a man in tights

   "Are my seams straight?"

------------------------- Iain Odlin, odlin at reed.edu -------------------------

                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103

--------------------- N is for Neville who died of ennui ---------------------



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu (Joshua Brandon)

Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights

Organization: Brown University Mathematics Department

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:28:26 GMT


Dixit Vincent:


>A bunch of us at Canton Skraeling also went in garb (six atomic bodices,

>several tunics, 2 men in tights, everyone else in mundanes) and enjoyed

>the movie.  Lots of groans at the jokes, lots of laughs at the slapstick,

>no complaints about authenticity (yeah, like, who expects authenticity

>from Mel Brooks?).


Note: this is *not* a complaint about authenticity.


Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie going

around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!?


It *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when

Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England!  (Okay, it wasn't

perfectly consistent --- Prince John's throne had France on it.)  I was in

hysterics!  My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you,



Great movie.  :):):)




Joshua Brandon          Brown Math Department   brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu

        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"  ---Cutter John




Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)

Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:54:41 GMT

Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research


Greetings from Arval!  Simon wrote:

> Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie

> going around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!?  It

> *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when

> Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England!


It gets weirder: Stewart, as Richard, was wearing France quartered with

England, the form of the English royal arms during the Hundred Years War.

The answer is simple. Captain Picard travelled back in time twice: Once to

take the English throne as Henry V and again to take the throne as Richard

I.  Which further explains why I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting

for Richard to bless Robin & Marian's marriage with "Make it so!"


PS: I'm not sure when Castile and Leon were first quartered together, but

I'm fairly certain it was after Richard I.


> My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you, dear...."


If it makes you feel better, everyone with whom I went noticed it, and only

half of us were heralds.


Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com



Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.org.sca

From: Alexx at world.std.com (Alexx S Kay)

Subject: Re: Three Musketeers movie

Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 18:51:08 GMT


There have been a number of people making reference to the current

version of the Three Musketeers in comparison to the 70's version.  I

would just like to remind or inform you all of the truly excellent

1940's version, with Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan.  Many of the stunts in

the current version which were done with tricky camerawork and stunt

doubles, Gene Kelly just *did*, and with more grace than I would have

believed possible if I hadn't seen it.  Go down to the video store and

check it out!



Alexx at world.std.com



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)

Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations

Organization: Indiana University

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 22:29:07 GMT


        The Return of Martin Guerre (15th c. French Peasants)

        Anne of 1000 Days (Anne Bolyn)

        Romeo and Juliet (Fellini 15th c. Italian)

        Blackadder (English War of the Roses comedy)


        All of these have their problems from a historical point of view

(except maybe Martin Guerre) and all of them will have something that

the Authenticity Police will gripe about, but they're good films in

their own right. They also don't butcher history and grind the carcass

into mincemeat like Robin Hood: Dances with Bows or some of the more

dreadful 50's costume dramas.

        Romeo and Juliet has some duello, but since I'm not a light

weapons fighter I don't know how good it is.


        Lothar (who's STILL waiting for a decent film set in the 14th c.

                to come out. The Navigators was O.K. but hardly

                 distinctively 14th c.)



From: julifolo at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (watkins julia k)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations

Date: 26 Feb 1994 11:49:21 GMT

Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


I missed the original thread, so I don't know how late is late. I

would like to recommend

        NAME OF THE ROSE (14th century)

        THE BLACK ROSE (17th century)

        Richard Lester's THREE MUSKETEERS (17th century)


Yrs, Folo



From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations

Date: 27 Feb 1994 02:15:17 GMT

Organization: EPAS Computing Facility, University of Toronto


        This isn't a feature film, but it is germane to the

discussion.  The Metropolitan Museum of Art puts out an excellent

film called _Masters of Defence_ which discusses the evolution of

personal defence (fencing) from the early 16th-18th centuries.  I

highly recommend it.




Canton of Eoforwic

sclark at epas.utoronto.ca

P.S.....lots of nifty swordplay, too!



From: faust at ace.com (Faust)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: thought experiment

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 13:00:51 EST

Organization: Argus Computerized Exchange


Just to insert a small aside.


The movie ARMY OF DARKNESS  (nee' Evil Dead III)   reads as a very silly

version of A CT. YANKEE.  With all the attendant problems being

discussed here.  (gunpowder, cars as battlewagons, etc.)

Thomas of Berwick     faust at ace.com    



From: UDSD073 at DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike Andrews)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Costumes: 6 Wives of Henry the Eighth

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 10:05

Organization: The University of Oklahoma (USA)


MMS6824 at tntech.EDU writes:


>I have been watching "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" and I am wondering if

>anyone has any comments on the Costuming?  It looks rather good to me, but I do

>think that in at least one case (The Countess that dies with Catherine Howard)

>the actress should have had more than one costume.


>MArian of Clann Kyle.


They're rather interesting close-up, too. My Lady Wife and I were

privileged to see all the costumes for this film on our second

voyage to England, where they were on display in the crypt of (?)

Canterbury Cathedral, I think. They were still impressive close at

hand, but it was obvious that some shortcuts had been taken in

construction. As an example, the Archbishop's golden pectoral

cross, so impressive in the film, turns out to have been made of

some hundreds of the very smallest cup-hooks, all glued together

and then spray-painted gold.


Sic transit gloria mundi.


  Mike Andrews

     udsd007 at ibm.okladot.state.ok.us    (



From: melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: 29 Jul 1994 16:22:33 -0400


Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:

: What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?  

: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.


my votes:


the lion in winter

(and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?)

lady jane

henry v


and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress').  

it's pure schlock.


Lady Angharad Melys

Sacred Stone, Atlantia


melys at cybernetics.net



From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 07:09

Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office


melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love) writes:


>Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:

>: What are your favorite medieval movies out there? The Warlord?  El Cid?

>: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.


>my votes:


>the lion in winter

>(and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?)

>lady jane

>henry v


>and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress').

>it's pure schlock.


>                      ...melys, looking forward to seeing

>                                   other people's favorites...


Alfred the Great (Good battles nice period feel, characters are rather

60's ish)

Robin Hood (No not the silly one but the one with Patrick Berghan sp?

once again nice period feel and this time fun characters)

The Crusades (C.B. deMill at his gaudiest)

Robin and Marian (Very good Richard cameo by Richard Harris)

Ivanhoe (There are two versions in most video stores both are good for

different reasons rent them both and you decide which you like best)


Well this is a short list for now, More to come.


Siohn ap Govannan


(Who is butting in on someone elses conversation but I'm a celt so

its natural)

>Lady Angharad Melys

>Sacred Stone, Atlantia


>melys at cybernetics.net

>that which does not kill me had better run like hell...



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: RE: movies

From: Mary Catherine Miller <D982 at ACADEMIC.NEMOSTATE.EDU>

Date: 01 AUG 94 18:20:09 CST

Organization: Northeast Missouri State University MUSIC System


>What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?

The Name of the Rose

The Seventh Sign

A Lion in Winter

Any Robin Hood movie not matter how cheezie

Much Ado about Nothing  1993

That's all I can think of for now.  I look forward to making a

checklist of of SCA folk's opinions on this matter.

Slaine ni Cieran


BTW I have a professor who says that Monty Python's The Holy

Grail is one of the best medieval movies ever made.



From: mabr at sweden.hp.com (Morgan "the Dreamer" Broman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: 3 Aug 1994 10:49:26 GMT

Organization: HP/SCA/SKA/FSTS/AMTS/SLRP/ETC Sweden


Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:

: What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?  

: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.


El Cid w. Charlton Heston (nice athmosphere, great masses of soldiers etc)

Excalibur..;) (I know it is romantic fantasy...but then so is SCA..)

Robin and Marion (Good clean fun...;) )

Ivanhoe (Simple and heroic...)

Robin of Sherwood (TV-series w. Michael Praed(sp?) )

Monthe Python & The Holy Grrrraaiiil...




....too many videos...sigh...;)


HP   : Morgan Broman                             mabr at sweden.hp.com



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair)

Date: 4 Aug 94 07:58:27 EDT


Henry V (Branagh) is excellent, esp. as Agincourt reminds me of the Pennsic 18

        field battle.

Hamlet (Mel Gibson), especially the clothes and artistic direction.

The Lion in Winter. Just darn good.

The Vikings. Go figure ;-)

A Man for All Seasons


Assorted silliness:

Erik the Viking

The Black Shield of Falworth

The Court Jester


and for those in later period:

The Three Musketeers (Richard Lester)

The Four Musketeers  (Richard Lester) -Splendid examples of '70s costume films.

Richard III (Olivier)

Much Ado About Nothing (Branagh)

Elizabeth the Queen (Bette Davis)

The Sea Hawk (Errol Flynn)



From: mchance at crl.com (Michael A. Chance)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: 3 Aug 1994 20:22:12 -0700

Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


Kvedjur fra Mikjal!


Here are some of my favorites that haven't been mentioned yet:


Becket (the first movie in which Peter O'Toole played Henry II)

        Has some scenes that rival _Lion in Winter_ for memorability.


Ladyhawke (not exactly historical, but good, none the less)

        Also has (IMO) the best choreographed bastard sword fight in film.


Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect)

        Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the

        grittier side of the Renaissance.


Pleasant watching!


Mikjal Annarbjorn


Michael A. Chance          St. Louis, Missouri, USA   "At play in the fields

Work: mc307a at sw1stc.sbc.com                             of St. Vidicon"

Play: mchance at crl.com

      mchance at nyx.cs.du.edu



From: goddess at access3.digex.net (Louise K. Rogow)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: 4 Aug 1994 04:33:07 -0400

Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


In article <31pmt4$fle at crl4.crl.com>,

Michael A. Chance <mchance at crl.com> wrote:

>Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect)

>      Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the

>      grittier side of the Renaissance.


Flesh and Blood.  I first saw that movie at a party where almost

                  all the viewers started commenting on the garb.


Keep the Faith,




From: Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan     POLI SCI)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: movies

Date: 3 Aug 1994 21:30:16 -0400

Organization: the internet


One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from

1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no

business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along

with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the



A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman

England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.

My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,

standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone

have an idea what movie this might be?


Jonathan (Iban)



From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 07:08

Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office


In article <2E403FD7 at courier.sscnet.ucla.edu>,

Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan     POLI SCI) writes:


>One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from

>1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no

>business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along

>with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the



>A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman

>England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.

>My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,

>standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone

>have an idea what movie this might be?


>Jonathan (Iban)


Sounds like Alfred the Great, David Hemmings as Alfred and Michael York

as the king of the Danes, directed by Richard Donner I believe, but

am not sure, made in the 60's. I taped it off of the TV late one night

and have never seen it in any video catalog or at any video store.

Siohn ap Govannan




Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: delint at meena.cc.uregina.ca

Subject: RE: movies

Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 12:36:14 GMT

Organization: University of Regina, Regina, Sask., Canada


In a previous article, Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan      POLI SCI) wrote:

>One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from

>1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no

>business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along

>with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the



>A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman

>England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.

>My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,

>standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone

>have an idea what movie this might be?


>Jonathan (Iban)


That's probably _Alfred the Great_, silly show of the '60's.  The battle

scenes are GREAT (to give the viewers an idea of the horror of war, and

thus protest Viet Nam, no doubt), but the plot development rushes past like

a politburo funeral.  Well suited for video, since you can compress some of

the tedium (although it's generally historically accurate).


Cedric van Kiesterzijl

(Real life? Never use the stuff...)



From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: movies

Date: 5 Aug 1994 00:12:09 GMT

Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS


        I'm feeling late period today. How's about:


        A Man for All Seasons (about Thomas More)


        Elizabeth R. (the six part series w/ Glenda Jackson)


        And of course, Blackadders I and II (no, they're not movies, but...)


        For those of you heading towards the 17the century, there's

        The Last Valley (30 years War, loads of famous people)

        and Cromwell (he looks WAY too good, but the costumes are nice)


        What's that movie about Michaelangelo and Pope Julius II?




Canton of Eoforwic

sclark at epas.utoronto.ca




From: sco at mchr.nteltec.com (Stephanie)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Movie Review - Rob Roy

Date: 29 Mar 1995 05:20:12 GMT


My lord and I just returned from a preview of the new film "Rob Roy".

Although this film is about 100 years OOP, it was absolutly stunning.

The story of one Scotsmans fight against the system, it is a brutal,

passionate, and visually stunning portrayal of rural life in the 1700s.

Liam Neeson stars as Robert Roy MaGregor, a Scottish land holder who

risks everything for his honour.  Jessica Lange stars as his wife who

must live with the consequences.


The film is filled with wonderful dueling scenes, highland panoramas,

castles where I would love to hold an event or two, and some costumes

that I thought were lovely (but I am no expert in that field).


If you have the oppertunity, I would recommend that you see this film

and if you have an easily stirred heart, make sure you pocket some kleenex

before you go.  Rob Roy is currently set to open on April 12th.


Lady Isabel d'Estella

Baronial Scribe

Barony of Twin Moons, Atenveldt


Stephanie Valencia


sco at mchr.nteltec.com



From: errickii at aol.com (Errick II)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Braveheart,a review...

Date: 27 May 1995 08:57:51 -0400


Braveheart the Movie!


>" Has anyone seen this movie yet?"


I've started seeing that question and already I've read the answers

with the usual picky responses.


Well today I saw it...and it's time for my review.

( Drum roll please...)

(Soapbox mode on...tongue in cheek ;-) )


On a 4 star scale......


I rated this MOVIE ******


A 6 ?? U betcha!!! Best $1.25 an hour I've spent in a long time.


Let me repeat, this MOVIE was excellent. Running time is 3 hours, you

really get your moneys worth. I thought the acting, scenics, battle scenes,

weapons, armor, in fact just about everything about the MOVIE was...,

was..., spine tingling!??!. (words just  fail me, gasp...).

When you buy your ticket enter" SCA event mode" and ignore the minor

things. Things like 1100AD personas interacting with 1500AD personas

or an exposed plastic cooler laying next to a shield reenforced with mans

greatest tool "Duct Tape" at a local event. In the MOVIE..., things like a

hand and a half claymore in half sheath, blue painted men with kilts, unusual

armor combinations, you know the usual things EVERYBODY bitches about.


This is entertainment, not a historical thesis, sit back, relax, enjoy the leisurely pace of the first hour. Be prepared to cringe, cheer, laugh, and possiby shead a tear or two in the last couple of hours. Graphic violence is very much in evidence, and the battle scenes are awesome.


This is a movie for stick jocks and stick jock wannaabees. I feel Mel

Gibsons "persona" in this film could easily fit into the SCA, in fact it

could be used as a guide to what it takes to makes a knight.


Ok... have fun ripping on this one!

As always, reprint rights are granted free. Donations of mead, etc. gladly



(Soapbox mode off ).



errickii at aol.com



From: salley at niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Anyone seen Braveheart yet?

Date: 27 May 95 15:42:47 GMT

Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208


Better still, did anyone catch Mel Gibson on _The Tonight Show_ Thursday?

Jay announces Mel, waits by wings, nothing happens for about twenty seconds,

and then suddenly dozens of bagpipers start marching into the studio from

stage left, stage right and the back of the audience all playing _Scotland

the Brave_.  Suddenly the camera zooms in and Mel is in the middle of the

bagpipers wearing a tux from the waist up and a kilt from the waist down!

The screaming of the women drowned out the bagpipes!


It was wonderful.  Mel brought canned hagis with him and Jay couldn't eat it

while Mel was munching and eating.  Jay was trying to find out what Mel had

*under* the kilt.

        "Jay, why are you trying to look up my kilt?"

               "I want to know what's worn underneath."

        "Nothing's worn, the parts are in perfect working order!"

The audience went wild!  Mel brought out a live-steel claymore.  My wife

told me to stop drooling on the couch!  "You're not even looking at me, how

did you know I was drooling?"  "I married you, now stop drooling!"  


                                                       - Dagonell


SCA Persona : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, CSC, CK, CTr

Habitat           : East Kingdom, AEthelmearc Principality, Rhydderich Hael Barony

Internet    : salley at cs.canisius.edu  (Please use this, reply may not work.)

USnail-net  : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029



From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (John Doing)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: OK another Braveheart review

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 15:04

Organization: University of California, Los Angeles


Ok I saw Braveheart last weekend. This is not a work of historical

fiction but of historical romance (and I don't mean the torn bodice

school). In my humble opinion the film owes more to its Hollywood

anticedents then to its historical ones.


This is very much in the vein of Errol Flynn and Charlton Heston.

Costumes which look good to a modern eye no matter what they wore

in period. Changing fact to fit the fiction instead of the other

way around. On these terms it is a good film. Much romance without

mush or crassness, plenty of action, heroic characters, dasterdly

badguys, and a sense of humor.


Fans of Robert the Bruce will not like how he is treated in this

film, nor will fans of Edward.


As to the much discussed gentle thrown from a window scene, in my

humble opinion, his murder has less to do with his sexual nature

than in his common sense. In the scene, Edward arives from France to

find and army destroyed, Scotland lost, and York and most of Northumbria

taken by the Scots. The chief military adviser to his son (the person

responsible for the current state of affairs) then proceeds to

lecture the king on military affairs. It seemed to me, that no matter

who this gentle was or what his sexual preference he was going out

the window.


All in all I enjoyed the film, especially the battles (which were

remeniscent of a few SCA battles I've been in), and I have to admit

it has the best scene of blue painted, screamming celts, running down

a hillside of any film I've seen this year. I'd see it again, on the

big screen, especially if I could find a showing with a quite



Just my t'pence


Siohn ap Govannan

Barony of ALtavia

Kingdom of Caid



From: justin at dsd.camb.inmet.COM (Mark Waks)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Braveheart

Date: 1 Jun 1995 11:37:41 -0400


General opinion: very nicely done film.


One this whole historical-accuracy thing -- Braveheart is *clearly* a

deliberate melding of fact and legend. It's even self-conscious of

that; while it isn't omnipresent, there are a number of very careful

and well-done references to the nature of legend in the film. (Eg,

Wallace being told that he *can't* be *the* Wallace, since the real

one is seven feet tall.) I suspect that Gibson deliberately took the

historical record and blended it with the best legends.


Frankly, I think it works. Several times, I was struck by how Robin

Hood-like the whole thing was, and I am rather impressed by the way it

managed to combine the *scale* of Prince of Thieves with the *flavor*

of the Patrick Bergin version. That is, it managed to be grand and

powerful, while still *feeling* right. Yes, there are lots of details

wrong, but they just don't jar you the way Prince of Thieves did.


And the pacing is, IMO, magnificent. It never goes rocketing along,

but it proceeds in a *very* careful, measured way throughout. Getting

through three hours without ever really dragging is an accomplishment

any director could be proud of.


Worth the money, and maybe worth watching a couple of times...


                                -- Justin

                                   Who has to concur that the battle scenes

                                     sometimes looked *just* like Pennsic,

                                     except with quite a bit more blood...



From: dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Movie: Queen Margot

Date: 22 Jun 1995 12:47:30 -0400


  Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering

how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history

(I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were

the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri,

Catherine, etc.) what they really did?


The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie,

even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were



Estrill Swet

Mooneschadoweshire, Ansteorra



From: ej613 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Maureen S. O'Brien)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Movie: Queen Margot

Date: 25 Jun 1995 04:46:24 GMT

Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet) says:

>  Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering

>how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history

>(I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were

>the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri,

>Catherine, etc.) what they really did?


>The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie,

>even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were



I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book (Dumas' MARGUERITE DE

VALOIS).  It was based on folklore about the period (Catherine de'Medici

as a poisoning, plotting evil genius behind the Huguenot massacre, whereas

actual evidence shows that she and most of the royals weren't too pleased

by it all (riots are _so_ messy!).  Or at least so I understand.


I know about English history. Or Irish.  Or Japanese.  Surely somebody

knows something about French history around here!


Maureen S. O'Brien         We are like the roses ---

ad451 at dayton.wright.edu               We are forced to grow.



From: CUYR15B at prodigy.com (Joe Mariani)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: First Knight

Date: 10 Jul 1995 14:31:02 GMT


*** A long rant-n-rave with spoilers! ***

I know this is all just nit-picking, so if you're offended by that sort

of thing, don't  read this!  Some of this is about anachronisms <G>, but

most of it is about divergences from legend...


I have never been so offended by a movie as I was by "First Knight".

I ignored the cheesy title and figured I'd give the film a chance.

This proved to be a mistake.  The title may have been the best thing

about it.  The dialogue was awful and the costuming more reminiscent

of bad space movies than bad fantasy movies.  At the end of the film,

the people behind me were crying.  My friend told me later he wanted

to turn around and ask them why they were crying -- was it tears of

joy because the movie was over, or were they crying because they were

so upset at throwing away money better spent renting "Excalibur", "The

Sword in the Stone", or even "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?  When

the end credits began to roll, I said "You hear that whirring noise?

That's Sir Thomas Malory spinning in his grave".  This is a list of

SOME of the things that I felt were so wrong about this movie.  All in


the BEST thing I can say about it was that I went to a matinee instead

of seeing it at full price.


1. Lancelot was a commoner, a wandering showman.  He was not knighted

until more than two-thirds of the way through the film.


2. Guinevere was the Lady of Lyonesse.


3. Prince Malagant's men (Arthur's main foe) used tiny hand

crossbows with the power to put steel bolts (!) right through



4. Malagant wielded a sword like none ever seen in a museum, with a

blade that widened halfway down and a serrated edge!


5. The armor worn was not chain mail, but resembled hundreds

of the pop-tops from soda cans sewn together.


6. Arthur's men wore tight-fitting blue uniforms that would have been

more at home on the Battlestar: Galactica set.


7. Even priests in Camelot wore blue!


8. Guinevere's father was dead before the movie began.


9. After Lancelot just happened to be around to rescue Guinevere from

abduction (the first time), he sleazily tried to force himself on her.

Richard Gere showed more class and style propositioning a hooker in

"Pretty Woman".


10. When he married Guinevere, Arthur was an old man, having already

been king for many years.


11. Camelot was a huge walled city, bigger than 17th-century London!

Actually, it looked like woodcuts of 17th-century London, with all the

Tudor houses...


12. The only one of Arthur's knights mentioned by name was Agravaine.

Where were his brothers, and all the rest of the Knights of the Round



13. Arthur's sword was just another blade.  The name Excalibur was

never mentioned.


14. The symbol of Arthur Pendragon was a gold dragon.  No dragons,

gold or otherwise, were seen in the film.


15. No mention was made of the Grail, Merlin, or Mordred, either -- all

central to the Arthur legend.


16. The bizzare machine called the Gauntlet -- wasn't that just a

little beyond medieval technology?


17. The one and only time Lancelot and Guinevere kissed, they were

caught in the act by Arthur himself.


18. During the public trial of Lancelot and Guinevere for treason (?),

Camelot was surrounded by the enemy and taken.  


19. King Arthur was killed by 4 of Malagant's steel crossbow bolts,

shot by Malagant's soldiers.


20. King Arthur left his kingdom, and his wife, to Lancelot.


21. Arthur's body was set adrift on the (remarkably calm) ocean on a

barge, which was then set afire with a flaming arrow.  Before the

arrow was shot, smoke was rising from the barge, exactly where the

arrow would hit...


Now, as I recall the story (Reader's Digest version), King Arthur

became King as a very young man with the help of Merlin and

the sword Excalibur.  After subduing those who opposed his

ascendancy, he sent his best friend and favorite knight,

Lancelot (the son of a French King), to bring his promised bride,

Guinevere, whom he had never seen.  Lancelot and Guinevere fell in

love during the trip.  For years, Guinevere and Lancelot tried to hide

their love, but it was an open secret, and the King forgave them

completely until his half-sister, Morgause (or Morgan), caused

Agravaine (one of her sons) to catch the two in flagrante delicto, as

it were, and force the matter into the open.  Lancelot fled, and the

Queen was accused of adultery.  Lancelot rescued her and held off the

rest of Arthur's knights in his castle...  to make it short: Mordred,

Arthur's son by his half-sister, took over the kingdom while Arthur

was in France.  In a huge battle, begun by accident (a soldier drew

his sword to kill a snake while Arthur and Mordred were discussing

peace), Mordred mortally wounded Arthur, and was killed by him.  After

Arthur died, he was taken away in a barge by his half-sister (now a

nun).  Lancelot became a priest, along with the knights that were left

(Bedivere and Percival, I believe).  Guinevere became a nun.  Maybe I'm

wrong, but I think the story's good enough to be filmed as is.


  CAVALIER         CUYR15B at prodigy.com


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: a-mikem at ac.tandem.com (mckay_michael)

Subject: Re: First Knight

Organization: Atalla Corporation - San Jose, CA.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:57:42 GMT


   As predicatable as day, the "accuracy" tear-down starts on First Knight.  

It is not worth bothering, since it never said that it would be accurate.  

Our local group did a demo in front of the theater, and than saw one of the

showings.  Overall we enjoyed the movie (I give it 2 out of 4 stars). I

pondered the director's decisions to use the names from the Arthurian mythos.  

On one hand, it set very strong tones, and allowed a lot of credence for certain

feelings (like the unity of the knights, the type of king being protrayed,

etc.).  The biggest drawback was that after using these archtypes, the

characters and story line were not consistent (actually Arthur and Guenevere

were passable, but Lancelot was very different).  The ending was very weak,

typical Hollywood last minute re-write I'd bet.

   I don't have so much trouble with the story, the costuming (like the absurd

lock on the dye market that "Blue-Robe" TM must have had ;-)   My problems are

where the story ignores the arch-types that it used to build the background.

If you go and see the movie, accept that this is not an Arthurian myth, and

take it as a story on it's own.  I must say that having just completed reading

Mallory a few weeks before the meeting, I would have much prefered seeing the

real Lancelot on the screen (instead of the somewhat unsavory character named

Lancelot that Gere protrayed).


Seaan McAy   Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West  (Santa Cruz, CA)



Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:48:49 -0400

From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>

Subject: SC - Fetal Rabbits as "fish", et al.


> From: "Anne-Marie Rousseau" <acrouss at gte.net>

> Subject: Re: SC - Lenten foods


> The more I learn about the real middle ages, the more I realize that most

> of the stuff I thought I "knew" was a bunch of urban legends and

> misinformation propogated by undereducated (and underpaid) fifth grade

> teachers and bad Errol Flynn movies.


The only bad Errol Flynn movie I'm aware of is "Cuban Rebel Girls", but

if you were referring to historical inaccuracy, I'm inclined to agree. I

saw, within the last couple of years, the 1938 "Adventures of Robin

Hood", complete, uncut, in a large-screen theatre. I was with a couple

of friends from the SCA, and we spotted, in the scene where Robin busts

in on the Norman feast, a large platter of cubes of blue Jello. When

Robin slams that stuffed deer down on the table, the Jello quivers

dangerously, which prompted one of my companions to shout, "There's

ALWAYS room for Jello!", and another to shout, "It's alive!"


So much for Mystery Science Theatre 1190...



troy at asan.com



Subject: ANST - bad period movie alert! ....

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:16:57 MST

From: "j'lynn yeates" <jyeates at bga.com>

To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG


if you like Monty Python (and who dosn't) and bad humour (and who

dosn't)check out a tape rental i stumbles across last night ... "The High

Crusade" ...


sounds familiar, no?  as it should, it's based *very loosely) on the Poul

Anderson novel of the same name (alien invasion scout sets down in

england ... taken over by a medieval army ... attempt to use it to get to

Jerusalem for a Crusade ... double crossed by pilot .. end up elsewhere ..

the barbarians wreck all kinds of havoc in the process ...)


... cheesy special effect, bad dialog, plot?  what plot?, see the points

where the money for special effects ran out and they just went ahead and

used the blue-screen backgrounds ....


we have ....one silly frenchman, two smashed ponies (damage report!),

three skewered saracens, alien roasted rabbit, alien lovefest with the lead

singer from motly crew, clone-fu, ale fu, arrow fu, garbage-fu, male


belts, knitted fabric mail, clueless male virgin, medieval industrial rap,


pay particular attention to who is playing brother Parvus (how far the

mightly have fallen ... )


one the "groaner scale" we'll give this one a 4.5 ...






Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 12:36:52 MST

From: jhartel <jhartel at net-link.net>

To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG


Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I

know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie

was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn

drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the

entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is

marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful.





Subject: Re: ANST - EVER AFTER

Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 06:41:19 MST

From: njones at ix.netcom.com

To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG


Greetings Moriel!


> Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I

> know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie

> was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn

> drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the

> entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is

> marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful.


I second the recomendation.  I saw it last night.  It's not quite the "MTV"

story that the TV trailers might suggest.  It's a delightful diversion.


Like any good fairy tale, it requires some suspension of disbelief, but it's

quite enjoyable.


Angelica Houston is wonderful, fabulous and incredible, of course.  Her best

role since Morticia Addams. She is quite evil, yet manages to portray the

character with a human side as well.  She brings some depth to the "wicked

stepmother" that could very easily have just been a caricature.


I'm not really a costumer either, so I can't vouch for all the clothes,

however, there were one or two mens outfits that were wonderfully done, and

I could point to the paintings that they can be found in.


All in all, a good date movie.






Subject: ANST - movie

Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 21:21:50 MST

From: sabella <sabella at gte.net>


Good gentles, on the local pbs station I just discovered

a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas.

A movie entitled ''kiss me kate.''

the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming

of the shrew'' the costuming especially the males

its truly interesting.  Gives one some great ideas

for tights.

the woman's costuming is not far off, of course

those hysterical green eyelids are unique....but

hey its the movies.  not truly period - but like I

said some great ideas.




Subject: Re: ANST - movie

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 08:11:43 MST

From: Amberglyph at aol.com

To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG


sabella at gte.net writes:

<< a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas.

a movie entitled ''kiss me kate.''

the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming

of the shrew''  >>


Ackk!!! NO!!!  This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but

the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track

down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton



HL Oriana Corbizzi



Subject: Re: ANST - movie

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 98 08:49:02 MST

From: zarlor at acm.org (Lenny Zimmermann)

To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG


On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 11:03:14 EDT, HL Oriana Corbizzi wrote:


>Ackk!!! NO!!!  This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but

>the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track

>down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton



For fantastic costuming (and general details as well) in late 16th

Century Venice (that's getting into the Early Modern Era, for Italy)

try "Dangerous Beauty". It is based on the life of the famous Venetian

Courtesan, Veronica Franco. Phenomenal settings, backgrounds, props

and costumes  and an exceptionally good movie to boot. I highly

recommend it.


Honos Servio,

Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg

(mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)

zarlor at acm.org



Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:27:17 -0500

From: Melanie Wilson <MelanieWilson at compuserve.com>

To: "INTERNET:sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>

Subject: Cadfael - Costume Accuracy


I have to agree here, but I'm afraid that's the Media for you !


I was unfortunate enough to agreed to go with my group to the making of the

recent BBC Ivanhoe series as an extra, we were told to have the correct kit

etc etc. We arrived most of us in newly made stuff for the event (as we do

13th C) only to be taken out of it and put in nylon and polyester rags,

have our faces smeared in mud and all traces of headresses removed. My poor

daughter was in the most aweful rag (literally) WE then got to stand out in

the hottest day that year with little offer of water or other refreshment.


The pesant clothes were naff, rags mainly, we all had to be dirty. The

'stars' costumes were far too late mainly fantasy creations that appeared

to be based on 15th kit or later.


Never ever again.


I'm sure there must be some Media costumiers who know their stuff, but

nearly every production I've seen recently had glaring errors, which is sad

when the UK production companies were once well know for their great

productions !


Anglia's Hornblower, the  Sharp series and Bramwell, though not without the

odd error were in general pretty good I thought.





Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 01:39:10 MST

From: "B.Byers" <phantom at camalott.com>

Subject: ANST - Gladiator: the movie

To: "Ansteorra" <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>


Greetings unto the populace


On a mundane note, after a long day of building prints at my mundane

occupation of projectionist, I was rewarded. The reward was screening

Gladiator. Well, It was quite a movie. I enjoyed it immensely. Although

a work of fiction, based on history, it was a movie I would happily see

again. As a whole, I think that we the public being more informed than

ever before has forced Hollywood to at least have a basis in research.

I'll not give away anything! :) But It was grand to see the Coliseum for

what it was historically, a Wonder of the Roman Empire and a Marvel of

Mechanics for it's time period. On a personal note, I am still vexed as

to why we think it is acceptable in playing Romans to have an English

accent? Immediately we think "phony" when we hear an american accent in

such a role. Hmmmm..... Guess it's Shakespear's Legacy that all Romans

have an English accent. :) I have gotten off track....


The movie...... Must see, I felt it marched (not plodded) toward an

interesting climax, sparked with action. The characters I felt were

believable and human, helping draw us into a world that remains only

through study and research.


Well, enough of this non-essential opinion. I thank you for your time


Ld Magnus

Shire of Mendersham



Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:15:35 -0400

From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>

Subject: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall?


Olwen the Odd wrote:

> At the risk of sounding like I live under a bushel--

> What is Blackadder II?


This a group of related BBC historical comedy series, starring Rowan

Atkinson, based on the premise that Richard III was a kind man and a

good king, painted as a rotter by his eventual sucessor, Henry Tudor,

a.k.a. Henry VII. Seems he never killed his nephews in the Tower of

London (which he probably didn't anyway), and his nephews grew up to be

big, strong boys.  Seems Richard _won_ the Battle of Bosworth Field,

only to be killed in the aftermath by his sinister but incompetent

grand-nephew, Prince Edmund, all of which places Richard's nephew, who

was not killed in the Tower, on the throne of England in the brief,

glorious, and entirely fictional reign of Richard IV of England. The

rest of the series focusses on the machinations of evil Prince Edmund,

The Black Adder (but originally styled The Black Vegetable) to take the

throne of England over the claim of his virtuous, pinheaded elder

brother, Prince Harry.


There's a second (and to my mind, superior) series, in which the

great-grandson of the original Prince Edmund, Lord Edmund Blackadder, is

an impecunious courtier to Queen Elizabeth I, and in one episode

Blackadder finds himself strangely attracted to his servant, "Bob", who

is secretly a girl in disguise, fleeing the poverty of her childhood

home to seek her fortune in London.


Future series focus on Mr. Edmund Blackadder, butler to Prinnie, a.k.a

The Prince Regent, later to be George IV of England, on Captain Edmund

Blackadder, scheming to avoid the impending order to go Over The Top of

the trenches in France, c. ~1916 C.E., and on excessively kind and

generous banker Ebenezer Blackadder, taken advantage of by one and all,

until being visited by three spirits who teach him the true meaning, and

value, of being an S.O.B.


There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never materialized.





Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:35:29 -0000

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nanna_R=F6gnvaldard=F3ttir?=" <nannar at isholf.is>

Subject: Re: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall?


Adamantius wrote

>There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never



No, but there is a new show, originally made to be shown in the infamous

Millenium Dome in London, called Blackadder Back and Forth, in which

Blackadder and Baldrick travel through thime. It will be released on video

in November of this year, I believe.


For more information (and summaries of each episode of every part of the

series), try:






Newsgroups: rec.org.sca,soc.history.medieval

From: djheydt at kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)

Subject: Re: Period (Medieval & Renaissance) Movies

Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:51:01 GMT


David <drorer at fuse.net> wrote:

>> Oh, I'll happily defend _Ladyhawke_ as medieval any day of the week 8-)

>> The main plot line is medieval romance, and the rest of it is more

>> authentically medieval than many and many a "historical" I've seen.


Do you know the side-story about that plot?


When the film came out, the studio's publicists put out a

statement that its plot had been based on an old medieval legend.


The scriptwriter sued.  "*I* invented the plot!" he said.  "How

dare you suggest that I got it from some old story?"


The case did come to trial.  Harlan Ellison came in as a sort of

amicus curiae, looking after the rights of the screenwriter just

on general principle.  And various professors of medieval

literature were called in, to testify whether the story was old

and medieval or not, and of course what *they* all said was "No,

can't say I've come across a medieval legend with that kind of

plot, but then in the Middle Ages a writer never claimed to have

made up a story himself, he always said he had found it in some

old book somewhere, even if he really had invented it and the old

book too."


Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin                         Dorothy J. Heydt

Mists/Mists/West                               Albany, California

PRO DEO ET REGE                               djheydt at kithrup.com




From: alchem at en.com (James Koch)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Movie Review: King Arthur

Date: 29 Jun 2004 21:16:29 -0700


I have just returned from an advance showing of King Arthur.  I am not

quite sure as to why this movie was made, aside from the potential to

rake in a large amount of money.  I believe this is why our local SCA

group was invited en masse for a free showing.  We are expected to

apprise all our on line friends and get them out to the theaters in

their thousands.  I shall not reveal any plot points.


This movie was a total surprise since it bears absolutely no relation

whatsoever to any of the Arthurian legends with which I am familiar.

If you saw Troy and were annoyed by the way it veered from Homer's

story, then you will absolutely hate the movie King Arthur.  On the up

side the movie does present a new twist on an old tale.  I mean, in

the middle ages people made up these legends, what's to stop Hollywood

from doing the same today?  So don't go in expecting Mallory, go in

expecting Gladiator.


Everyone in the SCA who sees this movie is going to get into the usual

argument over authenticity, and there are plenty of anachronisms to go

around.  Enough said.  Aside from the issue of authenticity there was

the greater problem of believability.  Some objects were beautifully

made, like the Roman carrus and carriage driven in an opening scene.

Then there were the villages which appeared to be built just so that

marauding Saxons would have something to burn.  These movies always

have too many villagers and too few cows, sheep, and crops.


On the up side the individual characters of the knights were presented

and developed.  The actors also did a great job of portraying

believable fear prior to being sent off on one last dangerous rescue

mission.  These are characters who bleed and die.  Think Seven

Samurai.  This movie also contained plenty of archery, which made

sense since Arthur's knights were all Sarmation heavy cavalry.


On the down side, this movie was one of the most anti-Christian

propaganda pieces I have ever seen.  All of the Christians in

positions of authority, with the exception of Arthur, were portrayed

as cowards, self serving opportunists, and insane sadistic fanatics.

Of course the pagan Saxons were worse.  But the most glaring

anachronism of all was Arthur's constant cry of "freedom!".  It just

didn't make any sense in the context in which it was being shouted.

When Mel Gibson cried "freedom!" in Braveheart, at least you knew he

was talking about Scotland's freedom from the the English yoke.  In

this movie it would have made more sense for Arthur to have shouted

"victory!", "Britons unite!", "senatas populusque Romanos", or "death

to the Saxons!".


Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: Zebee Johnstone <zebee at zip.com.au>

Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:34:30 GMT

Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia)


In rec.org.sca on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:56:47 GMT

Frank  Thallas <hardcorps at earthlink.net> wrote:

>    I thought it was just me thinking that...<G> I understand that costumers

> have to play to the director's

> "vision", etc, but if we're spending that much time and money to make the

> thing, why couldn't they afford hairpins?  Frenchoid hoods, gable hoods, (at

> one point Anne had a "first communion" veil/tiara combo), all sorts

> of headwear - and hair dangling out from under it...


I expect because they wanted a look they thought worked for the



WHich is why modern cowboy movies have such a different look to 50s

ones.  Long hair and stubble, in the 50s not even the villains looked

like that.


Neither the 50s movie cowboys nor the ones of the last 10 years looked

like the pics from the 1880s,  but that's not important to the makers of

the show.  They want something they think resonates with modern ideas of

what's "young" or "handsome" or "tough".  Modern makers of plays or

films about are period want the same thing.  As long as the gear worn

suggests the audience's idea of what the period dress was, that's as

much period as they need, the main idea is to give the modern audience

cues for "pretty" or "young" or "rich" or whatever.


It's like stage combat - it isn't *supposed* to be accurate.

It's supposed to be visible from the back seats and make the point

the director wants it to make.  Whether that's "The villain's a slimy

cheating bastard" or "The hero is angry" or "we have to get the hero

to stage left so the heroine can walk into him at the right moment".

With minimal rehearsal time and badly balanced weapons that can still

hurt an actor and cost the production a lot of money if that happens. If

the fight director can make it sorta close to what swordwork is like

while doing that, good oh!  But don't expect it...


Same with costuming.  The costume designers job is to give modern cues

about character and social position and position in the movie, while

fitting in with the set designer and with the director's idea for set

pieces and moves (eg flowing vs tight makes a difference to a

character's appearance and therefore affect on the audience).  If they

can do that while getting close to period, good oh!  But that's well

down on the list.





From: "Michael Grossberg" <geejayem at earthlink.net>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:29:19 GMT


"Peter Grooby" <peter.grooby at airwayspants.co.nz> wrote

> hardcorps at earthlink.net says...

> >    There are worse.  What was the Viking movie with the "Six Million Dollar

> > Man" guy? <G>


The movie was called "The Norseman".  It wasted the (admittedly not great)

talents of  Lee Majors,

and even more so of Jack Elam.  I shame to admit that I actually _paid_ to

see this stinker.  The errors

in accuracy were absolutely howling!  Norsemen using crossbows? No wonder

they couldn't seem to hit

anything with them!  Incidentally, the movie is immortalized in the old SCA

filk song, "Freaking the Mundanes"

--Went to "The Norseman"/ To hear Lee Majors shout "ODIN"

    The price was right/ we got in free

    And we sang as we sat and barfed into our paper bags

    You'll come a freaking the mundanes with me!


Gardr Gunnarsson

Barony of Settmour Swamp



From: tmcd at panix.com

Date: January 12, 2005 3:34:38 PM CST

To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>

Subject: [Bryn-gwlad] Braveheart (hochkhkhk PTUI)


On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 Brian_Martin at dell.com wrote:

> [tmcd at panix.com, Daniel de Lincoln]

>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 kmarsh at cox-internet.com <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>

>> wrote:

>>> Re: "Bravesmith"...good one.


>> The word "good" doesn't belong anywhere near an allusion to

>> _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI).


> And I thought that I was the only one who felt that way about

> Braveheart. Freeeedooooomm!!! Give me a break.


To address the second point: I suspect that "freedom" was a potent

word in the Middle Ages, even if they weren't nationalistic in the

same way as today.


But as for loathing _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI): there's a reason

why soc.history.medieval calls it TFWNSNBU, or "That Film Whose Name

Shall Not Be Uttered".  Sharon Krossa discusses / disses it briefly at



     Basically, as an historian, my opinion of Braveheart is that it is

     a work of fantasy, not history. Any resemblance to actual persons

     or events, in other words to real history, appear to be purely

     accidental. My best advice, for anyone interested in the real

     story of William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and the Scottish Wars of

     Independence, is not to believe anything, whether major or minor,

     depicted in the film, but instead read some reliable history books

     about the period. Enjoy the film as a fantasy film, by all means

     -- just as one enjoys Star Wars or any other work of the

     imagination -- simply do not mistake it for history. The events

     aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't

     accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate

     -- in short, just about nothing is accurate.


     Admittedly, the film does have a few elements that coincide with

     real history. However, there isn't one of these elements that I

     feel I can mention without having to explain all of the many

     associated elements leading up to and/or inextricably intertwined

     with it that do not coincide with real history. And once started

     explaining the inaccuracies, there is no stopping -- they are so

     very numerous. (See Braveheart Errors: An Illustration of Scale.)

     And, of course, unless one already knows the details of the true

     history of William Wallace and the Wars of Independence, there is

     no way from just watching the film one can determine which aspects

     of which elements are those few that coincide with real

     history. It is far safer, and far more efficient, to just ignore

     the whole film, as regards history, and read a good Scottish

     history book instead.


She then goes on to link to some bibliographies.


<http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml>; is

four pages (on my screen) of explanations with


     So, in the [first] two and a half minutes (of which a full 50

     seconds is nothing but movie title graphics and a further 45

     seconds is nothing but aerial scenery), the film manages to cram

     in the following errors:


and lists 18 errors, some major.  "The sons of knights did not dress

in rags."  "Edward I was a Christian." "There is no reason at all to

think that late 13th century Scottish men had 'mullet' haircuts from

the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their

hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or

feathers in their hair. Further, there is no reason at all to think

they hadn't ever encountered a comb..."


_Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI) is just another hatchet job by Mel

Gibson, who has a massive hate-on against the English and is willing

to lie through a nine-inch plank to blacken them.  If you're going to

be bigoted and hate the English, at least hate them for things that

they actually did.


Daniel de Lincolia



From: Brian & Pam Martin <twinoak at cox-internet.com>

Date: January 12, 2005 6:00:35 PM CST

To: 'Barony of Bryn Gwlad' <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>

Subject: RE: RE: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven


<<< I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was

wrong with Braveheart?  I'm not very well up on my Scottish history.


Lai-Han >>>


Well, from an historical stand point there are a lot of things wrong with

it. Like Princess Isabella (or was it Isabelle?) was about nine years old,

and therefore not a possible love interest of anyone let alone William

Wallace. Her nickname later in life was the "She-Wolf of France" if that

tells you how well liked she was by the English. Much of what was attributed

to Wallace in the movie was really done by Bruce, and the movie version of

the Battle of Sterling Bridge didn't have a bridge in it. (I'm still doing

the math on that one.) Then there was the blue face paint, bad armor, bad

costumes and, oh I could probably go on for a while but you get the idea. By

the way; one thing the movie did get right was the Scots' nickname for

Edward I - Long Shanks. But they failed to mention his more famous nickname

in the move: The Hammer of the Scots. Edward only lost one battle to the

Scots, and he didn't win because of Bruce's treachery. Edward II was a weak

and lousy king which was another thing that the movie got right.





From: Marlin Stout <ldcharles at ev1.net>

Date: January 12, 2005 10:46:20 PM CST

To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>

Subject: Re: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven


Ryan Saathoff wrote:


> I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was

> wrong with Braveheart?  I'm not very well up on my Scottish history.


> Lai-Han


Well, let's start with 5:


-William Wallace wasn't a farmer. He also wasn't a Highlander. The film

depicts him as both.

-Edward I wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk. If memory serves, he was

dead by the time the battle was joined.

-Not only did Wallace not sleep with the Princess of Wales, he likely

never even met her.

-Edward I didn't kill his son's lover by throwing him out a window.

-Robert Bruce wasn't the wishy-washy non-entity the movie makes him out

to be. He was, in his younger days, considered one of the five best

knights in Christendom. His main reason for not fighting Edward I

wasn't that his father told him not to, but because he realized that

Edward II would be a much less formidable opponent.


Randall Wallace, the guy who wrote Braveheart, says in the author's

notes of the book that it's not an attempt at an accurate history. That

pretty much says everything about it: when the author admits it's

fiction, what more needs be said. I found it telling that the only

'historical' piece that Wallace has gotten right is We Were Soldiers,

which also starred Mel Gibson. Of course, when he did We Were Soldiers

he had the real Col. Moore looking over his shoulder, and in position

to thump him severely if he didn't get it right...





From: mmagnusol <MMagnusOL at nc.rr.com>

Date: January 6, 2007 9:19:43 PM CST

To: - Adrian Empire - NC - Shire of Galloway <Shire_of_Galloway at yahoogroups.com>, - Austlend - Vikings-NA in NC List <Austlend at yahoogroups.com>, - Authenticity List <authenticity at yahoogroups.com>, - BARONY of WINDMASTERS' HILL <keep at windmastershill.org>, - IrgenTLA <IrgenTLA at yahoogroups.com>, - Manx <TheManx at yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Beware! Grendel Cometh


Next Saturday, Jan 13, at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time

will come the Sci-Fi Channel premiere of Grendel.

This looks to be the one they have been filming in the

States [I know they did some at Fork Union, VA.] Instead of being

a big budget Hollywood type movie, it apparently was one of the

SC)I-FI Channel Clones.  Which can be OK at times.


If you like Vikings in helmets with huge horns on their helmets

working a  trebuchet a few centuries out of their time-line

boy/girl is this the movie for you.  The rest of us will grin and bear it,

well probably not the soapeaters, but the rest of us. Ben Hur it ain't.

Personally I am waiting for the new season of Rome.




Reminding all those Atlantians out there to program the VCR before

heading to Twelfth nite...........


<the end>

Formatting copyright © Mark S. Harris (THLord Stefan li Rous).
All other copyrights are property of the original article and message authors.

Comments to the Editor: stefan at florilegium.org