EXCALIBUR - HD DVD review

We shouldn't confuse the legendary Arthur with the possibility of a real-life Arthur. In 2004 we saw the mixed results of a Hollywood studio trying to base a movie on bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence regarding a real-life basis for the myth. It pays to go with tradition and the customary King Arthur of lore. It makes for a lot more fun. As does this new, high-definition HD-DVD transfer of one of the very best movie versions of the Arthur legend ever, John Boorman's 1981 production, "Excalibur." No, "Excalibur" is not the story of a former bullet. It's the name of Arthur's sword. The movie is often visually stunning, and the soundtrack music, based largely on snippets of Richard Wagner and Carl Orff, is a joy.

For nearly fifteen hundred years the tales of Arthur have kept people enthralled, their appeal diminishing only in the latter part of the twentieth century when superheroes with trench coats full of gadgetry replaced knights in shining armor. But director Boorman ("Point Blank," "Deliverance") revived the folklore, the pageantry, the derring-do, and the magic that had worked so well for ages, and he couldn't have done it better. "Excalibur" is romantic and brutal, lyrically beautiful yet grittily realistic.

No one is sure if Arthur actually existed as mythology portrays him, but it's pretty clear somebody existed. Arthurian scholar Geoffrey Ashe argues convincingly that the fifth-century British king Riothamus was the prototype for the character. Whatever, for the next five hundred years the oral tradition celebrated Arthur's deeds. Then by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries came the histories of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the poetry of Chretien de Troyes, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and others that really got the ball rolling. By the late fifteenth century Sir Thomas Mallory collected and wrote up the most famous narrative of Arthur's exploits, "Le Morte D'Arthur," 1485, and director Boorman based his film upon this account.

It is remarkable that Boorman and writer Rospo Pallenberg were able so successfully to condense most of the familiar stories into a mere two hours and twenty minutes of screen time. While the great love triangle of Tristan, Isolde, and King Mark is noticeably absent, along with Sir Gareth and Sir Galahad, almost everything else is properly in its place.

The picture begins with Arthur's birth at Tintagel on the coast of Cornwall, continues with his rearing by the necromancer Merlin, and relates his ascension to the throne by the pulling out of the sword Excalibur from the stone. Next, we see him uniting the various divided British kingdoms under one rule, then his marriage to Guinevere, and the subsequent betrayal of his wife and his best friend, Lancelot. Finally, in the second half of the film comes the Grail Quest, the collapse of the Round Table, the treachery of Morgana and Mordred, and the final battle and death of Arthur.

Any one of these episodes could be, and has been, the subject of an individual film. To have covered them all is quite an accomplishment. Boorman even manages to resolve some internal discrepancies among the many conflicting versions of the legend. Like where did Arthur really obtain the sword Excalibur? Was it the blade he drew from the stone, as some tales imply, or was it the gift he received from one of the Ladies of the Lake, as other accounts would have it? The movie cleverly has it both ways.

If there is any serious controversy about the movie, it's Boorman decision to clothe almost all the knights in full body armor, even though neither a real-life nor mythical Arthur would have worn such gear. And not only does the director have his actors fight in full armor, he has them wearing metal suits almost throughout the film. At one point, a character makes love wearing his armor, which must have been painful to both participants. Still, it is knights in shining armor that people expect, so it is knights in shining armor that Boorman provides. I have to admit, historically correct or not, seeing Sir Lancelot sheathed head-to-toe in gleaming silver plate is an rousing sight.

Among the many elements that make the movie work is its cast. Nigel Terry plays Arthur from youth through older adulthood. While he is slightly more convincing as the naive youngster than as the world-weary old king, his performance is steady. Cherie Lunghi as Guinevere is beautiful and effective in her youthful buoyancy and her later maturity. Nicholas Clay as Lancelot takes on a part that calls upon him to do little more than look appropriately handsome and heroic. He succeeds. The real scene stealers, however, are Nicol Williamson as the canny Merlin and Helen Mirren as his nemesis, Morgana (also known in the myths as Morgan Le Fay). John Boorman tells us in his narration that the two actors did not like each other at the time of the filming, in fact, didn't even want to appear together but Boorman thought the friction might actually intensify their roles. It seems to have worked.

The supporting ensemble is no less effective and features some prominent names: Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon, Liam Neeson as Sir Gawain, Patrick Stewart as Leondegrance, Paul Geoffrey as Percival, and Clive Swift as Sir Ector. Boorman filmed the movie entirely in the Republic of Ireland, and the location shooting is green and lush and luxuriant. Adding to the grandness of the action are musical excerpts from Orff's "Carmina Burana" and Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde," "Parsifal," and "Gotterdammerung."

Video:
After seeing "Excalibur" in a theater in 1981, I remember looking forward to owning it on tape. It was a long time coming, and when it did arrive it was disappointing. The VHS version was in pan-and-scan, blurred and grainy, with monaural sound that was loud and brash. By contrast, the 480-resolution, standard-definition DVD restored the film to something near its original widescreen dimensions. The colors were more neutral than before, skin tones less dark in appearance, although, overall, the hues were still somewhat softly focused. One could notice some excessive graininess, too, especially in the many dark scenes as well as in brightly lit sky.

Here, we have the HD-DVD in 1080 resolution, and again one can see noticeable improvement in sharpness and color, although perhaps not so great an improvement as in other HD-DVD releases, and certainly not the improvement one saw in the SD DVD over videotape. The HD-DVD's widescreen picture commendably fills a 1.78:1 television screen, and, yes, the colors are even more natural than before. Indeed, on direct comparison, the regular SD edition's hues seem more blurred and more garish, faces, for instance, appearing too orangish. However, even though the HD color is better, its greater definition makes the film's original print grain more noticeable than before, and given that most of the film's scenes are quite dark, visible print grain is inevitable. Add in the effects of age on the print, some noise and dirt, and the result is a bit on the rough side. I must also add that there were a couple of brief moments when the image appeared to jitter a tad. It was almost indiscernible, but I'd swear it was present and repeatable. Fortunately, it should not be a concern to any viewer who isn't looking for it, and it passes so quickly it is not worth fretting over.

Understand, Boorman set out to make a dark and gritty film (these were the Dark Ages, after all). He sets most of his picture at night or inside dark castles or dark forests. Boorman meant "Excalibur" as a kind of medieval film noir; he was not after a pristine, crystal-clear look. So, as a result of the director's intent and perhaps the effects of time, "Excalibur" does not display the best-looking HD-DVD picture quality on disc, not by a long shot, but, as I've said, it probably comes pretty close to representing the film's original print, and that's what any good video reproduction should do.

Audio:
The HD-DVD audio is in Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 surround, and like its previous DD 5.1 remastering, it opens up nicely in the front speakers, displays wide dynamics, and occasionally makes good use of the rear channels. Sound in the standard-definition disc's Dolby Digital 5.1 was often bright and harsh, and the HD-DVD's Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 modulates it slightly. Nevertheless, voices can often appear sour and pinched, particularly in the first half of the film. Oddly, in the film's second half the voices seem more normal. I noticed this issue in the SD edition, too, but the added clarity of DD+ makes it even more evident.

Anyway, the advantage of the DD+ track is that it not only softens the brightness, it increases the dynamic impact and the strength of the deep bass. There are a couple of moments when I thought the room was going to shake apart from the disc's low-end output. Finally, the DD+ made me more aware of subtle rear-channel sounds, things like environmental forest noises, background voices, and musical ambience. Thank goodness for small favors. Like the video, the DD+ soundtrack is not the best around, but it's an improvement on what came before.

Extras:
The HD-DVD offers no more in the way of extras than the earlier SD disc did. The main thing is director John Boorman's commentary track. Boorman has made all too few films, and the ones he has given us are uniquely personal. His inside look at filmmaking is worth one's attention. Otherwise, there are English, French, and Spanish spoken languages; English and French subtitles; English captions for the hearing impaired; a theatrical trailer; and a generous forty-five scene selections. And, of course, there are the usual Warner Bros. HD-DVD bonuses: pop-up menus, a zoom-and-pan feature, an indicator of elapsed time, and an Elite Red HD case.

Parting Thoughts:
Certainly, "Excalibur" is not the only good movie version of the Arthur legend it's simply among the best. Among many other films with their respective charms are "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" (1949), "Prince Valiant" (1954), "The Black Knight" (1954), "Lancelot and Guinevere" (1963), "Camelot" (1967), "Lancelot du Lac" (1974), "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975), "First Knight" (1995), "Dragonheart" (1996), and "The Mists of Avalon" (2001, TV). But none of them encapsulates so much of the Arthur magic as Boorman's film.

I know that many moviegoers today would rather see special-effects-laden sci-fi or fantasy extravaganzas than old-fashioned Romantic epics, but I hope we haven't dulled our imaginations so much by computer graphics that we cannot appreciate the excitement of chivalry, courtly love, prancing horses, and flashing steel. In the Arthur mythology we read that "Some day a king will come, and the sword will rise again." In "Excalibur" John Boorman proves that the feats of King Arthur and his knights can still capture and hold our attention. With the HD-DVD marginally improving the movie's audiovisual qualities, the romance and adventure of Arthur and his knights should flourish for some time to come.

"Here lies Arthur, the once and future King." --Sir Thomas Malory, "Le Morte D'Arthur"