Haha this is like the perfect movie all philistines loath. Beware all ye going from one Marvel movie to the next.
I agree it is an inversion of the poem. I really like the title cards between each story vignette, and it is just so gorgeous. Sort of a Valhalla Rising + The Last Temptation of Christ in the Arthurian sense.
This was not great, not terrible? Not really a movie I have a strong opinion about either way.
It had some aspects where it was just being weird for the sake of being weird. (Dying tied to the tree, the giant sequence). But it was pretty easy to follow along. I thought the ending was pretty good.
I recall he wasn’t tied to a tree. Just tied up on the ground near a tree. The skeleton thing is just imaginary. Took it as his thoughts if he just laid there, that would be his fate.
The giants on the other hand are just kind of there. I guess it is kind of funny he wanted to ride on their shoulder to cut on travel time. One of them speaks but I didn’t catch what it said. The audio is really weird there.
The “death” at the tree is important because it introduces us to the movie’s ability to hit the undo button. When that undo button is used again later in the movie, it doesn’t feel like a cheat.
The giant sequence is kinda random though, but in the movie’s defense, I recall that segment being labeled “interlude” or “intermission” or something like that.
I was gratified that I heard more than one podcast critic compare the giants to the aliens in Fantastic Planet, which is what I thought of. (If you’ve seen that film, you will never forget it. I saw it late at night on cable and if it hadn’t been for the occasional commercials, I would have thought it was a fever dream.)
What did you guys think of the double-casting of Alicia Vikander? What was the thematic or narrative reason for that? Was there even one?
-Tom
I’m bad enough with faces that I didn’t realize it was her until the end credits.
I didn’t realize she was playing both roles right away but eventually it sank in. I enjoyed the contrast in her characters and the dreamlike quality of that choice, but I was way too far past understanding to make sense of it. Still, there’s never anything wrong with doubling down on Alicia Vikander!
If Vikander is in it, you have to do a podcast on it @tomchick
Especially if it’s an interesting movie.
They could have triple-casted her as St. Winifred too.
yeah, I was confused. I can’t get a theory working about that, other than she is such a great actress and she only had a small role as a peasant girl.
What do you guys think about the “painting”? I found it quite funny, smart and subtle. The Lord and the Lady seemed very interesting people! Like out of time…
I’m glad you brought up the “painting”, because I wasn’t sure what Lowery was implying when we see the picture hanging up behind Gawain on the throne. Did he return after he’d been crowned king and sack their castle? Did they sent the picture as a gift when he was king? Are King Gawan and the Lord and the Lady all buddies in this imaginary future? Or is this just a tacit admission that they were conjured up by Gawain’s mother, so the picture was part of her sorcery all along?
-Tom
I agree I don’t know what to think about the photograph/portrait being part of Gawain in the “last temptation” sequence. Maybe just a sign of his self-centeredness.
But as far as the two Vikanders, I took it as meaning they played similar roles of temptation for Gawain: Esel the peasant girl was part of Gawain’s temptation to cowardice, or at least complacency, keeping him from pursuing knighthood (and also leaving her life in limbo as well, since she could never be his lady). And the Lady was the temptation to dishonor/rejection of hospitality.
The meaning of the actual, uh… completion… of his dishonor with her is more obscure to me, in terms of its connection to the green sash.
This sounds very convincing to me. I just had a thought, now. In old times, when they put a play on stage, often times the same actor was used to play different roles. Maybe that’s an hommage to the art, craft and history of stage/theatre.
I’ve been thinking about that too. Here’s what I’ve got:
Despite his lust for a married woman – his fantasy of the girl he’s got back home but now also a Great Lady – his true desire is betrayed as something more selfish. He gives his seed, his strength, not to another person but to a protective trinket. He desires self-protection over the woman right in front of him.
Ah, nicely put. This sells me on the double-casting.
I was struggling with it, because I’m not an Alicia Vikander fan. She strikes me as a real lightweight. But I loved the casting in the rest of the movie. So many actors with powerful presence: Sarita Chaudhury, Kate Dickie, Sean Harris, Joel Edgerton. Even Ralph Ineson’s voice as the Green Knight, which is just so delicious delivering the last line of the movie.
And then Vikander gets two roles???
By the way, I think it’s a sign of David Lowery’s unique vision that he cast Sean Harris as King Arthur and Joel Edgerton as the mysterious Lord. The typical Hollywood casting would have the heroic leading-man’s-man Edgerton as Arthur and the wonderfully creepy Harris as the mysterious Lord. But Lowery turns so much on its head by casting it the other way around instead.
-Tom
Ooooooh, well done. This is a great explanation.
Disagree it’s random, although I don’t think the sequence is as meaningful as some of the other sequences. Basically, it’s another failed chivalric test: even though Gawain asks the giant for a ride, when it actually reaches out to grab him, he flinches, betraying his cowardice.
Isn’t the exchange of winnings chapter with the lord and lady suppose to be the chastity test of the five virtures of a knight, but there is a lot of other stuff going on instead.