King Arthur is a legendary figure whose story has been retold in various ways throughout history. Two of the most well-known versions of the Arthurian legend are the 1485 literary work “Le Morte d'Arthur” by Sir Thomas Malory and the 2004 film King Arthur. Both works display different perspectives of Arthur’s character and his story, but they share many similarities as well.
For instance, in “Le Morte d'Arthur”, Arthur is portrayed as the rightful king of Britain and the leader of the Knights of the Round Table. He is depicted as a courageous, chivalrous and wise leader, who is also the possessor of the legendary sword Excalibur. Furthermore, the book is full of thrilling battles, political intrigues and romantic adventures. One of the most
…show more content…
The film depicts Arthur as a Roman officer leading a group of Sarmatian
Singh 1 cavalrymen in Britain during the 5th century. Moreover, the story portrays how the Roman army faces a revolt by the native British tribes, and how Arthur and his men choose to stay behind and defend the Britons against the invading Saxons. In the movie, when asked about his identity, Arthur replies: "I am a man, nothing more. I was born in the year of our Lord, 467. I am the son of Uther Pendragon, and I am the rightful King of Britain." This quote display’s the humanity and humility of Arthur, as well as his right to the throne.
Finally to sum everything up, both Le Morte d’Arthur and King Arthur movies are different perspectives and take on the classic tale of King Arthur, one a classic medieval chivalric romance, the other a historically-based action movie. Both versions have their own unique exegesis of the legendary king and the characters around him, and both have contributed to the enduring popularity of the Arthurian legend. Both the book and the movie offer different perspectives on the character of Arthur and the world he lived in, but they both convey the themes of courage, leadership, and the struggle for power that are at the heart of the Arthurian