A Knight’s Tale as history without a past

I was watching A Knight’s Tale for the nth time yesterday. I have always liked it, but this time I started further reflections on it. For those who has not seen it; it a story about a thatcher’s son who become a knight, but the story is set in a mock Middle Ages. It does not even pretend much to be the Middle Ages; with costumes, music, language, references and humour as any film from our time, while the background mainly is ‘Mediaeval’.

It is a comedy and I do not know how much effort they have done in mediaeval research, but not to any extent is it a normal costume drama. However, what they have tried to show who the ‘cool guys’ were, who the trendy and how much fun a jousting competition was. I think it is fair enough to rather make an ‘experience’ of today set in the Middle Ages, than actually try to make the real thing. It is impossible to remake the past on film, and this is a way of admitting this. Perhaps this then make a better work of art; that rather try to tell us something than be a replica of real life.

I am always fascinated by costumes on film; no matter if it is a costume drama or not. When it comes to costume dramas it is easily for people to know a bit of costume history to see that the costumes chosen is the ones that look pretty in our eyes. Thus are adaptations of nineteenth century novels into film in the 1970s quite different from things made today. I found it quite honest from the makers of A Knight’s Tale that the costumes were creations of the imaginations rather that copies from the past.

Update:
Continue reading "History and myth"

Comments

[ksbrorson]

Mike writes:
If one cannot "remake the past on film" why/how is it more reasonable or viable to remake the present using the same medium? Isn't film artifice regardless of genre?

My opinion is that film is an artform and should thus be interested in the timeless, always present topics of man; their intrinsic value, their lives and their thoughts. Therefore, I do not necessarily think film is the best way of showing history,as the artistic value is more important than how the past is presented.

However, there will always be films that manage to capture the essence of a period; either our own or from the past. What I found interesting with A Knight's Tale was that it retold history in a way that can be linked to tendencies in present historiographical theory; where the construction, or the artistic creation if that is a prefered expression, of history is recognised as an important part of historiography.

[Mike]

Does man(kind) have "timeless, always present topics"? Do written words offer a better way to "show" history than cinema does?

Mostly clever, I think the hybridization of film genres and historical eras in A Kinght's Tale was achieved at varying degrees of success. Seems to me it was the filmmakers conspiritorial acquiesence to the "post modern" epistemology that decrees from high atop the slippery slopes of the French Continental mountains, with the full weight and ironic blessing of creative and disenchanted hipsters everywhere: "All the world's a cave. There is no light from which to eventually avert your eyes."

History is as History does.

Mike

[ksbrorson]

If it is so that there are universal truths of mankind, I believe art is the only way of reaching them.

Historiography, however, is an academic disciplin, no matter if it is situated in the arts department. Thus it can only try to make theories that that can explain the past, but will rarely discover universal truths (even though that was the purpose of historiography in the Enlightenment).

I do not want to claim that A Knight's Tale is the best historic film ever. I just wanted to point out that in addition to be entertaining as a comedy, it had the extra value of playing with postmodern historical theory.

[mike]

I think you're absolutely right that art (along with, perhaps, meditation and/or prayer )is the best way to get at any sort of universal truth.

I did not think you were suggesting A Knight's Tale is some great work of Historiography. My point was, and I guess I would take issue with Tonkin, as her stance is described by you, here as well (I'm embarassed to say I have not read her article), "History" is a construct regardless of its form. Considering Foucault's conception of knowledge/power, The work of Roland Barthes (esp. "Myth Today"), and any number of neo-marxist perspectives; different accounts of history may SEEM more "true" but ultimately, it is well argued, history writes itself.

That being said, current historiography's self awareness/reflexivity regarding subjectivity (i.e. that it is not positivist - but not wholly relativist either), for pragmatic reasons, seems to be the best methodology for which one can hope.

Now I'm going to go read Tonkin.

[tracy]

i thought the movie wasn't that bad except for that people kept taking it for a teen movie and not as a good movie for everyone to watch.