Obviously we all are familiar enough with Geoffrey Chaucer and his magnum opus Canterbury Tales by now that it was impossible not to recognize the portrayal of both him and his tales in this film (Simon the Summoner and Peter the Pardoner respectively). Although his true personality may not have been as exuberant as Bettany portrayed it to be, I found it interesting the way the filmmakers decided to characterize Chaucer. I think they intentionally presented him as humorous and endearingly mischievous in order to get audiences to like him and pay attention to him when he appeared in scenes. This would work to their advantage because viewers would be more apt to listen to his lines which is where the real medieval accuracy lies. Since Chaucer is considered the father of English literature and noted for his poetic style, I believe the writers of the film specifically had Bettany's lines reflect historically what Chaucer is famous for (ex. nature of rhyming, use of prophetic imagery, and 'high brow' language).
Another character I was especially interested in was Heath Ledger as William Thatcher. It is easy to draw connections between his character and every other Christ-like dream boat that appears in Arthurian Legend (Lancelot, Galahad, even a young Arthur) but I was more interested in his assumed name of Ulrich Von Liechtenstein he utilizes throughout the film. After some brief research I found out that Sir Ulrich did in fact exist! Not only was he real but historically he was known as a medieval minnesinger (people who wrote love poetry in the courtly tradition) as well as a ministerialis (a word to describe the unfree knights during the High Middle Ages). Moreover, Ulrich's claim to fame is his poetry collection Frauendienst which includes two stories, one of which is essentially the plot of A Knight's Tale: A man in guise travels to a nearby town, competes in jousts and tournaments for a noblewoman, and the woman demands more deeds and mutilation from him for the honor to hold her hand. I can't imagine that filmmakers didn't intentionally draw from the real Ulrich and his work when deciding what to do with Ledger's character.
Stepping away from characters and looking at the movie from a more holistic perspective, I think the entire gist of four rag tag pilgrims who are down on their luck by society's standards but successfully 'change their stars' because of their inherently good nature is just another example of the challenges and pressures folks during this time period had to endure. It's odd because, before this movie I had never thought about it (or, I did but don't remember thinking about it) but, all of the modern day references embedded in this movie let me see just how similar the problems people dealt with then are the same problems we deal with today. Society shines the spotlight on the rich and famous, despite the fact most of them have been made sinful by their glory. Meanwhile, the everyday, well-meaning folks who are just trying to catch a lucky break are continuously being pressured by the world to stay in their socioeconomic place.
This isn't anything brilliant but...it just kind of sucks, ya know? I mean, society and civilization has advanced over 600 years since all of this and, regardless of how well we try to mask it, we're still dealing with the same exact issues. I guess that's why so many depend on their faith above all else. That promise of a better life/realm/place is enticing enough for people to leave the hope that their own stars may change up to a force so powerful and so personal that not even society can bring it down.
Overall movie rating: 4.5/5 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment