King Arthur 2017 (A Roundtable)
Sponsoring Organization(s)
International Society for the Study of Medievalism
Organizer Name
Amy S. Kaufman; Usha Vishnuvajjala
Organizer Affiliation
Independent Scholar; American Univ.
Presider Name
Ann F. Howey
Presider Affiliation
Brock Univ.
Paper Title 1
Discussant
Presenter 1 Name
Susan Aronstein
Presenter 1 Affiliation
Univ. of Wyoming
Paper Title 2
Discussant
Presenter 2 Name
Kathleen Kelly
Presenter 2 Affiliation
Northeastern Univ.
Paper Title 3
Discussant
Presenter 3 Name
Martin B. Shichtman
Presenter 3 Affiliation
Eastern Michigan Univ.
Paper Title 4
Discussant
Presenter 4 Name
Christine Neufeld
Presenter 4 Affiliation
Eastern Michigan Univ.
Paper Title 5
Discussant
Presenter 5 Name
Abby Ang
Presenter 5 Affiliation
Indiana Univ.-Bloomington
Paper Title 6
Discussant
Presenter 6 Name
Ann Martinez
Presenter 6 Affiliation
Kent State Univ.-Stark
Start Date
May 2018
Session Location
Schneider 1280
Description
Reviews have poured in for Guy Ritchie’s 2017 King Arthur, and some of them are pretty scathing. Chief among audience complaints is the film’s lack of authenticity: the story deviates so radically from medieval literature that Arthurian legend is barely recognizable. However, authenticity has always been a problematic way to evaluate Arthurian retellings. Sometimes called the “original fan-fiction,” medieval Arthurian legend is always revised and recreated to fit the political or cultural needs of a given period. And in fact, Ritchie’s film has been much better received among scholars of the Middle Ages. Participants in this round table will discuss the 2017 cinematic King Arthur and consider some of the following questions: How do Ritchie’s changes fit into the canon of Arthurian revisions? How does the 2017 film inform meta-theoretical questions of authenticity surrounding Arthur himself? What do Ritchie’s changes tell us about our own cultural moment?
Amy S. Kaufman
King Arthur 2017 (A Roundtable)
Schneider 1280
Reviews have poured in for Guy Ritchie’s 2017 King Arthur, and some of them are pretty scathing. Chief among audience complaints is the film’s lack of authenticity: the story deviates so radically from medieval literature that Arthurian legend is barely recognizable. However, authenticity has always been a problematic way to evaluate Arthurian retellings. Sometimes called the “original fan-fiction,” medieval Arthurian legend is always revised and recreated to fit the political or cultural needs of a given period. And in fact, Ritchie’s film has been much better received among scholars of the Middle Ages. Participants in this round table will discuss the 2017 cinematic King Arthur and consider some of the following questions: How do Ritchie’s changes fit into the canon of Arthurian revisions? How does the 2017 film inform meta-theoretical questions of authenticity surrounding Arthur himself? What do Ritchie’s changes tell us about our own cultural moment?
Amy S. Kaufman