"
Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha."
The things we can learn on the internet. Old mysteries from childhood, that have been with us until adult age. I am refering to the Charm of Making of the movie Excalibur. It is pronounced at many different times in the movie, in fact it seems to be the only magic spell ever known by Merlin and Morgana, a magic formula that does everything: bring a fog on which you can ride on, change one's appearance, imprison a powerful half-demon like Merlin into thick ice, save a wounded Lancelot from a deep wound. I was so impressed by it that after I first watched the movie, when I was about 6, I was pronouncing it in front of old logs, hoping to raise a fog. It didn't work.
Now, I thought about it recently, and decided to discover what it meant after all, if it meant anything. And it does. You can find the answer here: "Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making." It is all mumbo jumbo really, like the film itself I am afraid. I used to think it was the best movie ever, until I discovered years later that medievalist thought poorly of it. I understand why now, but since it brought me to the Arthurian legend, I cannot help but love it. Sure, the symbolism is a bit thick and it is often a messed up, chaotic movie, with a plot so wide it becomes as confused as it is confusing, but it is still a beautiful movie, full of atmosphere and such a pleasure to the eyes. And it has some very powerful scenes, such as the one when we first hear the Charm of Making, when Merlin is plotting with Uter the conception of Arthur. I uploaded it here for you to enjoy. Tell me if it is only me, or if it is indeed great fun.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thanks Guillaume, I would watch this movie. Fantastical and fun. I see what you mean.
Drôle de coïncidence, mais hier au bar Mavericks en avant duquel est mon arrêt d'autobus pour rentrer chez moi, il y avait ce groupe en spectacle, selon l'affiche. En voyant le nom, j'ai tout de suite su d'où ils l'avaient pris, et j'ai marmonné le charme suprême, parce que ça te donne envie de le faire quand tu le vois.
The form in which you first encounter the Arthurian legends always seems extra magical, no matter how many other versions you subsequently see. That's the power of the Arthurian myths.
@Gwen-I am glad I got you in the mood.
@PJ-J'ai entendu parler du groupe, en fait c'est un mot sur Facebook à propos d'eux qui m'a fait penser au sujet de ce billet.
@Debra-It is a bit because Excalibur was my first "Arthurian" movie. That said, the original stories are much, much better. It is a movie that has its flaws.
I also have always loved the movie and recently remembered the charm of making and could say it from memory. I was trying to find out if it had any basis in anything real or historical?
Love this movie. I was 11. Been with me ever since.
Love this movie. I was 11. Been with me ever since.
Thanks so much for this. I'm a little late to the this but wanted to say I've been fascinated by this "spell" (really what is referred to as a "pseudo spell") for years. I've had it memorized every since seeing the film when it first came out in theaters. For one, is SOUNDS so real, as though it would work and the translation of it makes it seem even more authentic. It does make me wonder where the hell Boorman got it. Regardless I do love reciting it every once in a while for my own pleasure. I was also VERY pleasantly surprised to see it show up as yet another gamer-nerd-pop reference in "Ready Player One", where it is used in a very clever way....
Hey thanks for commenting on my blog! I had forgotten that post.
I'm a little late offering this comment, but here goes: I am surprised that you think little of the movie Excalibur. Surely it is much superior to any of the other movies about the Arthurian legends. Can you identify any other Arthurian movie that you think better? All the ones I have seen are childish bits about sword fighting, jousting, and other sensationalist nonsense. Excalibur is the only movie I have seen that addresses the deeper meanings of the Arthurian legends.
Perhaps a familiarity with the many versions of the Arthurian legends heightens one's appreciation of Excalibur. Your impression is that Excalibur is not true to the "original" versions, but the original versions go back at least 4,000 years. How else could the legends have known that the bluestones at Stonehenge came from Wales? Moreover, scholarship has shown that the protagonist of the legends has shifted over the centuries; some believe that Gawaine was the original protagonist, replaced by Arthur by the Briton refugees in Brittany.
There are endless variations on these legends, so it doesn't do to talk about the "correct" version. Excalibur offers one version that, in my opinion, is deeper and more challenging than any other I have seen in film or literature. I've been working on an interactive storyworld based on the Arthurian legends, with an emphasis on the actual history of that time. We really know almost nothing about the "real" King Arthur, if there ever was such a person. However, we know a goodly amount about the military, political, and cultural conditions at the beginning of the sixth century, and that's what I tried to reflect in my work.
Hi Chris, thank you for visiting and commenting on my blog. It's been a while since I posted this, but I don't think it was a harsh criticism of the movie, which remains one of my favourite. It is what got me interested about the Arthurian and with all its flaws I think it is one of the best adaptations. But it does have flaws and it was heavily criticised by medievalists when I was studying medieval literature. That said, I still love it to bits.
Yes, every movie has its flaws, and Excalibur is no exception. The armor worn by the knights is extravagant to the point of absurdity, and is nothing like what was actually worn. I take the view that a story is not required to be realistic; if we made realism a requirement, we'd have to kiss goodbye all science fiction and indeed almost all storytelling.
In storytelling terms, John Boorman's wife did a magnificent job with her erotic dance, but an atrocious job with the loss of her baby. John Boorman's son wasn't so good as young Mordred, either. Hey, budgets hurt. The low budget also pinched hard with the overuse of that single drawbridge in three different scenes. I didn't like the scene where Arthur breaks Excalibur by overusing its power. It just didn't click with me.
On the other hand, Merlin is one of the greatest characters I've ever seen in cinema, and he has some of the greatest lines in cinema: "For it is the doom of men that they forget." "I have walked my way since the beginning of time. Sometimes I give, sometimes I take; it is mine to know which and when." "When a man lies, he murders a part of the world." Much of his effectiveness comes from his creative vocal intonations. The opening scene with Merlin is magnificent.
Oh, another bad spot: when Morgana traps Merlin. That's downright embarrassing.
There's no doubt that the movie deviates from Malory in many places. That doesn't bother me; just about everybody who has used the Arthurian legends has taken it in a different direction. Malory was heavy on sword-bashing. Twain used it for social satire; Disney made a kid's cartoon out of it; Lerner and Loewe made a romantic musical out of it; Maron Zimmer Bradley made a feminist novel about it. With all this stuff, who's to say what the "correct" version of the Arthurian legends is?
I didn't mention that I have actually finished my Arthurian storyworld. I didn't want to be too forward. It's called Le Morte D'Arthur and you can play it for free at www.erasmatazz.com/LeMorteDArthur.html. I apologize if posting the URL is crass; this is not a commercial project. I warn you, it's long, requires lots of reading, and has almost nothing to do with the legends, although it uses many of the standard characters. At heart, it's about the meaning of life and the significance of death.
Hi Chris, thank you again for commenting and sorry for the delayed answer. I actually think Excalibur is maybe the best adaptation, it's certainly my favourite. Now I hate Marion Zimmer Bradley's travesty. And she was also a horrible human being. I will write more when I have time and will check your link. By the way, I wrote a number of posts about the Arthurian legend, so please feel free to explore the blog.
I didn't enjoy Mists of Avalon, either, but I chalk that up to personal taste. Looking forward to your further thoughts.
I, too, memorized this spell when I saw it as a child. My pronunciation was a bit off now that I see it written down. And decades later I still recite it on occasion. In hopes that there's magic in the world, I've been trying it out on two huge trees I've papier mached (inspired by the two trees of Valinor by Tolkien) but alas they are still fake and no portal has opened up. Oh well.
Thank you for commenting on my blog! I have written more about Excalibur and the Arthurian legend, so I hope you come back and look around here.
Post a Comment