Academic journal article Arthuriana

The Medieval Filmscape: Reflections of Fear and Desire in a Cinematic Mirror

Academic journal article Arthuriana

The Medieval Filmscape: Reflections of Fear and Desire in a Cinematic Mirror

Article excerpt

william F. woods, The Medieval Filmscape: Reflections of Fear and Desire in a Cinejnatic Mirror. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2014. Pp. 203. ISBN: 978-0-7864-4651-3 (pbk); ISBN: 978-1-4766-1341-3 (ebook). $66.48.

The title of this slim volume announces its ambitions: to define the scope (and the scape) of films set in the Middle Ages (which last until the mid-sixteenth century in order to accommodate The Return of Martin Guerre) and to identify those that authentically reflect the period. Its achievements, although not insignificant, are more modest.

The volume opens with a series of theoretical essays and an introduction. The Introduction ('Our Lady of Pain: The Subgenre of Medieval Film'), the most ambitious chapter of the book, serves to illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the chapters to follow. The author amply demonstrates his wide knowledge of medieval film and his talent for discovering telling details and producing loving and lavish descriptions. His engagement with the films he discusses is deep and devoted. The problems arise with his theoretical approach. While his survey of the corpus suggests diversity, as he moves closer to a definition, the corpus becomes narrower and solidifies around the dolorous sort of film suggested by his chapter title. More exuberant films (like Camelot or Monty Python and the Holy Grail), though mentioned on occasion, seem excluded from the corpus, and significant imaginings of the Middle Ages (notably Pasolini's Trilogy of Life, possibly the most sustained examination of the period in twentieth-century cinema) are not even mentioned. Despite the richness of detail in this introduction, the examination of the corpus ultimately seems to be devoted to proving that true medieval films are the medieval films that the author is particularly fond of and that reflect his preference for films of gloomy peasants and gloomier clerics. Similar problems beset the following theoretical chapters (Authenticity,' 'Simplicity,' and 'Spectacle'). Woods avoids most of the real difficulties of defining 'authenticity' in the context of film, and (necessarily perhaps) avoids discussing whether the issue of authenticity is even worth discussing at this stage of critical discourse. His final definition, assuming I take his point, is the unhelpful tautology that the authentic medieval film is the film that looks authentically medieval, according to how medieval films have taught us to look at films that want to be looked at as medieval. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.