The Source Text
In Thomas Malory's wildest dreams, I doubt he would have imagined that his work would have travelled the world and been rediscovered by America's largest animation studio... mostly because the knowledge of America was reserved for the Vikings and the Brits were unaware of the country's existence until Columbus re-discovered it two decades after Thomas Malory's death. Le Morte d'Arthur is a literary classic, detailing the conception, life and death of the legendary king of England, Arthur Pendragon. Centuries after Malory's masterpiece was published, T. H. White adapted it into a fantasy book for children called: The Once and Future King. This book had rave reviews; some classing it as the best fantasy of all time. Disney snapped up the opportunity to turn it into a feature-length film. It did reasonably well for Disney's own dark ages and was brilliant to watch when I was a young child, but when re-watching this after reading Le Morte d'Arthur, I can see the problems from the first ten minutes: The characters, the plot, the appearance; there is so much wrong here it is unbelievable. I hold a higher standard for Disney as they have created so many classic works in such a short time period, for them to get something so tailored for them, so very wrong is strange.Arthur
King Arthur, the mighty King of all England, is... American. The voice cast for Sword in the Stone, was remarkable, with a full range of British accents (mostly London-based) which perfectly allows the audience to be swallowed up in the tone and culture of the Medieval period. The only exception to this rule is the good King himself; Arthur, who is voiced by two American boys throughout the film, the latter with a deeper voice to show Arthur ageing into a man. The two boys do a pretty good job overall, but I do question why Arthur didn't also have a British accent like the rest of the cast; for this, I have three possible explanations:1. They didn't want to pay for a British child to travel over to the US for such a small part.
2. They wanted Arthur to sound like the children of America, thus aiding American children to place themselves in the story in Arthur's place and imagine that they might be destined for something great as well. When a character shares something with an audience member, like a voice, an age, a setting, it is easier for an audience member to imagine themselves in that role. In the case of the Sword in the Stone, the producers might have felt that the character and culture were too distant for American children of the 1950s to associate with or understand Arthur.
3. They wanted Arthur to seem more naive. The British accent used by Merlin is referred to as received pronunciation, which basically means that he has not obtained a regional accent. RP, as it is more commonly known, takes a great deal of discipline to maintain, as it is based on precise enunciation, which to most Brits, is not natural. The accent is also closely associated with the upper-classes and classical education. If Arthur spoke with RP he would appear to be an educated individual. However, the point of the story is to show Arthur learning about life, leadership and responsibility. For Arthur to enter the film already sounding like he has spent twelve years at Harrow, would defeat the object of Merlin teaching him. By giving Arthur an American accent, which is for the most part, less disciplined than RP, it shows that Arthur still has to learn discipline and control.
Arthur's Family/Adoptive Family and Teacher
This is less of a jab at Disney and more of a criticism of one of its source materials. T.H.White wrote the Sword in the Stone, based on the introductory pages of Le Morte d' Arthur, needless to say, I am not a fan. The introductory pages of Le Morte D' Arthur surround Arthur's parents Uther and Igraine and his tutor, Merlin. The story stated that Uther wanted Igraine for himself and Merlin offers to help him obtain her hand, for the price of Uther and Igraine's firstborn child, much like a taller Rumpelstiltskin. Uther agrees the plot succeeds, he marries Igraine and later Igraine gives birth to Arthur, whom Uther immediately hands over to Merlin without question. Several years later, after Uther and Igraine have died, there is a tournament to be held to decide who will be the next King of England. The tournament is held as no one man has been able to complete Uther's final task, pulling the sword from the stone, which Uther placed there before his death. When almost every man in the country has attempted and failed at the task, the noblemen decide that a tournament is the next best display of skill. While at the tournament, Arthur is there with his family, Sir Ector, his adoptive father and Cei (Kay) his adoptive brother, whom Merlin entrusted Arthur's upbringing too. Cei was due to compete in the tournament but forgot his sword at the inn. Arthur runs back to collect it, only to find that the inn is closed, as everyone is watching the tournament. Arthur sees a sword in a churchyard, trapped within a stone, he pulls it and gifts it to Cei, who proclaims that Arthur is the rightful King of England, after recognising the sword. Arthur is then asked to pull the sword two more times. After the second time, removing the sword from the stone, Arthur is proclaimed the rightful King of England. This rundown occurs within the first ten pages of Le Morte d' Arthur and in no way implies that Merlin had anything to do with Arthur upbringing. The plot of the original source material is of the greatest importance when understanding the backstory and characteristics of Arthur's adoptive family, Merlin and his parents.
Kay (Cei in the early Arthurian legend) and Sir Ector
The film The Sword in the Stone and the book of the same name, both similarly depict the characters; while also disregarding Malory's original work. In the film Kay is regularly rude to Arthur, treating him like a servant, rather than a brother and on occasion puts him in danger. In Le Morte D' Arthur, Cei is kind to Arthur, he does not threaten him or demand anything of him.
In the film, Kay makes Arthur his squire, only when his usual squire is unable to attend the tournament, implying that Arthur doesn't even get offered a job within the family business, as he is believed to be incompetent. I won't even mention how they all refer to him as "wart" and don't use his real name. At the tournament, Arthur forgets Kay's sword and is ordered to go back and retrieve it. This contrasts greatly with Malory's rendition, where Cie forgets his own sword and Arthur volunteers to go back and retrieve it, as he does not want his brother to become distracted before/or miss the tournament.
The other scene which differs significantly is when Arthur first pulls the sword from the stone and is asked to draw it again. In the film, Kay interrupts proceedings, pushes Arthur out of the way and attempts to pull the sword himself, claiming that it would be easier the second time. When Kay fails, Sir Ector joins him, and they collectively try to pull the sword from the stone. When they fail, a man from the gathering crowd demands that Arthur should be given a chance; only then does the row end and Arthur step forward. In Malory's rendition, Cei and Sir Ector demand that Arthur should be given another opportunity and allow him time to do so. They want him to succeed because they want the best life for him because they care for him like a son and brother (also they would probably benefit from having royalty in the family).
The third scene to completely disregard the source material is after Arthur has pulled the sword from the stone for the second time. The onlookers bow before their King. Sir Ector, after recovering from his shock, bows and forces Kay to do so, Kay puts up a great deal of resistance but ultimately bows before Arthur, with a final look of respect. In Le Morte d' Arthur Sir Ector and Cei immediately throw themselves at Arthur's mercy, the former stating that if Arthur wished to punish or poorly treat Sir Ector or his son Cei, that it would have been justly earned if they had mistreated Arthur during his time with them. Arthur in response is shocked and states that he has no intention of doing anything of the sort as Cei and Sir Ector had always treated him like a brother and a son respectively. Arthur later makes them both knights of his court, sworn to protect the people of England and its King.
Usually, I take no issue with adaptations making diversions from the source material. In the case of Le Morte d' Arthur, it makes many alterations in style and purpose from earlier Arthurian adaptations. I do take issue when the reason for doing so is to manipulate the audience into favouring a certain character, simply because there are not any redeemable characters surrounding them. In this case, the characters of Kay and Sir Ector have been entirely scrapped in favour of two characters who were probably easier to write for, the focus of comic relief and to make Arthur the underdog. In turn, this affects Arthur's character; he has no defining personality which would make him likeable. He is just a schoolchild learning lessons, boring, but not awful, They could have done a way worse job. The deficiencies within Arthur's character are supplied by the cruel treatment he receives from his adoptive family. Like I said before, this is not just a jab at Disney, I believe T.H.White is responsible for this poor characterisation of a legend and his family. I would have liked Disney to move away from those tropes, where the underdog, though boring and bland is loved simply because he is mistreated. They could have created a wonderful tale about all of his adventures with Merlin and him keeping it from Sir Ector and Kay for different reasons, such as the belief that using magic was an act against God. They later made Hunchback, I don't think Disney would be against throwing in a little bit of dark, yet real history.
In the film, Kay makes Arthur his squire, only when his usual squire is unable to attend the tournament, implying that Arthur doesn't even get offered a job within the family business, as he is believed to be incompetent. I won't even mention how they all refer to him as "wart" and don't use his real name. At the tournament, Arthur forgets Kay's sword and is ordered to go back and retrieve it. This contrasts greatly with Malory's rendition, where Cie forgets his own sword and Arthur volunteers to go back and retrieve it, as he does not want his brother to become distracted before/or miss the tournament.
The other scene which differs significantly is when Arthur first pulls the sword from the stone and is asked to draw it again. In the film, Kay interrupts proceedings, pushes Arthur out of the way and attempts to pull the sword himself, claiming that it would be easier the second time. When Kay fails, Sir Ector joins him, and they collectively try to pull the sword from the stone. When they fail, a man from the gathering crowd demands that Arthur should be given a chance; only then does the row end and Arthur step forward. In Malory's rendition, Cei and Sir Ector demand that Arthur should be given another opportunity and allow him time to do so. They want him to succeed because they want the best life for him because they care for him like a son and brother (also they would probably benefit from having royalty in the family).
The third scene to completely disregard the source material is after Arthur has pulled the sword from the stone for the second time. The onlookers bow before their King. Sir Ector, after recovering from his shock, bows and forces Kay to do so, Kay puts up a great deal of resistance but ultimately bows before Arthur, with a final look of respect. In Le Morte d' Arthur Sir Ector and Cei immediately throw themselves at Arthur's mercy, the former stating that if Arthur wished to punish or poorly treat Sir Ector or his son Cei, that it would have been justly earned if they had mistreated Arthur during his time with them. Arthur in response is shocked and states that he has no intention of doing anything of the sort as Cei and Sir Ector had always treated him like a brother and a son respectively. Arthur later makes them both knights of his court, sworn to protect the people of England and its King.
Usually, I take no issue with adaptations making diversions from the source material. In the case of Le Morte d' Arthur, it makes many alterations in style and purpose from earlier Arthurian adaptations. I do take issue when the reason for doing so is to manipulate the audience into favouring a certain character, simply because there are not any redeemable characters surrounding them. In this case, the characters of Kay and Sir Ector have been entirely scrapped in favour of two characters who were probably easier to write for, the focus of comic relief and to make Arthur the underdog. In turn, this affects Arthur's character; he has no defining personality which would make him likeable. He is just a schoolchild learning lessons, boring, but not awful, They could have done a way worse job. The deficiencies within Arthur's character are supplied by the cruel treatment he receives from his adoptive family. Like I said before, this is not just a jab at Disney, I believe T.H.White is responsible for this poor characterisation of a legend and his family. I would have liked Disney to move away from those tropes, where the underdog, though boring and bland is loved simply because he is mistreated. They could have created a wonderful tale about all of his adventures with Merlin and him keeping it from Sir Ector and Kay for different reasons, such as the belief that using magic was an act against God. They later made Hunchback, I don't think Disney would be against throwing in a little bit of dark, yet real history.
The character of Merlin has been Disneyfied:
Malory: Merlin is a child snatcher. (most likely because he wanted to protect him from Uther's enemies after the King and his wife had passed, but still, he takes a child as payment for having Uther conceive the said child).Disney: Merlin teaches orphans who are abused by their adoptive families.
Uther
In Malory's rendition, Uther's motivation is simply to get Igraine's husband out of the picture, bed her and marry her. He is so desperate to fulfil this goal that he promises Merlin their first child. Uther gets what he wants, and without even questioning Merlin about the future of his child, he hands Arthur over. In The Sword in the Stone, he is regarded as a great King who left a sword in a stone for the next heir to find... probably a good call on Disney's part. If anything, the Disney adaptation gives Uther greater credibility, as he has paved the way for Arthur when or if, he is ready to assume the throne, without putting him in immediate danger.Does It Do The Legend Justice?
Regarding representing legend, The Sword in the Stone is insulting to the original material. To think that these great characters, with so much care but violence (towards their enemies) were reduced to poor slapstick and to aid a story without a fleshed-out protagonist. I would not mind if the characters were a little rougher, as the Medieval period did seem to write off either saints or sinners with very little in the middle; but to portray them as thugs and idiots are far too far from Malory's text.
While I loved this film as a child, it has lost its charm over the years. There are a lot of other issues with the film besides the ones surrounding the adaptation from a Medieval text, to post-war book to Disney. The colours are horrible, I remember watching it as a child and thinking that it wasn't nice to look at, but the film explains that it is the dark ages after-all. My problem with this explanation is that magic is timeless and there was the potential to make some really beautiful scenes. I never understood why Merlin's quarters looked as dark and green as everywhere else. Couldn't Merlin make it look a bit more colourful? The pacing is strange: Arthur meets Merlin, Merlin teaches three lessons about life, five minutes at the end and whoops you are King now, and Merlin will show you all about it. The lessons, though important, mostly get lost within the form.
There are some things that work really well. The voice acting is excellent, I like that they didn't use posh British accents for all of the parts and that each one fits the characters. I love the pace of the animation, the wizard's duel between Merlin and Mad Madam Mim is brilliant, the creatures they turn into and how it ends is all so clever. The song, "Higitus Figus", is a cross between supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and Maleficent's entrance. The first few notes are played so seriously, only for chaos to unfold, it is nonsense and crackpotish. The timing of the song is priceless, as we (the audience) still haven't worked out if Merlin is safe. This song shows us that he is safe, intelligent but a little bit unhinged, in an entirely nuts type of way. The only lesson I really remember is when a female squirrel falls in love with Arthur, who has taken the form of a male squirrel. The lesson is about how love is the most powerful force on earth. It was left at that, and I think it was the most poignant, as there was no happily ever after for the female squirrel, it just ended with her being heart-broken; this was a far cry from the princess stories synonymous with Disney, and I personally think it was a move towards teaching children that love is not as simple as meeting once and staying happy.
As an adaptation, I am unable to praise it, not because it is a non-faithful rendition, in fact, it follows T.H.White's novel rather well, but Disney could have pushed it further. They could have taken more from Malory than from White. They could have been consistent when casting an all-British cast. They could have made the story darker but the colours brighter. They could have made Arthur a likeable person, not just a victim of his surroundings. All in all, The Sword in the Stone is a film which contains some bad choices, that as an adult I find tedious to watch. To children, it is about a wizard teaching a boy about nature with some fun animation and some really good lessons about "clever" being more a more important attribute than looks, that violence isn't always the answer, that love is not to be undertaken lightly and that you should always treat your family with respect, as one day you might end up alone.
Overall I think The Sword in the Stone is a brilliant film for children, it has problems, but what film doesn't? I think it is insulting to Arthurian legend, however, if watching this film leads to people reading more, whether it is Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur or White's The Once and Future King, then the purpose of the books has been served. What is the point of writing for children, when children do not want to read? Hopefully, The Sword in the Stone, leads to more children enjoying classic literature, in an attempt to find a sequel for a magical film about a: Magician, King and a talking owl called Archimedes.
Next Week: The Little Mermaid
Next Week: The Little Mermaid
