Student: Martín M. Gómez
2008
“We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world”.
Thus verse the first words of 2005 movie V for Vendetta, an adaptation of a graphic novel by Alan Moore carrying the same title. Can such an abstract entity as an idea truly prevail for 400 years?
“(…) you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love...”, continues to express a cathartic Natalie Portman in the skin of Evey Hammond, the main character’s abettor in the film. Yet ideas do remain. And albeit apparently true, the opening quotation may fail to convey the incommensurable extent to which an idea can persist, for the mythical legend of King Arthur has undergone at least fifteen centuries of history. And it is precisely what Arthur and his knights symbolize what has prevailed: a dream-like picture of dauntless knights in shiny armor fighting with uncomparable braveness for a common cause. The mere figure of King Arthur is still capable of evoking feelings of honour and pride.
Moreover, the legend of Sir Lancelot and his king has set the basis for most ‘heroes-centred’ stories to come in a mysteriously subtle way. Therefore, it is possible to trace what in this paper will be referred to as ‘Arthurian elements’ in numerous modern and also post-modern works, although the latter is not of relevance here. The aforementioned V for Vendetta is not an exception. And while some discrepancies are likely to be found between the components and characteristics of the classic myth and those of the film in question there are similarities which are worth pondering upon.
King Arthur’s legacy
The myth of King Arthur tells of an extraordinarily courageous Romano-British leader who defeated the Anglo-Saxon invaders that were raiding Britain around the end of the 5th century. However, more than a single victory is presumably needed to make a legend out of a name. Nennius, a historian of Welsh origin, acknowledges Arthur’s engagement in at least 12 battles in his Historia Brittonum: “(…) the magnanimous Arthur … fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror…” However, Nennius’ work is not considered true by most modern historians. Neither is the mere existence of the king himself. Actually, most of what is known about the legend – if not all of it - has come from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century narrative account, Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), and Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (1485), both pieces generally disregarded as factual information. With respect to this, Alan MacColl (1999), a lecturer from the University of Aberdeen, expresses in History Today magazine, “(…) Arthur and the hotly-contested topic of his historical reality are no longer the subject of serious academic study…”. And he proceeds:
“It has been suggested that the proliferation of such narratives in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is related to the emergence of the nation state (…). Originality was not a medieval virtue, and invention was often made respectable by the invocation of a fictitious authority…”
Nonetheless, neither the existence of the head of Camelot nor further details of the popular myth in lieu of bare information are to be developed here. Instead, the focus is redirected towards the legacy of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table: a powerful romantic ‘picture’ onto which multiple ideological purposes can be formulated, for it is the idea (or the ‘picture’) what has survived, and not the men. As Allan McColl writes, “(…) the ideological uses to which the legendary hero has been put are important…”. In 1300, for instance, Pope Boniface VIII tried to induce Edward I to abandon the war in Scotland, but the King’s reply reiterated the claim over Scottish land pointing out, among other arguments, that Geoffrey had written about an Arthurian conquest of Scotland; James IV of Scotland and I of England and Ireland, for his part, believed himself to be a second King Arthur in charge of reuniting Britannia; and even the Scottish Conservatives invoked Arthur’s figure during 1997 General Election…
But what exactly does the previously referred surviving image display? Although sources differ in their retelling of King Arthur’s life (and particularly his death), some elements can be identified as common denominators:
•The presence of a powerful leader – or rather the powerful presence of a leading figure.
•A widely unified and prosper British Empire.
•An ever-growing wish for defending and fighting for a common cause.
King Arthur is invariably depicted as a mighty leader with an innate capacity for motivating people, invigorating souls all over his Arthurian Empire. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, besides repelling the Saxons, Arthur’s achievements are outstanding: he defeated the confederation of tribes called Picts and the Scots; he conquered Ireland, the Orkney Islands and Iceland; eventually, he overcame Norway, Denmark, and he even defeated the Roman Emperor Lucius Tiberius in Gaul. In any case, Arthur had apparently had people’s support since he was able to withdraw the magic sword Excalibur from a rock, just as wizard Merlin had prophesied:
“And at the feast of Pentecost all manner of men assayed to pull at the sword that would assay; but none might prevail but Arthur, and pulled it out afore all the lords and commons that were there, wherefore all the commons cried at once, We will have Arthur unto our king, we will put him no more in delay…” (Le Morte d’Arthur; Sir Thomas Malory - 1485)
Once crowned, Arthur gathered a court of nobles consisting of valiant knights willing to accept their King’s commands and twice as eager to fight in his name and for his cause. Knights did not dare questioning Arthur’s decisions for he was seen as a trustworthy leader, and after several years, the ‘once and future king’ proved those noblemen to be right: thanks to his many conquests and the aid of the laborious hands of the Knights of the Round Table, Arthur made an empire out of Britain. This deed covered his name with honour and mysticism. And this flourishing British Empire, product of a gigantic effort, all Britons had to defend.
Arthurian presence in V for Vendetta film
V for Vendetta is set in England in the year 2048. In this fictional reality democracy has fallen, to the distaste of the leading character of the film, V. A totalitarian party called Norsefire rules over the country. Thus, the democratic system is threatened to such an extent as to arise V’s anger. Sick of the authoritarianism exercised by PM Alan Sutler and his militia, V plans to blow up the English Parliament on November 5th. There is a reason why he has chosen this particular date: on November 5th, back in 1605, a man called Guy Fawkes tried to achieve the same goal in order to show his discontent and rejection towards religious oppression. He failed. He was caught, imprisoned, and eventually killed. But just as King Arthur’s legacy, Guy Fawkes ideas prevailed over time, and V planned to use them.
For such purpose, V has a carefully designed plan that allocates no space for mistakes and which involves an active participation of the citizens of London. By raiding the government’s emergence broadcasting channel, V reminds people that they are ruled by an absolute dictator, and tries to convince them that the fact that they are under such condition is not good for anyone since freedom cannot exist within the given current parameters. “(…) truth be told,” V continues, “if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror”; his message is imparted in a cautiously yet harsh manner. He then acknowledges that fear lead people to become silent and obedient in excess, and invites them to revert the situation by facing the parliament the 5th of November the following year. Attending to the claims of the charismatic V, who, by then, has become a leader, people pour into the streets to confront the oppressive militia while their inspiring figure takes personal revenge on Adam Sutler and ends up blowing the Parliament under the attentive look of his followers.
But what moves V to perpetuate such a deed? Apart from his personal reasons, V is moved by a strong regard for the buried democratic ideals. This deeply rooted esteem for democracy seems to attain the same effect King Arthur had on people and, in particular, () knights: V’s ideals (which in the movie match those of democracy) motivate him to act the way he does as much as Arthur inspired his knights’ actions. With respect to this, it is possible to state that V for Vendetta features a ‘domino’ effect: whilst V is incited to fight by the ideals of that system which he believes in, he himself revolutionizes people in an unprecedented way – at least during Sutler’s government. Thus, abstract ideas can be found mobilizing concrete subjects, and this is another coincidence with the Arthurian myth: as exemplified before, the name of King Arthur has been evoked along history with different purposes, of which mobilizing people is certainly one of the most common.
Seemingly, all the elements which inform the Arthurian myth integrate the plot of V for Vendetta: the role of King Arthur as the charismatic leader is played, in the first place, by the ideals of democracy which propel V’s actions, and, secondly, by V himself, who induces people to confront Adam Sutler’s authoritarian party. This, of course, presupposes the presence of people whom can be influenced: in the case of Arthur, this space was occupied by the brave knights who wished to fight at their King’s side and perhaps depicted in the Knights of the Round Table, the King’s closest comrades. In the case of V, it is ordinary people who, motivated by V, gather willingly to fight in the name of democracy and against a common ‘evil’. This, in time, leads to a third element: the evil within the existing system. The British Empire had to defend itself from raiders, while the democratic system is endangered by the totalitarian government in V for Vendetta. This analysis may be summarized as in the figures below. The first graphic displays King Arthur’s epitome, whereas the second is intended to reflect the situation proposed in V for Vendetta:
Conclusion
It appears that King Arthur’s paradigm is still imitated in artifacts of popular culture, either consciously or without awareness. The fact that the Arthurian myth persists as an inspiring legend, shaping the work of hundreds of artists event in recent times, speaks for the peculiar capability of propelling people with which it was formerly informed. Likening the plot of V for Vendetta to the Arthurian elements antecedently mentioned leads to a striking matching of ideas between Arthur’s and V’s stories: the existence of a system being threatened somehow by an evil, the wish for defending the system, the presence of a charismatic leader who induces people to fight for the system, and many other similarities which may have passed unnoticed
Personally, I believe that the apparently ever-lasting quality of the Arthurian Myth resides, at least partly, in humans’ constant need for identification with a higher being. Curiously, after the departure of the leading figure in V for Vendetta, Mr. Finch (an investigator who tries to capture V) asks Evey who the man who has just died is, to which she replies:
“He was Edmond Dantés... and he was my father. And my mother... my brother... my friend. He was you... and me. He was all of us.”
Could it be a mere coincidence?
No comments:
Post a Comment