A Knight's Tale: The Medieval Era Blog Post
I chose to watch A Knight's Tale directed by Brian Helgeland for this blog post. It is a show that I have watched since it came out and I've always loved the story that it told. The blend of both historical and modern culture makes it more relatable than perhaps a very accurate portray of the story. It definitely wouldn't have been as intriguing or interesting if it had lacked the modern aspects and it wouldn't have been a good story if it hadn't stayed true to the roots of the story.
It is a tale of a man who desperately wants to be a knight in an era that placed great value on bloodlines and titles. As he succeeds event after event, despite the fact that he is not of royal blood, the truth comes out and destroys the fragile life he had built for himself.
The movie holds true to the belief of feudalism, where the aristocracy held the power and left very little, if any, for those who were deemed peasants because of their lack of titles, land, and royal blood. Much of the plot of the movie is based on the fact that William, the main character, does not have the bloodlines to make him a worthy participant for the jousting tournament. Yet all he wants is the title of a knight and the ability to joust and win the fair Jocelyn's heart. But marriage to a noble does not a knight make and neither does falsified genealogy. So, it is very true to how that era perceived the worth of a person.
Primogeniture and dynamism didn't play a particularly big role in the story, if they played a part at all. I think the reason why those weren't as noticeable or as focused on was because of the heavy focus on feudalism. Primogeniture would've been a hard topic to focus on simply because William was an only child and had little, if not nothing, to gain from the demise of his father. Due to the plot of the movie, it is understandable as to why it didn't play a particularly large role in the show. Dynamism is an interesting idea of the Medieval Era simply because it can be displayed in the simplest of statements or in the largest of gestures. Based on what I viewed from the movie, I didn't see it play any large role in the film.
The doctrine of the original sin actually kind of played a role in the film, at least from my view point. It was the part of the film where William, known as Sir Ulrick by this point, finds himself meeting with the debtors of Geoffrey Chaucer who are religious men. When faced with the amount of debt that Chaucer has accrued through gambling, William asks what would happen to him if he refused to pay of the debts. The one named Simon says, "We, on behalf of the Lord God, would take him of his flesh, so that he may understand that gambling is a sin." The original sin is that flesh is generally a bad thing which is drawn to sin and I guess, rebells against the spirit of God. By taking it out on his flesh, especially in the name of God, his debtors are proclaiming that they will teach him what a sin really is by tormenting that which is drawn toward sin in the first place.
Religion played a huge role in the different speeches made throughout the movie as well and it seemed like everything was tied to it. Of course, during that era, much was focused on God and religion. That was very true to the era as well.
There was also a lot of the story that clung to the modern day opinions and beliefs of what the era was like or stayed true to our time by keeping somethings similar to everyday life. Things such as the way that Jocelyn dressed, the way she acted, and the way her hair was done was very true to our modern ideals of how a woman should act, dress, or be to appeal to men.
Behavior was another huge thing that stuck out to me as modern. The way that women seemed to find themselves alone with men, especially Jocelyn, a woman of noble birth. Also the attitudes that seemed to follow most of the women characters who did not hold true to the belief that women should be seen rather than heard that seemed very common in that era. Jobs such as blacksmith were men's work and to see a woman holding that as her lively hood was surprising. Although, I can also see where it could possibly come from. A woman who has lost her husband must maintain income in some way to keep from being sent to the streets for debts that she cannot pay. So I guess I can see why one of the main female characters had that job as well.
The dancing and music was very modern. It was like there was a fine line between what would have been acceptable for that era and what actually happened. The scene of the banquet comes to mind. At first, the music and the dancing is very true to the Medieval Era because it was neither suggestive or obscene. But then the music changed to modern day music and it was like a switch had been flipped. Suddenly the dancing was very modern and would've been typically unacceptable in that sort of venue. So, the dancing for the main part straddled the line between what was acceptable for that era and what is acceptable for ours.
Overall, I think they did a good job for creating a story that typically would've lost a lot of people's interests and making it relatable enough to hold their attention.
