THE KNIGHTRIDERS
US, 1981, 140 minutes, Colour.
Ed Harris, Tom Savini, Gary Lahti.
Directed by George A. Romero.
The Knightriders is an oddity. Written and directed by George A. Romero, the cult director of such films as Night of the Living Dead, Martin, Dawn of the Dead, it is not a horror film but rather a lyrical memory of the flower movements of the late '60s and echoes of optimism and Utopia. It is a bikie film and there is a great deal of stunt work. However, the film focuses on a group, a commune group who try to live out principles and values - but who clash, are led by an autocratic king who drives people away but who eventually draws them back to himself and abdicates.
Camelot is taken as the image for this kind of commune - and there is an interesting, if eccentric, applying of the myths of chivalry and Camelot to the present day. It doesn't always work out, but the attempt is certainly interesting. It is made more plausible by having the commune group act at carnivals in the manner of the days of Camelot - with bike tournaments in stead of with horses. An unknown cast is reasonable, if rather stereotyped, in the central roles. The film is very lengthy and runs the danger of being accused of pretentiousness. It is interesting as a piece of work by Romero and a contrast to his horror films.
1. The popularity and admiration for the work of George A. Romero? The emphasis on his horror films? His working outside the mainstream of studio films in America? His turning his attention to a bike film, the popular myths of Camelot and chivalry, his comment and optimism concerning American society in the late 1970s?
2. The value of his central idea: the presentation of the bikie group and their style, situating them in the carnival, the guise of Camelot? The focus on their interaction in the group? Rules, coherence of the group? The overtones of hippie optimism and dropping out? Utopia? Camelot as the theme of Utopia? The echoes of the '60s, the experience of the '70s, hopes for the '80s? The popularity of King Arthur and the Camelot story? The films of the late '70s with their use of chivalry and heroic legends (the Star Wars films, Excalibur)? The validity of the idea? How well conceived and executed?
3. Insight via the use of myths? The myths of all times? The light thrown on the nature of myth, characters, situations, struggles, good and evil, endurance? The myth as a mirror of society? Commenting on it? Offering insight? The updating of myth? The surprise value of a bikie Camelot? How worthwhile an exploration? The ideals of Camelot and their place in the 20th. century? The fashions, the values? The value of fanciful allegory?
4. The contribution of the colour photography: the bike action sequences, the highlighting of the characters, the re-creation of Camelot in the carnival, the contrast of the ordinary with the fantasy? Musical score and its chivalry overtones? The length of the film - and the elongation of the plot?
5. The symbolic opening, King Billy and the Queen of Camelot? Billy and his ruling of the group, control, living the myth? The strength of his imagination? Achievement in strength? Reaction to the police? Going to prison? His experience of the brutality in prison? The contrast of the prison violence with that of the staged tournament - according to rules? His relationship with the group, with his girlfriend and her hostility to wards his way of ruling? Morgan and his wanting to usurp power? His authoritative attitude and driving people away? His philosophy of control? His being abandoned, doing penance in the river? The return of the group? The happy tournament? His decision to abdicate? His revenge on the police man in the bar? The applause of the group? The irony of his final vision, riding a horse and being killed on the American highway? The death of Camelot? Credible character, credible symbol? The values he stood for?
6. The carnival and its re-creation of Camelot in detail, work, play, music and atmosphere, sets, decor, costumes, behaviour? The appeal to the American imagination? The blacksmith and his preparation of weapons? The tournaments, the rules of chivalry?
7. The theme of chivalry - possible or not in contemporary America? Within the group itself? The audience's response to Camelot? The reaction against it - and the intrusion of the pop music? Camelot falling apart - the selfishness of the characters, the inability to sit at the round table and agree to rules, the autocratic behaviour of King Billy? The group leaving? Their being exploited - by agents, themes of sensuality and wealth, Alan and his returning to family? The credibility of the decision of the group to return? The optimism?
8. The queen and her place in the group? Sharing with the king, her fear about King Billy, her making decisions? Her happiness at the end? Relationship with Alan? The other women in the group: the tough girl and her waiting for Morgan? Julie and her leaving the family, calling up the police in the middle of the night, the liaison with Alan, the idyllic period and his taking her home?
9. Morgan as potential villain? His friends - their bearded appearance, tough, ambitious? Not seeing the ideal behind action? Interested in agents and promoters? Answering King Billy's theories? Usurping power, rebelling? The agents and the soft life for the swimming pool? His decision to return? His behaviour in the final tournament? His becoming King?
10. Alan and his support of Billy, rescuing him from Morgan in the tournament? The liaison with Julie? His not being a winner? His reaction against Billy, going away to the family, his return?
11. The sketch of the other members of the group: the announcer and his style, his relationship to his friend? The various members of the group and their roles? The range of attitudes, tolerance of behaviour? The importance of rules?
12. The value of communes, the possibilities of their success, rules and relationships, temptations and violence, manner of authority - autocratic manners driving people away?
13. The contribution of the technical achievement - editing, visual style? The accusations that the film was self-indulgent, prolonged? How persuasive for contemporary audience?
