The Mists of Avalon

Have any of you seen The Mists of Avalon on TNT or read the book? At first the only reason I saw it was because of Julianna Margulies since she is my favorite ER female actress.When I saw the whole film,I couldn't believe it because it was something that I was into since I like the medival and renasanse stuff.I don't have time to read the book since I have to read AR (accelerated reader) books.What did you all think of the book or movie?

 

i've read the book, and it is incredible! far superior to the movie...
the movie was a disappointment in many ways..

 

I've only read bits and pieces of the book but it was very good from what I remember. One of my friends loves the book. When we watched the movie she filled me in on all the parts that were different from the book so I got a pretty good grasp of what goes on. Marion Zimmer Bradley is an excellent story teller in my opinion.

 

I enjoyed this movie much more than Merlin and Excalibur. The explored the asspect of Arthur's sister as a good person, who was thrown into trickery. I felt bad that she didn't get marry the man she truly loved, but the did fall in love the man she was made to marry.

I just found this a really beautiful movie, and I hope to read the book sometime to compare.

 

I despised this movie. I was told it was great because the book was written by a feminist, but I could not get myself to enjoy it. There was too much whimpering and crying on Morgaine's part for me. My boyfriend has read the book many times and tells me that it's much better, but I've yet to make it though to the end. As far as I've gotten, though, I really wish that Raven had a bigger role in the movie. It would have made it much more enjoyable. But I wasn't very fond of Julianna Marguiles as Morgaine. I could appreciate the work of Angelica Huston, Joan Allen, and whoever the guy was that played Mordred, however.

 

It was different on Morgaine's part because on all the stuff that I'd read and heard of,she was just a very cruel witch.But in TMOA she was very different.She was nicer and less of a witch.I thought Julianna Margulies did a great job.As did Angelica Houston(Vivan),and Joan Allen(Morgoes)

 

As a fan of Arthurian Legend, I feel it is my duty to say this (but I dont mean to bash the book or movie in any way)

There is a possibility that some people will or have confused the Mists of Avalon with the story of Arthur. The MoA is NOT in any way accurate to the original story, nor should it ever be thought of as a newer version of the myth. Even though it is a great novel in its own, it is not in any way true to the Arthurian story, and should never be considered so. The Mists of Avalon and the story of King Arthur are two completely separate and different entities, even though some characters and locations have the same name.

 

Personally I prefer Morgaine as a villain. Bad guys are just more fun. The end was interesting though. My mom is a devout Catholic and would probably with the notion of the Virgin Mary being the new version of "the Goddess".

 

There is a possibility that some people will or have confused the Mists of Avalon with the story of Arthur. The MoA is NOT in any way accurate to the original story, nor should it ever be thought of as a newer version of the myth. Even though it is a great novel in its own, it is not in any way true to the Arthurian story, and should never be considered so. The Mists of Avalon and the story of King Arthur are two completely separate and different entities, even though some characters and locations have the same name.

I was actually going to mention that too. I just thought it was a very interesting take on the whole thing.

 

What I noticed is that during the burial of Morgoes & Vivan,it was similar to Star Wars because they both did the burning of the bodies.Just thought I'd mention that.

 

There is a possibility that some people will or have confused the Mists of Avalon with the story of Arthur. The MoA is NOT in any way accurate to the original story, nor should it ever be thought of as a newer version of the myth.

Hmm...it depends on your idea of the original story. You could go by the actual historical facts, Sir Thomas Mallory's version, T. H. White's version, or The History of the Britons. The "myth" that most people know actually is pretty much made up and set in medieval times. The actual Arthur actually probably lived somewhere between 460 AD and 540 AD. So Mists of Avalon actually got the time period right, whereas other more well-known versions have not. Yes, a good deal of the story is made up, but so are most versions of the Arthurian legend. A good book about actual historical facts about Arthur is King Arthur by David Day.

 

I'm very into Arthurian legends, and not only the stories about Arthur but the possibility for truth behind those stories. I've read the book AND seen the MOA film, loved both of them and, with carfeul consideration, have to say I think this version of the story to be just as plausible if not more so than any other. Or maybe it's just me. But as the founder of SPMAL (Society for the Prevention of Mutilation of the Arthurian Legends) I give it my Stamp of Approval. And good observation AOTCSTarWarsChick about that whole burning the bodies thing.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but I tried to read the book and had to stop because I got too bored. I also didn't like how it portrayed the Catholic church or the fact the Morgaine basically abandoned her son.

 

The way the Catholic church is portrayed is quite accurate for the time period. Also Morgaine as an "evil witch" is entirely wrong.

Here is the history of the "real" Arthurian legend that you are all regarding as the facts of Arthur:

In the 9th century, a Welsh priest by the name of Nennius wrote down a story about Arthur the soldier. He stuck mostly to facts he was sure of and he only tells of twelve battles that Arthur and his friends fought against the Saxons.

About three hundred years after this in the early 12th century Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote The History of the Britons. In this book he also wrote about Arthur, but a very different Arthur then Nennius wrote about. Geoffrey's Arthur was a king of a medieval court, which is quite impossible as the first written record of Arthur is from before such courts existed. He embelished upon the facts greatly and made up new "facts" to serve his purpose of creating a British hero to rival Charlemagne. This is what first made popular the Arthurian legend.

In 1155 the Frech poet Wace turned Geoffrey's story into a poem called "Geste des Britons." It is in this poem that the round table is first mentioned. This was drawn purely from Wace's imagination.

About 50 years later a German named Layamon translated parts of Wace's poem into English verse and added to it greatly. Layamon first introduced fairy lore into the legend and gave new importance to Merlin and Guinevere.

Then, in the later part of the 15th century Sir Thomas Malory wrote what is incorrectly called Le Morte D'Artur. By this time every legend of any importance had been tacked on to the Arthurian legend including the quest for the Holy Grail. It was this that he based his book on and it is this version that most people incorrectly regard as the "real" Arthurian legend.

As you can see by reading the story's history, Malory's version is obviously very very far from the actual facts and the original legend.

What Marion Zimmer Bradley basically did in writing The Mists of Avalon was go back to the facts layed down in Nennius's work and elaborate on them using historical extrapolation from what is know about the time period. The time period is also something she fixed. She set it back to the time at which the events of the legend most likely took place, the late 5th century. She took many liberties when creating her rendition, however this is necessary when dealing with this chaotic time period as barely any records were kept. As someone who has done an immense amount of research into the ancient religions of the Britonic and Celtic peoples I found her take on the religions of the time period to be, for the most part, fairly accurte, albeit influenced by modern Wiccan beliefs. She placed Avalon in its proper role as it would have been during the time period and portrayed its priest and priestesses in neither a wholly good or bad light. Another thing she did that I thought was nice was include most of the legends that were tacked on to the Arthurian legend in some form or another. She often changed them around to fit in with the time period and gave them a more historical twist. One such example is the part with the grail. I thought she handled these thing quite well while still keeping with her semi-historical veiw of events.

Also if you've done research on the history of the Christian church you will realize that the Christians she protrays are quite accurate to what they would have been at that time in history. At the time, the Catholic church was fairly new and had just been left without the support of the Roman empire. Christians were clamoring to keep their faith alive in this new world of what they saw as heretics. They were very fearful and superstitous of what they didn't understand and were willing to do whatever it took to ensure their faith's place in the new world.

I do have to say though that the movie was a horrible butchery of her wonderful book. Although I love Julianna Margulies in ER, she was the absolute worst choice for Morgaine'

 

READ THE BOOK! Base little on the movie. It was ok for a made for tv, but the book is outstanding. Pick it up and enter a new world...

 

I might during the summer.I'm not big on reading so I doubt I'll get through half of it.

 

I read it last year. It's a beautiful book. MZB has a wonderful dramatic writing style. It's gigantically long but totally worth it.

 

I loved the movie The Mists of Avalon. I just happened to watch it, I hadn't been planning on it. I did check out the book from the library but things were to hectic at that time for me finish it. I'm going to go re-check it out one of these days.