Public opinion varies on the value of judging anachronisms in medieval films. When I analyzed some depictions of trebuchets in medieval and fantasy films, Internet opinions ranged from “who fucking cares” to “oh, that’s interesting” (actual quotes from social media).
Academic opinion varies as well, but the general consensus tends to be that judging a medieval film merely for accuracy’s sake is either impossible or a waste of time. For example, Nickolas Haydock lamentingly asked if medievalism on screen was to be “defined and studied chiefly in terms of error?” ((Nickolas Haydock, Movie Medievalism: The Imaginary Middle Ages (Jefferson: McFarland, 2008), 6.))
However, judging accuracy in medieval films can reveal something deeper and that is well worth the effort.
Let’s look at two approaches published within a few years of each other—one that focuses simply on anachronisms in medieval armor in movies, and another that focuses on why some movies get medieval armor right while others don’t.
Approach 1: Just Pick Apart the Anachronisms
Helmut Nickel originally wrote his “Arms and Armor in Arthurian Films” essay in 1991 and updated it for the 2002 revised edition of Cinema Arthuriana. Nickel’s expertise is unquestioned, as he served as the curator of arms and armor at the Met for decades and he is prolific on the subject of medieval equipment with dozens of articles and books. ((You can find the bulk of his life’s work listed in “The Publications of Nickel Helmut,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 24 (1989): 13-16.)) He is more than qualified to present a checklist identifying what is right or wrong about portrayals of medieval equipment in Arthurian films.
Nickel prefaces his essay with Arthurian films “are not necessarily bound to such a fixed style period.” ((Helmut Nickel, “Arms and Armor in Arthurian Films,” in Cinema Arthuriana: Twenty Essays, ed. Kevin J. Harty (Jefferson: McFarland, 2002), 235.)) Given that the surviving sources were written hundreds of years after the supposed events, often appropriating technology from the time of writing, “the scriptwriter, the director, and the costume designer are free to choose a timespan of almost a thousand years, if their ambition would call for historical accuracy.” Nickel goes even further to point out that the legendary nature of Arthur would justify “any flight of fancy concerning costume and setting.” ((Nickel 2002, 235.))
Still, Nickel gives a film-by-film critique that becomes tedious, as virtually every movie has something wrong or outlandish with its medieval equipment. There is no discernable thesis and the only overarching conclusion leaves you wanting more—“the ways to approach the subject of arms and armor in Arthurian films are as many as there are costume designers.” ((Nickel 2002, 248.))
Approach 2: Identify the Trends/Themes
Conversely, Carl James Grindley admits any accuracy in cinematic arms and armor “would be a pointless triumph,” as those who care are never satisfied while everyone else would not even notice. ((Carl James Grindley, “Arms and the Man: The Curious Inaccuracy of Medieval Arms and Armor in Contemporary Film,” Film & History (2006): 19.))
Still, his analysis on the “curious inaccuracy” of medieval arms and armor in film uncovers some fascinating revelations. For example, he found that films that touted and strove toward the medieval were unsatisfying—Excalibur (1981), First Knight (1995), and A Knight’s Tale (2001).
Instead, he found greater armor accuracy in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), Army of Darkness (1992), Black Knight (2001), and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989).
Why would the big budget films striving for a medieval setting and tone feature less accurate medieval armor than the movies involving time travel and comedy? The general theme was that the first batch of films found their costume designers appropriating features from various periods of armor to portray the symbolic, not necessarily the accurate. Conversely, the second batch of films lacked the budget (or desire) to design costumes from scratch and tended to rent their costumes from specialty shops that strove for accuracy for enthusiasts. ((Grindley 2006, 17-18.))
Remarkably, enthusiasts are sticklers for authenticity, as Michael Cramer found in his study of the Society for Creative Anachronism, some of these reenactors “are often more invested in the field, in terms of time and money, than are some tenured professors.” ((Michael Cramer, “Reenactment,” in Medievalism: Key Critical Terms, eds. Elizabeth Emery and Richard Utz (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2014), 207.))
Thus, after Grindley reviewed a host of medieval films, he concluded,
As a movie heads towards the medieval, many of its props make a transit towards the symbolic. Conversely, as a film heads away from the medieval, a metaphorical sigh of relief is breathed, and most of the symbolic load carried by armor is dissipated ((Grindley 2006, 18.))
Although Grindley essentially performed the same task as Nickel by reviewing the authenticity of arms and armor in film, Grindley did more than simply point out what was inaccurate, as he focused on why they were or were not accurate. In doing so, he revealed larger trends and themes in Hollywood’s depictions of medieval equipment.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is an example of the type of questions academics pose when analyzing medievalism on screen.