our primary discussion about the first trailer was here, and this is the first trailer released, just to refresh your memory:
Then, we got a "teaser trailer" that still had some new and important footage in it; our discussion on the teaser trailer can be found here, and just for review, here is the teaser:
And here is the official second, full-length trailer for the film which we have not discussed at all heretofore:
And now, the third (full) length trailer, also which we have not discussed at all:
One of the best ways to begin an analysis is to start with what you all ready recognize and know, and branch-out from there: surely everyone sees the "Moses reference" with young Arthur (0:37), drifting down the Thames and being found in spite of someone having tried to kill him, then growing up and not knowing his true heritage (Moses thought he was Egyptian, but was Jewish, Arthur thinking he was a street urchin but being royalty). But there is another reference, not to the Moses we know from the Old Testament, but from Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings (which I absolutely loved; we also see the "child-floating-down-the-river-in-a-reed-basket motif in Warcraft, but I won't really talk about that as much because it happens at the end of the film and they don't get a chance to develop it). Why would three films invoke the Old Testament savior? Because he was a savior, leading an enslaved people away from a ruthless and worldly leader, back to God and a spiritual center in their lives, and both films resurrect Moses because both films understand that Moses is what men need to become today. We have heard Vortigern tell Arthur, "I know your story," but we also saw this with Moses (Christian Bale) when Nun (Ben Kingsley) proceeds to tell Moses the history of how he was born; there is another similarity with Exodus: Gods and Kings as well,....
So, why is this important for today?
There are three reasons.
First, as you know, dear reader, history films are never, ever, never, ever, never, EVER about history: they are always about the here and the now. We, then, the viewers, are both the Children of Israel and the enslaved peasants of England, waiting for our deliverer, our modern Moses, our modern King Arthur, and he has been promised to us; why? Because we are oppressed. Both Ridley Scott in his Exodus, and Guy Ritchie in his King Arthur, see people today as being enslaved by tyrants who have intentionally sought to destroy our identities with gender-swapping (both the rise of transgenderism, homosexuality and oppressing masculinity and genuine femininity), with globalism destroying our national identities and our religion (with sin, Satanism and secular humanism).
What is the second reason?
Is there anything more masculine than King Arthur and his sword Excalibur? Then the Knights of the Round Table? The history of chivalry is the history of what it means to be a man, among men, to other men and women and children. As we know, a horrible and constant assault has been waged against masculinity, so that now, the word "toxic" seems to be always attached to masculinity, making masculinity appear to be inherently anti-social and anti-everyone-else-in-the-world. What Ritchie is doing, along with Ridley Scott (and we will likely see this in Michael Bay's Transformers: the Last Knight as well), is saying, males (especially white males who are under such strenuous attack) have had a code of morality and that morality has been undermined: men have been led astray--sometimes by their own free will--but now that morality needs to be relearned for the sake of the order of the entire world: we haven't seen a single "knight," in the sense which we understand it today, in any of the footage released heretofore; why not? The virtues of chivalry have been choked to death by the weeds of sin: because men allowed themselves to be led by the "easy life" of adultery and skipping out on their responsibility for getting women pregnant, having addictions such as drunkenness, drugs and pornography, allowing the divorce rate to skyrocket and living with a woman rather than marrying her, as well as tolerating the viral spread of homosexuality, have all undermined man's role in society, in the US and the world, which leads us to the third reason.
The third reason is the Divine, and the way in which the Divine manifests Himself (yes, I, a woman, freely choose to use the masculine gender-designation for a male God, not a feminist female-gendered god or a genderless god, or an all-inclusive god, but the male God who took upon Himself the identity of Jesus Christ). Just as there is a natural law ordering all things to balance and harmony, so there is the Divine Law above the natural law, including the role of men in the family and society as ordained by God. Feminists label this order with two terms: "phallogocentrism" and "patriarchy" (two terms I will be employing far more often in the future). Minorities, especially women, have used these two terms as weapons since the 1960s, to great effect, causing men to shrink back from leadership roles and make massive concessions because of the "social harms" created by (white, heterosexual, Christian) males. Ritchie, Scott and Bay, however, far from cowering under these feminist accusations, have seen what has happened to the world when there is no phallocentrism, logocentrisim or patriarchy, and are now going to use those very same terms as weapons to protect men (please see the caption below for further discussion). So, these are important themes we shall see in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword and, while we haven't even begun to exhaust these themes, we have a better understanding now that they have been identified.
Now, let's examine the seven details that I have been able to pick-up about King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword that we can discuss now and will enhance our viewing experience so we are able to immediately engage scenes on a deeper level when we encounter these traits of the story.
Where to begin?
Let's start with Vortigern.
The Mages, which includes Guinevere, are a race of magically gifted people. There is more magic than what I thought there was going to be in the film, and that includes the sword itself (more on that in a moment). It's interesting because trailer two is the first time we have heard Guinevere speak (although we saw her in the first trailer), and writer/director Guy Ritchie allowed Astrid Berges-Frisbey to retain her French accent instead of employing an English accent. Knowing Ritche, this was well-thought out and there is a reason for it (when I first heard her voice, she reminded me of Lea Seydoux's Madeline in the James Bond film Spectre) and possibly was done to emphasize the differences between Arthur and Guinevere because, sadly, we live in a time when the Left is attempting to erase all differences between male and female, and Guinevere's accent reminds us that she and Arthur are quite different.
Merlin does appear in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, and he does have an effect on how events take a turn, however, he and Arthur don't meet and there certainly isn't any kind of friendship between them at this point. The same is true with other famed knights of the Round Table: we won't meet Galahad, Gawain, Percival, Lancelot or any of the others; why not? There is excellent speculation that this is going to turn into a franchise, and each of the knights, Merlin, too, will be given a stand alone film until they are mingled with Arthur and his adventures (like Marvel's Avengers). This was probably an excellent call, as Nicol Williamson's Merlin in Excalibur is a difficult act to follow, and taking time for a stand alone film with Merlin will give Ritchie's Merlin the edge over any other version. Introducing Lancelot to an audience on Lancelot's own terms will also create a far deeper character and a far greater burden between himself, Arthur and Guinevere.
Young Arthur is orphaned when his parents are killed and three prostitutes take him in, raising him in the brothel where they live,.... and work. This might not seem like such a big deal, however, it does signal one of the many ways which Ritchie breaks with canon (and, as long as it's Guy Ritchie doing it, I don't mind one bit). However, the "three" prostitutes, probably pays homage to the original three women, i.e., the "three queens," who were such a big part of Arthur's life and were, in fact, adultresses: Igrayne, with whom Uther Pendragon slept and beget Arthur; Morgana, Arthur's half-sister, who slept with Arthur and beget Mordred (who does, in fact, make an appearance in King Arthur, but we don't know if he is, in fact, Arthur's brother and son,... eeekkkk!!!!) and, of course, Guinevere, who married Arthur but slept with Lancelot.
Ritchie had a runic language invented just for this film. We see some of the writing on the sword itself, and the language is used by the Mages and possibly some of those Satanic-cultic people/demons we see in other clips. Why is this important? Because it signals to us that language is important and we will have to "translate" the language being used, in other words, language won't be stable. Just as Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) looks for clues, so Ritchie invites us to look for clues, and just as someone will have to translate inscriptions, so we will have to translate the language of the film as well. There is, however, another dimension to this: The Mummy with Tom Cruise, also has a fabricated language, the "text" written on the face of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). Why would two big films of 2017 have made-up languages in their stories? Because of the "made-up" language of the Left and their abuse of what words mean (like "racism" and "male" or "freedom" or "toxic," etc.).
It has been verified that the sword King Arthur pulls from the stone is, indeed, called Excalibur. This is important for a couple of reasons: first, it links Ritchie's Arthur with canon, which he doesn't have to do, but he obviously wants that weight of authority on his side, and this does it. Second, as Gandalf tells Bilbo in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, only swords that have performed great deeds have been given names, and Excalibur is the sword above all other swords. So great is the power of Excalibur, Vortigern has a duplicate of the sword made in the film, but it's not nearly as powerful as Excalibur. My question is: does Vortigern try and pass off the phony sword as the real Excalibur and that's why, at the start of the second trailer he's so worried that the "sword has revealed itself now," he's going to be exposed as a fraud? Then, there is the all-important fact that Excalibur has a long history, and while feminists have tried taking his-story and literally re-writing it to make his-story her-story, now, men are pushing back to claim their history once more.
So, you have been warned.
When Vortigern has taken over his brother's castle and throne, and is having Uther Pendragon killed, Uther is stabbed in the back with Excalibur and then, Uther himself turns into the stone holding Excalibur, until Arthur comes to pull it out.
Isn't that awesome!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
So, why is this important for today?
![]() |
| Two different types of kingship are at odds with each other in this narrative: it's not, however, the kingship of Uther and Vortigern, rather, the future those two men will usher in. Uther is the sign of what Arthur's kingship will be and what Arthur will represent and fight for; Vortigern is the sign of occult power and behind-the-scenes machinations, like this figure of him at the bottom (there is a similar image in The Cure For Wellness, with the head doctor wearing a deer's head during a sex rite of an occult ceremony). With the scene of Uther, his queen and young Arthur above, we can tell by the colors Uther wears what his values are: wisdom (his blue tunic), love (the red coverlet) and family. The gold band around his arm is a sign of the virtue of his kingship: arms symbolize strength, and gold symbolizes the king, so Uther probably uses restraint in his governance, unlike Vortigern. In the second image, did you notice how Vortigern put the crown upon his own head? That's not how crownings are done, at least, not how legitimate crownings are done: a high-ranking member of the Church puts the crown upon the monarch's head in demonstration that the monarch's rule is a sign of God's Will and all people should accept it. Vortigern putting the crown upon his own head clearly illustrates this is not an act of God's Will, but of Vortigern's will, and he is not supported by the Church, but is instead usurping the Church as well as the crown (usurping the Church with his pagan, satanic ceremonies in the image below). If we have any doubts as to what Vortigern's rule is, all we have to do is look at the soldiers' "Heil Hitler!" salute in the third image to clearly see the connecting to Nazi Germany. We shouldn't be surprised to see this: Ritchie's The Man From UNCLE started in Berlin, Germany and the main plot was trying to keep a band of Nazis post-World War II from getting a nuclear bomb. With the image at the bottom, let's consider the role of the occult/satanism that might be portrayed in the film. We know that the Democrat Party has severed themselves from God (remember the Democratic National Convention of 2012 when adding a statement about God to the official Democratic platform was booed three times by the crowd?) and added an extreme stand on abortion for the Party; we also know liberals are employing satanic spells and invocations against President Trump. So, we shouldn't be at all surprised to see Vortigern dressed in the guise of a devil-worshiper, or the demonic villain working on Vortigern's behalf. The more the Left aligns itself with evil, the less we are surprised. Remember, as well, Ritchie's use of occultism and Satanism in Sherlock Holmes, and how each of the leading members of the Temple Order were heading major departments of the government with massive political influence, so, again, we shouldn't be surprised to see Ritchie employing this theme once more. |
First, as you know, dear reader, history films are never, ever, never, ever, never, EVER about history: they are always about the here and the now. We, then, the viewers, are both the Children of Israel and the enslaved peasants of England, waiting for our deliverer, our modern Moses, our modern King Arthur, and he has been promised to us; why? Because we are oppressed. Both Ridley Scott in his Exodus, and Guy Ritchie in his King Arthur, see people today as being enslaved by tyrants who have intentionally sought to destroy our identities with gender-swapping (both the rise of transgenderism, homosexuality and oppressing masculinity and genuine femininity), with globalism destroying our national identities and our religion (with sin, Satanism and secular humanism).
What is the second reason?
Is there anything more masculine than King Arthur and his sword Excalibur? Then the Knights of the Round Table? The history of chivalry is the history of what it means to be a man, among men, to other men and women and children. As we know, a horrible and constant assault has been waged against masculinity, so that now, the word "toxic" seems to be always attached to masculinity, making masculinity appear to be inherently anti-social and anti-everyone-else-in-the-world. What Ritchie is doing, along with Ridley Scott (and we will likely see this in Michael Bay's Transformers: the Last Knight as well), is saying, males (especially white males who are under such strenuous attack) have had a code of morality and that morality has been undermined: men have been led astray--sometimes by their own free will--but now that morality needs to be relearned for the sake of the order of the entire world: we haven't seen a single "knight," in the sense which we understand it today, in any of the footage released heretofore; why not? The virtues of chivalry have been choked to death by the weeds of sin: because men allowed themselves to be led by the "easy life" of adultery and skipping out on their responsibility for getting women pregnant, having addictions such as drunkenness, drugs and pornography, allowing the divorce rate to skyrocket and living with a woman rather than marrying her, as well as tolerating the viral spread of homosexuality, have all undermined man's role in society, in the US and the world, which leads us to the third reason.
The third reason is the Divine, and the way in which the Divine manifests Himself (yes, I, a woman, freely choose to use the masculine gender-designation for a male God, not a feminist female-gendered god or a genderless god, or an all-inclusive god, but the male God who took upon Himself the identity of Jesus Christ). Just as there is a natural law ordering all things to balance and harmony, so there is the Divine Law above the natural law, including the role of men in the family and society as ordained by God. Feminists label this order with two terms: "phallogocentrism" and "patriarchy" (two terms I will be employing far more often in the future). Minorities, especially women, have used these two terms as weapons since the 1960s, to great effect, causing men to shrink back from leadership roles and make massive concessions because of the "social harms" created by (white, heterosexual, Christian) males. Ritchie, Scott and Bay, however, far from cowering under these feminist accusations, have seen what has happened to the world when there is no phallocentrism, logocentrisim or patriarchy, and are now going to use those very same terms as weapons to protect men (please see the caption below for further discussion). So, these are important themes we shall see in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword and, while we haven't even begun to exhaust these themes, we have a better understanding now that they have been identified.
![]() |
| So far, we have only heard Uther say two things: "I need you to do as I say," to his wife, and then, to Arthur, "Run, son!" both signifying his role as a patriarch. The reason Uther saying, "I need you to do as I say," is because Uther is basically telling the queen, "I need you to exercise obedience to me," which is basically the most horrible thing a man can say in today's hyper-feminist world where Liberal women have taught society that women should not be obedient to their husbands because everything their husbands do is done only to advance the husband's power over his wife, not help her. As a woman myself, I completely disagree with this expedient form of political propaganda women employ to insist they have been oppressed. The reason this is going to be important, dear reader, is because of who the queen is. We know that women of child-bearing age (as opposed to much older women beyond child-bearing capacity, or girls not yet old enough to bear a child) symbolize "the motherland," the land who literally gives birth to us and provides us with our home and a fair portion of our identities. So, as the symbolic incarnation of England, who we know is about to die (we see her drop dead backwards and know Arthur is orphaned) and that no one dies unless they are "all ready dead" or they have sacrificed themselves or another/a greater good, the HUGE point of this scene is, was the queen obedient to Uther? Does she do exactly as he says, OR does she act like a feminist and do what she wants to do? There will be an extremely important correlation established between the queen, Arthur's mother, and Guinevere, the Mage, because Guinevere is likely to become queen (Ritchie might have something up his sleeve with this, because, at this point, she's still just referred to as "The Mage," not Guinevere, so we will have to keep that in mind watching the film) and if Guinevere exhibits behavior(s) similar to what we see in the queen, then we know, also, that Guinevere is also "dead," following the same path as the dead queen. If obedience is so bad, why does Uther expect the queen to be obedient to him? Love. When a person loves you, they want what is best for you, and because of their love for you, they will be better able to decide how to help, nurture and protect you than you can for yourself because we do not have the proper love-of-self which we ought to have; so, when someone loves us, we owe them our obedience (the way children owe obedience to their parents because the parents love the children more than do the children love themselves, so the parents know what is best for them; the problem with this analogy is, it does, indeed, make feminists feel like children that they don't have a proper self-love, so feminists prefer to deny the existence of love altogether, rather than open up the possibility of legitimate obedience in a relationship). In the second image, we have the exact opposite of "obedience-through-love" and that is "subjection-through-fear." Love and obedience are associated with capitalism because capitalism/democracy are based upon a person's free will whereas socialism is always associated with determination because socialists hold that one, humans are just animals, and we aren't capable of making decisions (even IF we did have free will, we wouldn't be capable of using it) and, two, the state must be all-powerful in order to make the "necessary changes" for socialism to take root (read: seize all property, assets and currencies so there will be no one higher than the people in the government and everyone instantly becomes a member of the lower-class). Vortigern is a dictator who thrives on the fear of the people beneath him, and this is typically what happens in socialist countries (Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Pinochet, Castro, Mao, the dictators of North Korea and Vietnam, etc.) where there is no freedom and people are treated like the animals the socialist leaders believe they are (consider this note recently found in a purse from a Chinese prisoner writing for help). Just as Vortigern kills Uther in the film, so we all know how socialism throughout the world is trying to kill capitalism and democracy, and Vortigern is exactly how that will look. So, how do we overcome these socialist tendencies in global politics? The return of the phallus, in the third image above. Just as Excalibur rallies the political resistance to Vortigern around Arthur, so it is the only reality which can stand against the fabrications of the socialist movement; how? Example. People need examples of exemplary behavior, and then they, too, shall follow, but if a man be of lax morality, the whole world will go to rot, and that is exactly what is happening. The bottom image, when Arthur takes up Excalibur and all the stones which have been broken up rise up off the ground and suddenly become weapons, symbolizes us, the people, the patriots willing to fight for our country, but also in need of leadership. Perhaps you have noticed that, in the two posters of Vortigern and Arthur, there is a stone behind that which has some chunks of rock taken out: those missing rocks are the rocks we see in the lower image above, and they symbolize us, just as the larger slabs of stone symbolize the "Founding Fathers" and the foundation for rule, law and society which is the right and duty of Founding Fathers to lay down; the question is, who will prevail as the Founding Father, Arthur or Vortigern? |
Where to begin?
Let's start with Vortigern.
The Mages, which includes Guinevere, are a race of magically gifted people. There is more magic than what I thought there was going to be in the film, and that includes the sword itself (more on that in a moment). It's interesting because trailer two is the first time we have heard Guinevere speak (although we saw her in the first trailer), and writer/director Guy Ritchie allowed Astrid Berges-Frisbey to retain her French accent instead of employing an English accent. Knowing Ritche, this was well-thought out and there is a reason for it (when I first heard her voice, she reminded me of Lea Seydoux's Madeline in the James Bond film Spectre) and possibly was done to emphasize the differences between Arthur and Guinevere because, sadly, we live in a time when the Left is attempting to erase all differences between male and female, and Guinevere's accent reminds us that she and Arthur are quite different.
Merlin does appear in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, and he does have an effect on how events take a turn, however, he and Arthur don't meet and there certainly isn't any kind of friendship between them at this point. The same is true with other famed knights of the Round Table: we won't meet Galahad, Gawain, Percival, Lancelot or any of the others; why not? There is excellent speculation that this is going to turn into a franchise, and each of the knights, Merlin, too, will be given a stand alone film until they are mingled with Arthur and his adventures (like Marvel's Avengers). This was probably an excellent call, as Nicol Williamson's Merlin in Excalibur is a difficult act to follow, and taking time for a stand alone film with Merlin will give Ritchie's Merlin the edge over any other version. Introducing Lancelot to an audience on Lancelot's own terms will also create a far deeper character and a far greater burden between himself, Arthur and Guinevere.
Young Arthur is orphaned when his parents are killed and three prostitutes take him in, raising him in the brothel where they live,.... and work. This might not seem like such a big deal, however, it does signal one of the many ways which Ritchie breaks with canon (and, as long as it's Guy Ritchie doing it, I don't mind one bit). However, the "three" prostitutes, probably pays homage to the original three women, i.e., the "three queens," who were such a big part of Arthur's life and were, in fact, adultresses: Igrayne, with whom Uther Pendragon slept and beget Arthur; Morgana, Arthur's half-sister, who slept with Arthur and beget Mordred (who does, in fact, make an appearance in King Arthur, but we don't know if he is, in fact, Arthur's brother and son,... eeekkkk!!!!) and, of course, Guinevere, who married Arthur but slept with Lancelot.
Ritchie had a runic language invented just for this film. We see some of the writing on the sword itself, and the language is used by the Mages and possibly some of those Satanic-cultic people/demons we see in other clips. Why is this important? Because it signals to us that language is important and we will have to "translate" the language being used, in other words, language won't be stable. Just as Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) looks for clues, so Ritchie invites us to look for clues, and just as someone will have to translate inscriptions, so we will have to translate the language of the film as well. There is, however, another dimension to this: The Mummy with Tom Cruise, also has a fabricated language, the "text" written on the face of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). Why would two big films of 2017 have made-up languages in their stories? Because of the "made-up" language of the Left and their abuse of what words mean (like "racism" and "male" or "freedom" or "toxic," etc.).
It has been verified that the sword King Arthur pulls from the stone is, indeed, called Excalibur. This is important for a couple of reasons: first, it links Ritchie's Arthur with canon, which he doesn't have to do, but he obviously wants that weight of authority on his side, and this does it. Second, as Gandalf tells Bilbo in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, only swords that have performed great deeds have been given names, and Excalibur is the sword above all other swords. So great is the power of Excalibur, Vortigern has a duplicate of the sword made in the film, but it's not nearly as powerful as Excalibur. My question is: does Vortigern try and pass off the phony sword as the real Excalibur and that's why, at the start of the second trailer he's so worried that the "sword has revealed itself now," he's going to be exposed as a fraud? Then, there is the all-important fact that Excalibur has a long history, and while feminists have tried taking his-story and literally re-writing it to make his-story her-story, now, men are pushing back to claim their history once more.
So, you have been warned.
When Vortigern has taken over his brother's castle and throne, and is having Uther Pendragon killed, Uther is stabbed in the back with Excalibur and then, Uther himself turns into the stone holding Excalibur, until Arthur comes to pull it out.
Isn't that awesome!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner















