Stax here with my reaction to Brian Helgeland's screenplay for A KNIGHT'S TALE! The movie begins filming this April in the Czech Republic and will mark the Oscar-winning Helgeland's (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL) second time directing a feature film, his maiden voyage being PAYBACK. The re-editing and re-shooting of PAYBACK -- and Helgeland's subsequent falling out with star-pal Mel Gibson -- is an infamous example of a Hollywood power struggle, a cautionary tale about the tenuous bonds, hungry egos, and cold hard business considerations that are a part of professional filmmaking. Ironically, A KNIGHT'S TALE will headline rising Aussie star Heath Ledger, who plays Gibson's son in THE PATRIOT and is rumored to be the new MAD MAX should a fourth film ever come to fruition. The draft of A KNIGHT'S TALE that I read is from November 1999 and runs a little over 125 pages in length. Mark Addy (THE FULL MONTY) has also apparently been cast. Columbia Pictures will distribute the final film.

If you have ever seen the "Making of" featurette that is included at the end of the home video version of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, you will see its co-screenwriter Brian Helgeland being interviewed by director/co-screenwriter Curtis Hanson. Both filmmakers come across as down to earth, likable fellows. But even though Helgeland strikes me as a sweet guy, I find his screenwriting work as a whole to be somewhat less than likable. What he and Curtis Hanson accomplished in adapting James Ellroy's L.A. CONFIDENTIAL for the screen is undeniably remarkable. That film (and its screenplay) is among my all-time favorites. Since I never read his original script to PAYBACK, and cannot also determine which parts of the final film are Helgeland's and which are his (still unknown) replacement's, I will just say that I enjoyed PAYBACK well enough for what it was, which is an edgier than usual Mel Gibson vehicle. (PAYBACK pales in comparison to the John Boorman original POINT BLANK.) Helgeland also scripted CONSPIRACY THEORY, which starred Gibson before they teamed up for PAYBACK. That film is another star-driven vehicle that failed to realize its full potential. Helgeland also has to live with the colossal post-apocalyptic flop THE POSTMAN on his conscience, as well as the mediocre Stallone vehicle ASSASSINS, HIGHWAY TO HELL, and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4. Take away his Oscar and Helgeland's filmography is a mixed bag made up mostly of failed star vehicles and lame genre flicks. Judging by this draft of A KNIGHT'S TALE, which is dated around the time this project was first announced in the trades as a green-lit production, I feel that this movie will end up being yet another lesser entry in Helgeland's canon.

A KNIGHT'S TALE is a whimsical, medieval romantic-adventure movie; it is purely escapist fare. Don't expect to see much of the drudgery and horror of life in fourteenth century Western Europe depicted in this colorful romp. As a medieval adventure film, A KNIGHT'S TALE is not going to topple EXCALIBUR and as a period comedy it won't rival MONTHY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. No, this script is essentially a medieval sports movie with a teen romance subplot. It follows the adventures of a lowly squire named William Thatcher who assumes the guise of "Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein" after his knight-mentor dies a most undignified death in the story's opening scene. With his pals Roland and Wat accompanying him as his varlets, William/Sir Ulrich sets out to achieve his lifelong dream of being a knight, or as his father said "to change his stars." William and his pals want to rake in all the big prize money knights win at the numerous jousting and swordplay competitions held across Western Europe. William excels at jousting and he defeats many knights while managing to keep his true identity a secret from the aristocracy he is now rubbing shoulders with.

Joining William and his pals on their quest is a flippant scribe for hire named … Geoffrey Chaucer! (This is before he penned THE CANTEBURY TALES and Helgeland implies that it is Chaucer's journeys with William that later inspired him to write his most famous work.) William competes in innumerable events, catching the eye of a beautiful princess named Jocelyn while also becoming the rival of the snide Count Adhemar on both the field and in the pursuit of Jocelyn's affections. The remaining plot, almost three-quarters of the story, is basically seeing William compete in all these different jousting matches while he gushes over Jocelyn and tries to conceal his humble origins (I think impersonating a knight is still a crime somewhere in the world, or at least it should be!). Geoffrey Chaucer I found A KNIGHT'S TALE to be merely adequate entertainment. It had an all too familiar plotline that was essentially the CINDERELLA formula applied to a "guy's movie;" indeed, this script's simplistic narrative and sassy yet shallow characters reminded me of the slightly more entertaining EVER AFTER except that it is meant to appeal to young men instead. William, for all his earnestness and fortitude, never quite resonates with you as much as he should. He is the archetypal underdog, the KARATE KID in shining armor. His most marked characteristic was his ambition to no longer remain poor. Many of us can relate to that but we never get to know William as well as we should. For most of the story he is on horseback piercing people with lances instead of being developed as a character so it became tough to maintain sympathy for him. This lack of depth is an overall problem with all the characters.

Count Adhemar was a forgettable antagonist who lacked a sufficient presence to make his agenda against William seem more threatening. He just wants to whip the hero's butt at sports and then bed his girlfriend. Adhemar reminded me of a cartoon villain from one of Disney's lesser efforts in that he is never as despicable or as dangerous as he needs to be. He is more like a playground bully from a kid's movie rather than a worthy screen villain in an adventure film about medieval knights. In order for us to remain involved in William's story, the audience needs to seriously doubt at times that William will ever attain his goal. William's biggest obstacle to realizing these goals should then be Adhemar. But Adhemar must be a more than an upper crust SOB if we are to take him, and the threat he poses to William's dream, more seriously. Otherwise, we are left with a terribly predictable and suspense-free conflict where the outcome for the hero is never truly in doubt because the opposition he faces is so weak.

Helgeland makes the big mistake of taking Adhemar away from the narrative's main action (because of off-screen historical events that are incidental to this plot) for part of the story's latter half -- right when his rivalry with William should be getting more and more heated. Instead of showing us more countless (and nearly identical) jousting montages, Helgeland should have focused on the relationship between his hero and villain while also fleshing out the romance between William and Jocelyn. Jocelyn is a woefully underdeveloped character. There is really nothing too her except for her surface appearance. She is sort of the Marcia Brady of the medieval world; a prima donna embroiled in a star-crossed love affair with a bad boy from the wrong side of the (wagon) tracks. Jocelyn is presented in this script merely as an object, a trophy to be sought after by ambitious men. She is William's reward for being such a bad ass on the jousting field. We must get to know her far better in order for us to care more about her relationship with William. Their romantic subplot is never as compelling as it should be since neither young protagonist is very interesting or well drawn.

Geoffrey Chaucer gets to chew all the scenery here and he serves ably enough as the story's (more intelligent than usual) comic relief. I'm confident that many grad students and academics will be pleased by his inclusion (and will debate how crudely he is portrayed here) while the rest of the audience will likely think Chaucer an invention. Edward "The Black Prince" of Wales also has a few brief scenes. A KNIGHT'S TALE is set in 1370 A.D. From what I have learned about Chaucer's sketchy life, his travels throughout the parts of Europe he is shown visiting here most likely happened a few years earlier (possibly between 1630-38 when he was supposedly a squire in the household of King Edward III, father of The Black Prince, incidentally). This is a ridiculous nit-pick, I admit, but I commend Helgeland for at least incorporating these rich historic figures into a movie, something I am not sure has ever been done before. I also wonder if William's feisty and scrawny varlet Wat was named by Helgeland for (or is intended to later become) Wat Tyler, one of the leaders of the 1381 Peasants Revolt who was killed by the forces of King Richard II. Again, just another historic curiosity of mine. Unfortunately, sketchy characters and a predictable plot weren't even what annoyed me the most about A KNIGHT'S TALE. For some inexplicable reason, Helgeland thinks it is funny to incorporate 1970's music into his medieval story. We get to hear Bachman Turner Overdrive, Queen, and KC and the Sunshine Band at various points in this story, which is set in 1370 remember. There is one scene in particular where this one-note anachronistic humor ruined the story for me. William attends a feast at a castle where he dances with Jocelyn, much to the chagrin of Count Adhemar. All of a sudden the medieval music and dancing transform into disco and our two lovebirds begin to boogie. What in the hell was up with that, Mr. Helgeland?! Have you not purged yourself yet of PAYBACK's retro soundtrack? These anachronisms are just plain unfunny and constantly yank you right out of the story. And they begin on page one! While I understand Helgeland's desire not to make the usual medieval film (even though his story is still basically just another CINDERELLA retread), poking fun at the decade of his youth belongs in another film besides this one.

. Satirizing the 1970's is by now a pretty unoriginal and tired joke in movies. (CHARLIE'S ANGELS, anyone?) And since the jokes here never serve any real purpose other than to tear the reader away from the story they are trying to invest themselves in they should be cut immediately. I just came away from reading these 1970's jokes feeling like Brian Helgeland was trying to exorcise his high school demons; through William he is finally getting to dance (and score) with the pretty but witless 1978 prom queen he must have had a crush on. These 1970's jokes made the story become about what Helgeland wanted to have happen rather than what William wanted and that is a major mistake. These bizarre references could all be easily excised. I hope that this will happen without it taking negative feedback from test audiences to make it so. Medieval films with a 1970's or 1980's sound to them belong on MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000. These anachronistic scenes were reminiscent of Men Without Hats' "Safety Dance" video, also set in medieval times, and that isn't necessarily a good thing!

While reading A KNIGHT'S TALE, Brain Helgeland repeatedly makes you aware that you are inside a movie and this prevents you from becoming more involved in the story. Helgeland stops the narrative momentum numerous times to make unnecessary observations. For example, he states how the outfits in a particular scene are meant to win the Best Costume Oscar. Or about why a certain aspect ratio was invented just for these types of battle scenes. Or his reminder -- just as Adhemar's fate is being sealed -- that at least villains get their comeuppance in the movies. If an actor were doing this, it would be called mugging for the camera and it is a terrible habit. It shows insecurity or even arrogance on the part of the person doing it. A good writer could find several other ways to make his or her point without resorting to these tricks. Mistakes like the kind I cite above should be saved for pre-production meetings with department heads and not for your (reading) audience. Leave the reader in the story that they are trying to invest themselves in. There are enough points while reading a so-so script where one wants to abandon it; the last thing the writer should do is essentially hold the door open for you and make a pithy remark on your way out. I don't know why Helgeland consistently sabotages his own story by doing these things. Worse yet, Helgeland actually has product placement in his medieval script! He writes that a certain odd shape on William's armor looks suspiciously like the Puma logo. This is inexcusable, unfunny, unnecessary, and insulting. Please, all you aspiring screenwriters, don't do this in your own work. That is right up there with George Clooney pulling out his Bat-Visa in BATMAN & ROBIN. I suspect Helgeland is just trying to be funny but he is again losing his readers by pulling us out of William's story like this. Helgeland obviously wants us to like William as much as he does since he (again) stops the story's action at one point and actually states "I love this guy." Well, that's great for Helgeland but I'm no longer quite so enamored of William and his quest.

A KNIGHT'S TALE certainly had potential. The underdog formula Helgeland employs usually manipulates enough people to be moderately successful. But this script suffered from under-developed characters and an overly predictable plot that utilized every cliché moment in the CINDERELLA formula you can think of. I was more than willing to like A KNIGHT'S TALE but it fell far short of delivering the goods in my humble estimation. Its snappy dialogue was appealing and Helgeland could have won me over more with the tried and true underdog formula had he just taken a fresher approach to it. But he didn't bother to. And he consistently pulled me out of the story by injecting inane 1970's references into it and by making unnecessary directorial comments. All of these interruptions just emphasized how trite and under-developed the characters and plot were; the more they happened the less interested I became in returning to the story. I was reminded that it was all just a silly movie with nothing for me to really care about in it. I honestly wanted to like A KNIGHT'S TALE. Why Brian Helgeland wouldn't allow me to I honestly don't know.

-- Stax on Xoom

April 17, 2000

More on the upcoming movie A Knights Tale.

Back to the list of *Articles* and *Chats*

*Home *News *Pictures *Info *Accomplishments *Reviews *Coming Soon *Links *Message Board The Patriot*