Green Knight: 25 Things You Missed

The fox was the best

can you talk any quicker, pretty please ??

The movie was weird af but enjoyable. I liked the Green Knight. His presence was eerie and noble yet foreboding and almost fatherly. Like I said, weird af.

@@theod9548 engage warp drive or set playback speed to drunk mode. You got this.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have read "Gawain and the Green Knight", so I know the legend.

"Defeating the Green Knight was no small deed I believe! Was it an epic duel?"
"Actually, it was super easy, barely an inconvenience"

Ask him. He is willing to do that on request.

Ahh a man of culture I see

Did the same with mushrooms, no regrets

I don't agree. That could be referencing the king Gawain could be or implying that the king we see is a more real version of Arthur. Trust could refer to the loosing of the belt and friendship referring to the respect that the act confers.
Friend is, and especially was in the past, a variable term.

@@ltlbuddha they literally show the image of the crown being brought down on Gawains head when they say this is a a story about a different king. With his survival guaranteed at the beginning it hinges the drama on how he survives the encounter. Does he do so dishonorably continuing down a path to his ruin? Or has he learned from his travels, allowing him to accept his failings and try to atone by removing the sash...

@@Primenumber19 Nothing in that whole film has to be literal.

@@ltlbuddha I get the film is an acid trip interpretation of ancient fan fic of Arthurian mythology but if nothing matters in the film than the film has no meaning. And frankly the acid trip aspect is the visuals, The film still adheres to linear story telling and classic tropes like it was all just a dream.

@@Primenumber19 It is not that nothing matters, but that it is not necessarily straightforwards. That is literally what symbolism is for, to convey non-literal meaning.

I think a large segment of people were just mad bc of the expectation that this was an action movie and not receiving that. For some people coming in with a misconception of what you're going to get means they're in such a bad mood they can't appreciate what they got at all.

Definitely not everyone’s cup of tea. But I agree, thoroughly enjoyed it!

It’s surrealist. Very specific abstractions of concepts you maybe already know, they’re just being expressed differently. It’s a way of saying, “I am different and this is how.” This movie definitely makes the world feel very real. The cinematographer for the movie has gotten awards. You should watch “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” A surrealist movie written by a French director who’s made some interesting movies.

@@trvst5938 ok now that movie is actually good and the story moves along and is like maybe even explained better idk lol

That thought never crossed my mind through most of the film, until towards the end when the fox spoke and the voice reminded me of her. Sometime after finishing the movie I realized that the Lord and Lady never acknowledged the old blind woman who was with them, but she was always "watching" Gawain, that's when I started putting things together (the similar blindfold and the fox). Looking forward to watching it again to see what else I didn't catch the first time through.

Yes, moldy burgers and spoiled fries

Ah, foxy

spoiler............................................................................ .......................................................... . ....................I think that was guawines mother. I think she was behind it all. to make guawine an honorable man .

Like the coyote is a trickster in Native American lore. :)

Dude I still have most of the figures and even the siskbert!

The Lord told Gawain that whatever you receive from the house you will give to me. Gawain received a little more than a kiss and I think that the lord assumed that so he took initiative and kissed Gawain. Now, if I am not mistaken in the original story the Lady kissed Gawain and since Gawain was a man of honor he kissed The Lord back.

@@DarthFett66 ahhhhh I see

@@DarthFett66 the lady ended up giving Gawain something else that came in “handy” but let’s not get into that 😂

cuz he shmexy duh

Please, can you elaborate ?

I pronounce it "Gah-wain".

Gar-win or a variation of that sort is most common here in British

I’m sure it’s him. What this movie does a couple of times is runs with one timeline, then rewinds back and goes with a different timeline.

That’s the level of “intellect” we’re up against these days.

Yes and the witch is using Pagan magic to summon a figure possibly based off pagan British folklore (I.e. the green man). It’s a dichotomy between the two

It’s a 700 year old rape (in the form we have it today anyway)
It’s gonna be trophy cause this is where the tropes come from 😂

He played it well, you do notice it at first but his acting makes it flow so effortlessly that he seems to fit the role ideally

@@whitedragoness23 M not talking in that sense m talking about the history between Britain and India.

@@ChoCoMoCo69 well it’s set in a fantasy world so his race isn’t important

I'm not an expert on english folklore, since I'm from Germany, but many of the arthurian stories were being retold in german folklore as well, for example Parzival. The eponymous hero has a half brother called Feirefiz, whose skin is spotted like a magpie due to his mother being a black queen. He goes on become an arthurian hero too. There are other examples of people of colour being present at Arthurs court. So at least in the folklore poc did exist and were heros as well. Also, a lot of the knights of the round table, respectively their fathers have a habit of traveling around and making children with exotic queens and dames, so technically there would be a lot of diversity among the knights.
Gawain may not be a poc in the original poem, but my question to you is: does it matter? Is his skin colour part of the story? Does it drive the plot or shape his character in any way? If not, why can't he be a poc, as he very well could have been?
Dev Patel is a handsome, talented, british actor (he was born in London, making him as english as you can be). Chosing him over a white guy serves two purposes I think. First: minorities are more broadly represented, meaning poc are finally able to pursue their acting career, just like white people have for over a hundred years in the filming industry. Second: Casting minority actors helps establish acceptance for them, reducing prejudices etc., whereas casting a white person accomplishes nothing, if he is not a better actor and more suited for the role. So why not cast a poc who plays the character perfectly and also make some minor political statement as well?
I'm actually sincerely interested in an answer, so please, explain it to me.

@@hardy16able well it's not English folklore it's Welsh? Casting an English actor wouldn't be right. Casting an Asian English actor is even odder. England and Wales are different. England is the land of the Angles. Germanic people who came from Holland and other countries at the end of the Roman occupation. That is why English is very similar to Dutch. Gwalchmei, the original Welsh introduction, was a much more heroic character and he was debased though time and made evil or less heroic in later more Germanic tales. Why does it matter? Well it establishes precedence. You establish a character as something. If it become precedence establishing that Gawain was not a Briton (not the same as Britain but modern day Welshman) but an Asian from London it makes a nonsense of it all. In a world were there is not a shortage of roles for actors of Asian heritage, Dev Patel is not short of work or a struggling unknown, having him play a character who would have been living in a time of existential threat when the English were slowly pushing the Britons to the peripheries of these islands is not helping someone receive notice he needed. After all this is a low budget Indie film. I don't expect the American who made the film, who couldn't even be bothered to research how to pronounce words properly really cared. But then the Americans can't even spell correctly. I am very aware that Americans like playing fast and loose with history and mythology but like the films were they won the war without the British Empire or Russia, in American film making truth receives the first bullet.

​@@jonathanparkes8977 None of the other actors are welsh either. Yet you only talk about the "asian" as if that means he comes from a different culture than the other english actors when in fact the only difference to Ralph Ineson or Sean Harris is the colour of his skin.
This is a fantasy world, therefore Patel is in fact not established as a Londoner, but as a part of this fictional diegesis. And in this diegesis, as I have said, people of colour are in fact mentioned all the time. And how exactly does it "make nonsense of it all"? I just don't understand this argument. no sense in regards to what?
Also we seem to have a very different view on representation of minorities. Sure, it's become better in the last couple of years, but does that mean we should stop casting them now? Anyway, I'm quite certain we will not be able to agree on this specific point.
Lastly I just want to say that mythology and heroic tales were always changing due to them being told and retold verbally for centuries. There is not that one original story, there are only variations. Therefore, changing this story in order to deliver a personal message as a director fits perfectly in the tradition of retelling folklore. Of course I understand the disappointment of people who wanted to see a one to one-to-one adaption of the poem, but that is just not how movies are made.

@@hardy16able The Welsh tales of Arthur aren't just verbal. The Cyrmi had a written language before the saxon invasion. Also, I love how you tell an indigenous person he has no business how his ancestral stories are told.

No it is not okay!
If a white dude cant do the voice of an black or asian animated character a non white cant portrai a white person.
You reap what you sow, culture marxists!
*AND HEIMDAL IS STILL A WHITE NORSE GOD! STOP MESSING WITH MY RELIGION!*

Every retelling of the Arthur story gets worse as they move further away from the original.
I guess scriptwriters can't compete with a 13th century author who used a quill.

@@cptsuperstraight6924 it all has to pas through a series of filters including the required artsy noir and the woke filter with a splash of dope ass cgi.

Your view. I thought it was great.

you should be a movie critic

It’s hard to believe he read the poem. Maybe just a brief synopsis or bad re-telling.
A decrepit King Arthur? In a poem where youth, virility and freshness are essential symbolism?
The film was only about the director, not about the story.

I loved it and would argue the point of this wasn’t to retell the poem, but to complement it.
But fair enough. Not everyone’s cup of tea 😂

thank you for supporting the arts! I hope you enjoy fast and furious 17!

This film destroys any art to be found in the poem, and puts none in its place.
Support the arts by demanding better than this.

King Arthur is sub saharian

What next?! A talking CGI fox?!

real man but Indian = that's crazy!! boo!!!
giants and talking animals = no problem!!! just make sure they are huwhyte please

Rather him than some yank. At least Devs British 🇬🇧🇬🇧

what a brilliant take. quite thought provoking and compelling

@@crieverytim Thank you 🤫

@@flatphrat134 wow, you dont get films OR yt comments 🤷‍♂️🤣😬 ;)

@@crieverytim Get, you bit. I won. 🧐 GG

who tf cares

@@dylanisbad sorry I offended you by commenting