If you liked this article, please like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and please consider Donating to keep the blog going
Every culture has a handful of fundamental tales that are forever retold, decade-to-decade. In the Western canon, one such tale is the story of King Arthur, a romantic fiction theoretically based on the deeds of a real man in the time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginnings of organized, European civilization. Every decade since the dawn of modern pop culture has had its own take on the Arthur myth- 1953’s straightforward adventure film Knights of the Round Table, 1967’s musical Camelot was so popular the mythology became intertwined with the Kennedy administration.
1975’s Monty Python and the Holy Grail brought ‘70s cynicism and satire to the material while 1981’s Excalibur afforded the legend the scale and pageantry of a blockbuster epic. In 1995 First Knight doubled down on a romantic vision of King Arthur, and in 2004 we got an ostensibly more realistic version of the story with King Arthur. Now, on the eve of the 2010’s take on the classic legend, I thought I’d look back on my favorite retelling of the classic tale, a piece of high-concept weirdness from 1983 entitled Camelot 3000.
