British History Club Home > The Mystery of King Arthur on DVD
INTERVIEW: Mick Fowler
Film-maker, The Mystery of King Arthur
BHC Tell us about your experience in the film/tv industry.
MF
I've had experience in several different departments in the film and tv
business, but primarily in audio mixing. Directing and independent film
making are recent additions to my resume, but I've had many years of direct
contact with the visual side of the business, so none of it is what you'd
call 'new', just that the involvement is more linear. I've worked mostly in
television on shows like "Courthouse" "Michael Hayes" "Profiler" "Maloney"
"Action" and of course, "CSI" and a host of tv movies and documentaries. I
did a six year stint on "Unsolved Mysteries" which is as good a groundwork
as it gets in the documentary/reality field.
BHC After 92 films and innumerable public tv and cable documentaries of KA , why do we need another one? What hasn't been said, already?
MF 92 films??? i'll take your word for it!
What remains to be revealed about King Arthur is the wealth of details about
all the direct and peripheral connections to both the legend and the
history, which are two separate and equally interesting entities. The Roman
situation at the time of Arthur, the writings of Gildas and the bards
Taliesin and Anierin. The ramblings of Geoffrey of Monmouth and William of
Malmesbury. The European poets who moulded the historical figure into the
legend we love today. Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail saga. These are just
a few of the myriad connections to Arthur which,
upon scrutiny, reveal other connections to historical figures that actually
existed and are documented. Which of course opens up discussion about the
existing copies of old documents which mention Arthur. You see where this can become a subject whose surface is
barely scratched in three documentaries let alone one. I guess my point is
that no-one has detailed the subject yet, they've just generalized and
pandered to the most popular conceptions that people have of Arthur. One has
to have in equal amounts, an intellectual appreciation, a spiritual
understanding and an historical platform on which to base one's research if
an uncynical conclusion is to be reached. It's easy to conclude that Arthur
never existed but that's just to cater to the mundane, the drab and dreary
pragmatism of academe (phew!!). Stretch the imagination a little, fuel it
with the evidence and the conjecture that proliferates Arthurian research
and an exciting and soul satisfying commitment is to be found.
BHC What were the primary literary and historical influences on your decision to produce your KA series?
MF
Childhood hours spent reading about the knights of the round table. I can't
remember which version. Then on a vacation in England I caught sight of
Keatman and Phillips book "King Arthur, the True Story" and I was totally
hooked. I don't quite buy into their theories but what a great read. I then read
everything I could about the historical king by Ashe, Castledon, Reno,
Alcock and a few others and I tried to catch as many documentaries as I
could on the subject, but without seeming too critical, I was disappointed
in all of them.
BHC Were the stories of KA part of your upbringing in England?
MF
Not part of the curriculum, but definitely part of my own choice of library
material.
BHC Of all the Arthurian sites you've visited in England and Wales, which ones (if any) have impressed you the most and why?
MF
Tintagel castle, no doubt about it. Even though the historical connection
between Arthur and Tintagel is nebulous to say the least, the place is
magic. Glastonbury Abbey and Tor would come a close second, and we plan to
detail that part of the Arthurian evolution in part two of "Mystery"
BHC Are the so-called Arthurian sites just tourist traps or is the still some lingering mystique, ambience or atmosphere, there?
MF
Yes and yes. Of course the Arthurian connection is somewhat "milked" in
places, that's what commercial tourism is all about, but even the remotest
connection to King Arthur is worth a look because there's always something
somewhere that has been overlooked or an assumption made that is easily
refutable, so all of the so-called "Arthurian" sites have some merit, you
just have to do your due diligence and be selective.
BHC Which aspects of the Arthurian story interest you most?
MF
If by "story" you mean history, then I'd have to say the mystery of his
birthplace, his military accomplishments, his family and his last battle and
death. The legend and stories are all fascinating.
BHC What relevance does all this history have for modern audiences?
MF
The same relevance as any historical regent except that we know so little
about this particular one. He is no less an important figure than any king
whose exploits and influences provide us with a wide variety of political,
behavioral and military examples from which to learn. It's always been true that if we don't study
history we run the risk of it repeating itself, which is not always a good thing!
BHC The KA legends and some of the characters have developed spiritual connections over the years. Why?
MF
That's a question yet to be satisfactorily answered. It's different for
everyone. Some see the return of Arthur in Britain's darkest hour as a
reference to the second coming of Jesus. The search for the Holy Grail has
been an Arthurian quest for over a thousand years. The spiritual aspect of
the stories and the characters that inhabit them is centered around the
consistently positive qualities attributed to them by the bards and poets of
medieval times. Equality, Justice, Chivalry and the grass roots "righting of
wrongs". The 'liberty and justice for all" motif of the legends. I told you
that no-one has answered that question satisfactorily.
BHC Did KA really exist?
MF
For me, based on historical research (done by others of course) and
intuitive nonintellectual instincts, unequivocally, yes.
BHC When do you think he lived?
MF
Somewhere in the middle of the sixth century.
BHC Can we believe the sources that mention him, when there are others that don't?
MF
If you're talking about Geoffrey of Monmouth, a hesitant no. Gildas, maybe,
because of the great length of time between when he lived and the creation
of the oldest copy we have of his writings. Nennius and Bede, same thing, as
with the surviving copies of the Welsh poems, ASC, Annales Cambriae etc etc.
At some point I made a decision, illogical and totally gut-based as it may
have been, that Arthur existed and no amount of academic rhetoric would
convince me otherwise. It can't, because there's not enough proof either
way, so I elect to believe in the man and the myth. I didn't say I was
rational, just enthusiastic.
BHC Why a series? Isn't one program enough?
MF
Details. Exploration of unlikely yet rich avenues of history. I guess the
answer to that question is watch the series and you'll see why it's a
series.
BHC Was there someone in the past who did the things that have become associated with Arthur.
MF
Yes. this is one of the many questions we try to answer in the documentary.
There are a couple of interesting theories about the "identity' of King
Arthur, which rely heavily on "Arthur' being a title, epithet or a derivative of
one. This is a fascinating area of investigation and one that we will
address in great detail in the next two programs.
BHC Will the KA series ever air on TV?
MF
I don't think so. I would rather have it be appreciated by Arthurian
enthusiasts who explore British History Club.com for the specific purpose of enriching
their knowledge of the subject, but having said that, as William Petersen
always says, "Let the evidence speak for itself".
|
