Hollywood has a reputation for rewriting history, but the latest movie about the legend of King Arthur has pleased the historians, even though it has made Arthur a Northerner, based near Hadrian's Wall. Steve Pratt reports.

JOHN Matthews is a historian with a sense of humour. As the author of books about the legend of King Arthur, he knows his subject and takes it very seriously, although that doesn't rule out having a laugh at the legendary figure's expense.

The comic take on the Arthurian legend in Monty Python And The Holy Grail is firmly lodged in his mind. On the set of the latest big screen epic about King Arthur, he found himself acting out a scene from that comedy film.

"I was standing around with a special effects guy and a couple of cameramen," he recalls. "Someone made a remark about the Monty Python film, then somebody did a line from it and somebody else did another line. We ended up doing the whole scene."

King Arthur, for which he acted as consultant, isn't the first time that Hollywood has rewritten history. Movies have a reputation for altering the facts to fit in with the demands of making a commercial film.

The difference this time is that Matthews is backing the interpretation of the Arthurian legend to the hilt.

"I'm incredibly happy with the film. Out of all the Arthurian movies I've seen, this is the best," he says - and not just because he's sitting alongside the film's stars, writer and producer at the time.

The whole feel and look of the movie strikes him as authentic. "When you're looking at the armour, weapons, horses, the setting of it all, the detail is incredible. It's very accurate indeed. This is as near as you could get going back to the sixth century, apart from the fact that it doesn't smell as bad," he says.

The new film sets the story in the sixth century, earlier than most previous Arthur tales. It also locates him in the North, at Hadrian's Wall, rather than the Cornwall or Wales.

Evidence is scarce about the real Arthur - if indeed he ever existed - which gives writers dramatic licence. Writer David Franzoni, Oscar-nominated for his Gladiator script, decided to take Arthur back to the Dark Ages.

He's now a half-English, half-Roman commander named Lucius Artorius Castus, one of a warrior race called Sarmatians from Eastern Europe, in what would become Russia. He and fellow Sarmatians, including Lancelot, Gawain and Galahad, are assigned to protect Britain from invading Saxons in return for their freedom. Merlin, far from being a wizard, was a shaman and leader of the Woads.

Matthews subscribes to the theory that King Arthur was a real historical character and more likely to have been a Northerner. The evidence includes the fact that Artorius, the Roman name for Arthur, is the only prominent leader of that name known to have lived in Britain in the last centuries of the Roman Empire.

Among the 12 Roman forts on Hadrian's Wall is Camberglanna, similar to the name of Arthur's city of Camelot. Sarmatian folklore worshipped, as a symbol of their god of war, a sword stuck point down in the earth - which ties in with Arthur becoming king by drawing a sword from a stone.

Just as the Welsh and Cornish tourism chiefs have embraced Arthur's links with those areas, so Cumbria Tourist Board is making the most of the latest film. "New Hollywood film shows King Arthur was a Northerner" screams the headline of the press release.

There are plans in Carlisle and the Eden Valley to establish a trail, The Lost Realm of King Arthur, featuring key Arthurian sites in the region.

Matthews' backing of the Northern claims has landed him in trouble. "There have been one or two reports in the Cornish press suggesting I am the devil incarnate and responsible for taking Arthur and planting him on Hadrian's Wall," he says.

"I just went along with the theory. I became more convinced during the making of the movie. The more research I did the more evidence I found that points to this being the oldest version of the Arthurian legend we can find anywhere - and the truest."

The author of around 40 books on King Arthur, he was impressed with the film-makers' attention to detail. "It must be quite rare, if not unique, to have a Hollywood company saying, 'Yes, we'll change that, we want to get it right,' rather than 'It's just a movie, go away'." he says.

His commitment to authenticity was even greater than theirs. He was horrified when first shown the Excalibur, Arthur's mighty sword, made for the movie. "When they took it out of the sheath it had Saxon runes down the blade and I threw a wobbly. I said, 'You can't do that, everybody will laugh you off the screen because the Saxons were his greatest enemies'," he recalls. His wife provided a suitable inscription, Defender of the Land, in a form of ancient Celtic lettering.

"The thing that gave me most problem was that, in the script, the knights rode into battle for the last time carrying huge shields with extraordinary images painted on them," he says.

"I pointed out that carrying huge, heavy shields into battle not only didn't happen but would be very difficult with a spear, a sword and various other weapons to carry too.

"Then I started on the images on the shield. The artist who had painted them hated me for what I was saying. It went on for quite a while. In the end they were dropped."

He did agree with the depiction of Guinevere as a warrior fighting alongside Arthur and his knights rather than the more romantic, stay-at-home figure usually portrayed on screen.

The Celts and Picts both had women warriors who went into battle next to their men. And they fought naked, although in King Arthur, Keira Knightley's Guinevere wears a skimpy leather costume and lots of tattooes. "We couldn't have her go into battle naked, so we did the next best thing," says Matthews.

"Julius Caesar, one of the great Roman leaders who conquered Britain, said that he had great respect for Celtic warriors but even greater respect and fear for their women because they fought much more savagely."

But he accepted they were making an entertainment, not a documentary, and there had to be some concessions.

He doesn't watch many historical films as he spends too much time criticising them. He loved Gladiator ("I felt that was pretty much an accurate portrayal of the time") but was worried by Braveheart, Mel Gibson's film about Scottish rebel William Wallace.

"It looked wonderful but turned history on its head," he says. "I'm somewhat irritating to my family because I'll sit there going, 'Wouldn't have worn that then' or 'wouldn't have had that kind of armour' and so on."

* King Arthur (12A) previews in some cinemas on Thursday and opens on Friday.

* Monty Python And The Holy Grail is being shown at Castle Keep, Newcastle, on August 27 and 28 as part of the Stella Artois Screen Tour.

Published: 26/07/2004