‘The Green Knight’ Has No Chest

David Lowery’s ponderous new film possesses only a surface level understanding of the honor culture it critiques.

By
46

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis wrote of a fundamental quandary facing modern Westerners: “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” How, he asks, can we expect people to exhibit virtues which they have never been taught? How can we require honor from “men without chests”? 

The 14th-century romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was written before the great deconstruction of Christian virtues in the modern mind. But the film adaptation, The Green Knight, could not be a more post-Christian, more 2021 story—for it is a film about honor full of men without chests, distributed to an audience that has been raised to disdain the search for greatness. 

One might question whether in our society so full of quislings and tyrants it is really honor and chivalry that need debunking. But pushing that question aside, even to deconstruct honor meaningfully, a narrative must understand it. The Green Knight does not. Part moody fantasy and part impenetrable A24 art film,The Green Knight evokes honor culture only aesthetically, and thus it fails even at deconstruction, for it is impossible to effectively deconstruct a culture you do not comprehend. 

The story begins on a snowy Christmas day, when the Green Knight (Ralph Ineson) bursts into King Arthur’s court. The knight bids some warrior to strike him down, and since—and this is a notable choice—Arthur (Sean Harris) is too frail and aged to take up the challenge, the king’s young nephew Gawain (Dev Patel) responds in his stead. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
46
By
Comments (46)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Deconstructing honor culture and Christianity is such a tired trope at this point and made worse by the fact that so many doing it understand neither. That was one of my biggest criticism of the Game of Thrones novels. Very much enjoyed this review but I haven’t seen the movie myself so perhaps I should wait to pass judgement on it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    I love this review. Hannah you are a deep thoughtful reviewer of film


    Signed
    *co-host of movie podcast that has like 12 regular listeners*

    Collapse
  3. Alex DeLarge

    I haven't seen the movie, but I think this review is lacking. It attributes all these complex, abstract messages about "honor" and Christianity to the story, without explaining **how** they are supposedly being communicated. I suspect these meta-messages may exist largely in the reviewers' mind.

    And remind me? What's redemptive and honorable about killing yourself because you gratuitously promised some psycho that you would?

    Collapse
  4. Ben Rodriguez

    Wow. Thank you for this essay. I have been grasping to understand what to take away from this film apart from the themes "honor is meaningless" and "death is inevitable".

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    I always like to think of the three spheres of knowledge: science, which asks about the physical world; philosophy, which asks about our perceptions; and religion, which asks why.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    BW

    I thought the movie was boring as hell

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CP

      I’m a medievalist. I’ll show you “boring as hell.” :)

      In seriousness, I found it dull in places, but a lot more interesting than most of the CGI-and-explosion-packed Marvel movies. I had to go to the bathroom the entire movie but was too riveted. Different strokes, I guess.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        BW

        To be clear, I’m not a Marvel enthusiast and enjoy similar (A24) movies. As far as medieval movies one of my all time favorites is Excalibur.

        Other than the cinematography, I thought Green Knight was awful. But like you said different strokes.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CP

          Fair enough!

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    “Seeking something older, the ancient virtues—it can only find paganism, blood sacrifice, oblivion.”

    The pagans were once in the same chair as that the Christians now occupy. There was plenty of honor and glory in ancient Rome - and also piety, which neither Christians nor their detractors ever seem to recognize. The Christians upended all that.

    As for this absurd obsession with feminine virtue over male corruption, see old Mao’s wife as but one example. She once said:

    “If good people beat bad people, it serves them right; if bad people beat good people, the good people achieve glory; if good people beat good people, it is a misunderstanding; without beatings, you do not get acquainted and then no longer need to beat them"

    Modern China under her putrid influence devolved into belligerence, murder and cannibalism. Women can be and have been just as ugly and ruthless as men.

    Americans need to dispense with their pathological pursuit of defining identity by any measure other than character. Ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference….. these false flags upon which modern “thinkers” stake their convictions are unreliable markers of human behavior.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    Haven't seen the movie yet but curious about the Lewis quote? Written a bit before publication in 1943?

    The Greatest Generation were fighting the Nazis, facists and Japanese across the globe - and won two years later.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Torsius

      I think WWII is the perfect backdrop for Lewis’ book. The detachment of the Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Russians from the traditional moralities was evident and troubling. When a formerly Christian nation starts making lampshades of its citizens’ skins, something has gone awry. I read somewhere that 80% of those killed by imperial Japan were civilians. That is not bushido.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        Where do you find a more compelling example of heroism in the face of great evil?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Torsius

          We were definitely on the right side of WWII, but there have been many forces comprised of volunteers instead of conscripts who have done heroically. I think of the British who sent 90% of there small, volunteer army to stand in the way of the German juggernaut in 1914. They came to the defense of Belgium and France at incredible cost to themselves. But that’s not the point.

          Nazi Germany jettisoned it’s moral core for appetite combined with technical prowess. That was the point-head and belly without the chest. Lewis was seeing similar trends in his day in England.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

            Nazi Germany and Japan were evil regimes but chestless?

            Immoral, brutal and evil but certainly not chestless. The kind of relativism Lewis seems to refer to in this context it seems to me is often a modern cultural myth. Spend five minutes speaking with any so-called relativists and at some point you'll strike steel It may not be where you're searching for it but you'll get there. No one is a relativist.

            There is a kind of nostalgia and yearning here for a Captain McWhirr who possesses "...just enough imagination to carry him through each successive day, and no more" but will stick with it through thick and thin.
            I know plenty of McWhirr's and there's no one I'd rather have next to me in a barfight but they make lousy dinner companions.

            Collapse
  9. Kevin Brady

    Not going to lie, I enjoyed the movie immensely, partly because it was my first theatre experience since the latest Tarantino. I was likely going to love whatever was on the screen (even if it was “Boss Baby 2”).

    I’m not familiar with the source material, but I was impressed with the film, and not just in a technical sense. The performances were uniformly great, and I think the script did have something to say about what it means to live with honor. I actually loved the slow and plodding pace, but I get that it’s not for everyone.

    I see the writer and other commenters noting how the film is contemptuous of Christianity, but I didn’t sense that at all. Still, I appreciate the author’s perspective; very thoughtful essay.

    Ultimately, the movie has stuck with me in a way that most haven’t in a long time, and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Robert Knudson

      Agree entirely. I would add, with respect to Christianity, that in many ways it is a Christmas movie (albeit a Medieval one). Set in the bleak midwinter, when the chill and danger of nature (which is embodied by the titular Knight) appears to be permanent and overwhelming, we are reminded that Christ has been born and celebrate the hope of renewal which seems so far away in spring and in Easter. Sir Gawain is a wastrel, who seeks out fame and a legacy by beheading his guest in the Christmas game, only to see nature's regenerate power manifest itself and at the same time put before him a sentence of death in a year's time at the green chapel. Yet given the option of a Devil's bargain and earthly immortality guaranteed by Black Magick, which he ultimately realizes will cost him all the things which he rightly holds dear, he chooses instead to face death and is thereby shown mercy. We are not presented with a Saint, but surely Sir Gawain has earned his title in that choice and also demonstrated to us that we have the ability to transcend our mortality by charting the honorable course.

      Collapse
      1. Kevin Brady

        Love your interpretation. My only question (sorry to the uninitiated for spoilers) - I walked away thinking that he ultimately will get beheaded. You’re thinking that he’s spared?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Robert Knudson

          I suppose I am an optimist - I think Tony Soprano is still alive as well, although Butch and Sundance are dead. I do have a few reasons, though.
          First off, he survives in the poem, and while this adaptation is not fully faithful I do think that the source material must be respected.
          From a storytelling perspective, the previous cutaway from ultimate death, at the hands of the elements by way of the ties which the thieves have bound him with, in the last natural sequence of the film, results in Gawain freeing himself. This is an unlikely outcome, but one which does not rely on any magical forces for its doing. It suggests to me that the supernatural elements which increasingly pervade the film are in service to moral ends and that their magical nature is in fact supranatural, even as they present themselves to Gawain supernaturally. He has entered an enchanted world which I do not believe to obey the logic of this one.

          It seems counterintuitive to me for Gawain to succumb to a natural fate in the clearly supernatural environs of the Green Chapel, especially when he has entered these environs in the context of a "Christmas game", which to me begins in unlikely circumstances and must thereby end in them as well. It is a moral test, supernaturally embodied but ultimately for spiritual benefit and with the suggestion of a clear beginning and end within the bounds of our conventional and natural narrative.
          The natural world is one of danger and physical decay, but one in which the possibility of virtue is allowed for. In choosing against the moral decay represented by the green sash, it seems to me that Gawain has also resisted the magical circumstances in which he finds himself and thereby opened up a possibility of transcendence. Gawain has turned away the spiritual death set before him in the green sash, and I don't see the possibility of physical death at the hands of these supernatural forces. The game is played out and Gawain has won, to ultimately be shown mercy as in the poem.

          Collapse
          1. Mrobertchase1

            Hope you're right. Wish the director made it a little bit clearer.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CP

      I totally agree with this. Except for the "Boss Baby 2" part. My first movie after quarantine was "The Werewolves Within," which is hilarious, and which I highly recommend as well.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    CP

    In general, I agree with the complaint put forward in this review--Hollywood isn't good at giving us male role models who affirm something. But this is a complaint about the state of our culture in general, and Hollywood in particular, and one that rushes to dismiss a movie that is on the whole, evocative and thoughtful--and perhaps not as dismissive of chivalry as the reviewer assumes. This is also a movie that (like _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_ before it) is playful and profound (if at times a bit dull and odd).

    I'm not sure that an adaptation of _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, is the film that *should* give us "the hero we need." The reviewer seems to be annoyed that the film isn't more like the Westerns she has watched, but this isn't a Western. I get that it has similarities to Westerns, being episodic and dealing with masculinity. But it's a romance. And, like its source, it's a romance that critiques the conventions of popular romance. Again, maybe that's not the story "we need" right now, but I'm not going to fault Lowery for that.

    The reviewer here seems to assume that nobody had the capacity of being critical of knightly heroism in the Middle Ages, but 1. they did, and 2. the author of _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_ did more than most. The Gawain poet, in fact, recognizes that there were elements of secular heroism (pride, boasting, taking lovers, etc.) that did not really mesh well with Christianity, despite older authors' attempt to imbue the knight with Christian virtues. He simply pulls at some loose strands, until Gawain (to himself) looks like a bit of a fool, even as he is celebrated by the Round Table.

    In fact, the ending of the film actually affirms chivalric heroism _far_ more than the poem. This is because everyone (Gawain included) throughout the poem thinks Gawain is a great knight, and he turns out to be less-than-great (after some embarrassing and distinctly non-knightly incidents)--and has a tough time coming to terms with that. But in the film, Gawain is clearly "no knight"--he is a man without a chest...until the very end of the film, when he chooses to give up his life in order to keep a promise. (I take it back--maybe this IS the film we need today.)

    To go into more detail:

    In the poem (SPOILERS), Gawain does not adhere to the terms of his bargain completely, wearing what he thinks is a magic girdle in order to preserve his life (while, to preserve his honor, he finds the Green Knight in accordance with his promise). The Green Knight lets him live, but points out that he is not entirely blameless. This devastates Gawain, whose sense of honor is actually quite brittle. He doesn't have the framework in place to allow himself to be a less-than-perfect knight, and he goes home in disgrace, even as the Round Table (and the Green Knight) commend him. By the end, he looks like a bit of a fool, as everyone laughs and tells him to cheer up.

    At the end of the film (BIGGER SPOILERS), we first see ("Passion-of-the-Christ" style) what Gawain's life would have been like if he had kept the girdle on and attempted to protect his life at all costs: he would have lost his life ANYWAY, after living it inauthentically despite gaining the Crown. Then we go back in time to the moment of decision, and this time, Gawain chooses to take off the girdle (a more honorable choice than the Sir Gawain of the poem ever made) and allow the Green Knight to lop his head off. Here--in defiance of the poem--Gawain lives up to what chivalric heroism should be: a willingness to lose one's life. The Green Knight commends him.

    We have hope that though Gawain has been something of a "man without a chest" until this point, AT THIS POINT he will begin to be a true knight (and, if not a true Christian, at least a true man). This is far and away a *more* heroism-affirming ending than we get in the poem.

    But don't take my word for it, as Levar Burton says. Go see the film. The whole film. AND read the book.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Amanda

      "thinks Gawain is a great knight, and he turns out to be less-than-great (after some embarrassing and distinctly non-knightly incidents)"

      As someone that has read more than nine translations of this poem, and written a full-length (13,000 word) essay about the meaning of the poem this year, I can't say I agree with that assessment. In fact I argue that the poem -- and poet -- mean to tell us something quite different, if we pay attention.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CP

        So, Gawain staying in bed in the morning while the king goes out hunting and having to dodge the lady's advances is not meant to be even a little bit embarrassing? I get that you're qualified to make judgments on the poem (I am too), but how is it possible we're not meant to laugh at Gawain even a little?

        Collapse
      2. Mrobertchase1

        Don't just leave us hanging, Amanda. Tell us what the quite different thing is.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Amanda

          Blimey. Have you got an hour? I'm still trying to find a publisher for it. I don't refer enough to secondary sources or talk in academese, so the sort of journal that might otherwise be interested has given me the cold shoulder. Never mind that secondary sources (which I do refer to, when and as appropriate) are largely irrelevant to my argument. I think that journals have trouble dealing with original thought and a fresh grappling with the literature itself.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CP

            Good luck with that publication! I know how that goes. So you agree with Arthur and Bertilak (and not with Gawain) that he acquits himself well?

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      BethFreitag

      In the poem Gawain is definitely a flawed knight who struggles with sin, cowardice, and temptation. But there is still a code and higher virtue that he recognizes and strives for, even when he fails to meet it. This is Gawain in Arthurian legend too, quick to anger and action and I can't help but recall the time he chops off a woman's head and must atone for it.
      The Gawain of the movie though comes off as passionless and cowardly in all of his actions, he is a man whose life is worthless. The question of greatness vs goodness that is brought up might be an interesting one, if this Gawain had any goodness.
      And yes, I am glad that he does take off the girdle in the end and face his own death. But I don't have much hope at all that he will start to live life as a true knight, or a true man. I don't even know what the movie thinks that is. To marry his prostitute perhaps?
      The adventure with Winifred was the only moment when I saw him acting with honor and chivalry, and only after she berates him for asking for a reward.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Amanda

        Of course, in the poem he does not have a mistress. So in that, the film has already traduced his virtue.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CP

          But part of what is funny about that is the fact that Gawain in the Arthurian tradition is famous for being a lover. So he's meant to look a bit "green" (so to speak) in SGGK, because everyone assumes he knows "how to treat the ladies," when in reality, he sort of blunders about.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Amanda

            Your last clause: Not really. But you'd have to read my essay, where I discuss this : )

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Evan Donovan

      I never ended up reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight when I was studying lit so thanks for this thoughtful analysis. It sounds like there is room in this world both for this film and the Westerns of John Ford without pitting them against each other.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Amanda

        Trust me: the poem is much better than this film. And completely, utterly distinct from it in plot, meaning, and character.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CP

          There we agree. Read the poem.

          But I still liked the film.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Amanda

            'Read the poem': that's funny: I've read nine translations of it, back to back (as well as some of the original, along the way). The journal Arthuriana won't take my article for scholastic box-ticking reasons, but the blind-review reader really enjoyed it, considered it 'intellectually informed', and thinks it ought to be published in a more 'popular' venue.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Robert Knudson

      Amen.

      Collapse
    5. Mrobertchase1

      Excellent points. I would have liked it if the movie's end had been closer to that of the poem, but as it was, I enjoyed seeing a movie that was a bit deeper and more thoughtful than Marvel comics.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CP

        I remember after the film just sitting there and thinking, "DID I like that?" But it's one of those films that you appreciate more and more as you think about it afterwards. Definitely worthwhile, even if the departures from the poem (as well as the naked CGI giants--WTF?) threw me off a bit.

        Collapse
Load More