The Green Knight (2021)

hiddenwolf2 said:Can someone make sense of why Alicia Vikander is playing two roles? And why does he end up marrying that redhead who was headless in that house during his quest? Also, how does the Green Knight belt just switch owners whenever it feels like it? Even the fox makes zero sense to me. Was that scene with the giants just tossed in for the visual spectacle?

I’m completely lost too, honestly.
Why didn't he just go all out at the end—you know, the whole axe versus sword showdown—instead of just kneeling like some sort of saint? I mean, I don't really grasp the conclusion at all.

Sent from my Sony Walkman using Reddit

Honestly, I felt like decapitating myself after watching this. I truly have no idea what I just witnessed; the plot escaped me entirely, and I feel like I completely wasted my Sunday night. To be blunt, I can't recall ever sitting through a more nonsensical film. Talking heads, axes manifesting out of thin air, people made of stone, and then there's that moment where a guy opens his front door only to find a bear holding a lantern... WTF.

Honestly, this was one of the absolute worst movies I've sat through all year, because I honestly have no clue what was even happening
Looking at a trailer of a fantasy film like this, it just seems like this heavy, incomprehensible slog of a bore

A sort of directorial introspection session. A quasi-philosophical film about knights.

Honestly, watching this was such a struggle that I wanted to kill myself and the director at the same time by the end. 🤦

Totally pointless.

It's got those raw vibes, almost like a cinematic version of the Temptation of Jesus, where you're forced to confront your own fake life.

But honestly, I don't get why they even let this kind of nonsense get published.

I’ve finished watching it, and I must say, I am somewhat at a loss as to what the director was actually attempting to communicate or convey through this film. 😵

mistyotter35 said:I’ve finished watching it, and I must say, I am somewhat at a loss as to what the director was actually attempting to communicate or convey through this film. 😵

I think I actually get it now.

Man, honestly? Better if I hadn't. There are just these random, nonsensical scenes scattered all over the place that are supposed to show "what the writer meant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a late 14th-century Middle English chivalric romance. The author is unknown; the title was given centuries later. It is one of the best-known Arthurian stories, with its plot combining two types of folk motifs, the beheading game and the exchange of winnings. Written in stanzas of alliterative verse, each of which ends in a rhyming bob and wheel,[1] it draws on Welsh, Irish and English stories, as well as the French chivalric tradition. It is an important example of a chivalric romance, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest which tests his prowess. It remains popular in modern English renderings from J. R. R. Tolkien, Simon Armitage and others, as well as through film and stage adaptations.

It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who dares any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain, Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving the lord and the lady of the castle where he is a guest. The poem survives in one manuscript, Cotton Nero A.x., which also includes three religious narrative poems: Pearl, Cleanness and Patience. All are thought to have been written by the same author, dubbed the "Pearl Poet" or "Gawain Poet", since all four are written in a North West Midland dialect of Middle English.[2][3]

Basically, it’s just some dumb woke fluff instead of making a movie about what the original poem was actually aiming for.

Wait, am I seeing this right? Is an Indian guy actually playing some kind of medieval knight-nobleman?

Patrick Martin said:Wait, am I seeing this right? Is an Indian guy actually playing some kind of medieval knight-nobleman?

Honestly, that’s not even the biggest issue here. The guy actually pulls off the modest role he was given pretty well.

And just a heads-up, it isn't strictly a "medieval" story—it's Arthurian. We're talking about the era following Roman rule when the Angles and Saxons were settling in (around 100 AD, so after the Romans had their run), though if you look at the symbolism, it reaches way further back into the past, back to the times of the general Indo-European "Green Knight" (St. George's Day). Radoslav Katičić wrote some brilliant stuff about this from a linguistic perspective, basically touching on eras predating the Druids and Stonehenge.

Jack Cook7 said:I think I actually get it now.

Man, honestly? Better if I hadn't. There are just these random, nonsensical scenes scattered all over the place that are supposed to show "what the writer meant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a late 14th-century Middle English chivalric romance. The author is unknown; the title was given centuries later. It is one of the best-known Arthurian stories, with its plot combining two types of folk motifs, the beheading game and the exchange of winnings. Written in stanzas of alliterative verse, each of which ends in a rhyming bob and wheel,[1] it draws on Welsh, Irish and English stories, as well as the French chivalric tradition. It is an important example of a chivalric romance, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest which tests his prowess. It remains popular in modern English renderings from J. R. R. Tolkien, Simon Armitage and others, as well as through film and stage adaptations.

It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who dares any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain, Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving the lord and the lady of the castle where he is a guest. The poem survives in one manuscript, Cotton Nero A.x., which also includes three religious narrative poems: Pearl, Cleanness and Patience. All are thought to have been written by the same author, dubbed the "Pearl Poet" or "Gawain Poet", since all four are written in a North West Midland dialect of Middle English.[2][3]

Basically, it’s just some dumb woke fluff instead of making a movie about what the original poem was actually aiming for.

Rather than actually telling a coherent story, the director opts for parallel realities and visions of some possible future instead. It feels like a rather clumsy attempt at being philosophical within the wrong genre altogether.

mistyotter35 said:Rather than actually telling a coherent story, the director opts for parallel realities and visions of some possible future instead. It feels like a rather clumsy attempt at being philosophical within the wrong genre altogether.

I think you've got a point there, but look—the Green Knight basically presents him with this vision, right? Like he's "living out" this entire future reality filled with the "sin" he’s carrying (kind of like the Temptation of Jesus), and then he "wakes up" or snaps back to the exact moment he stepped into that parallel future. Even if the whole future thing feels pointless, it's because the Green Knight is basically dropping this heavy truth on him:

1. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

or

2. "Whatever you do to me, you do to yourself."

It’s super obvious that everything revolves around Christmas, even though the movie never really explains why Christmas matters so much here. I mean, the Green Knight is essentially this pre-Christian Indo-European figure who gets reborn every spring (like how his head grows back, right?), so he shouldn't really be the main focus during Christmas time.

To me, the vibe of this movie is most similar to Neil Jordan's Wolf Pack.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087075/

I'm honestly surprised you guys haven't caught onto what's actually going on here yet.

Jack Cook7 said:I think you've got a point there, but look—the Green Knight basically presents him with this vision, right? Like he's "living out" this entire future reality filled with the "sin" he’s carrying (kind of like the Temptation of Jesus), and then he "wakes up" or snaps back to the exact moment he stepped into that parallel future. Even if the whole future thing feels pointless, it's because the Green Knight is basically dropping this heavy truth on him:

1. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

or

2. "Whatever you do to me, you do to yourself."

It’s super obvious that everything revolves around Christmas, even though the movie never really explains why Christmas matters so much here. I mean, the Green Knight is essentially this pre-Christian Indo-European figure who gets reborn every spring (like how his head grows back, right?), so he shouldn't really be the main focus during Christmas time.

To me, the vibe of this movie is most similar to Neil Jordan's Wolf Pack.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087075/

I'm honestly surprised you guys haven't caught onto what's actually going on here yet.

When I was thinking about a parallel reality, I was actually picturing that circular shot where...
he lies bound in the woods, which seems to suggest that in one version of events, that is simply where his journey ends..

mistyotter35 said:When I was thinking about a parallel reality, I was actually picturing that circular shot where...
he lies bound in the woods, which seems to suggest that in one version of events, that is simply where his journey ends..

Eh, honestly? That’s just that moment where things get trippy or surreal, and then he "wakes up." You could just call it a temporary lapse of mind where he catches a glimpse of his own immediate future. Personally, I don't see any issue with that.

Look, I'm telling you, the movie is purely symbolic, kind of like Wolf Pack. It doesn't really matter what you physically see; what matters is what the writer was trying to get across. And somehow, those kinds of writers always seem to be driving at the exact same point.

For me, the real kicker is when Alicia Vikander, playing the Queen, has that totally random tryst with the knight, and then out of nowhere—during this completely unprovoked encounter—this green belt suddenly appears and stabs our hero. Then Queen Alicia basically says he let her down, or something like that.

By the end, that "belt" turns out to be the absolute key, both in that parallel reality and the actual one.

Once you pull that belt—or rather, once you make the choice to pull it—reality just crashes in on you. At that point, "now your head is off to go" becomes inevitable. It’s the inevitability of making stupid decisions.

mistyotter35 said:When I was thinking about a parallel reality, I was actually picturing that circular shot where...
he lies bound in the woods, which seems to suggest that in one version of events, that is simply where his journey ends..

That's because death is really the core theme here, which basically picks up where Lowery's previous film, "A Ghost Story," left off. Sure, someone could watch this and just take it at face value as a moral fable about a knight whose mother orchestrated a game with the Green Knight to help him grow up, but it's pretty hard to miss that recurring motif.
Like Jack Cook7 mentioned, the Green Knight has pagan roots, so you can view the Green Knight as a personification of death, nature, or paganism. You can create this dichotomy between death/nature versus man/civilization and religion/paganism. Some people have drawn parallels between this movie and Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" because, in both, the protagonist struggles with himself before finally preparing to face death.

That scene in the forest was likely meant to emphasize *memento mori*, where we witness the indifference of nature—where one man's death means nothing because the greenery will eventually swallow everything anyway. That's why Gawain decides at the very end not just to kneel under the axe, but to actually strip off that magic belt protecting him; he knows there's no point running from death.

In my opinion, the movie isn't a masterpiece, but it's a much better adaptation of Arthurian tales than anything Hollywood has churned out in the last decade. For a tiny budget of $15 million, they achieved quite a bit. What I do like is that the protagonist isn't your typical hero who instinctively knows what to do or lacks fear of death. Instead, Gawain tries to do the right thing and often messes up despite his good intentions. Honestly, we don't even know how badly he wants to be a knight. He knows what's expected of him and passively accepts his role, even if he isn't sure it's worth the effort. Near the end, when he talks to the Lord, the Lord asks why he's bothering with the Green Knight, and Gawain answers uncertainly that it's for honor, since that's what makes knights knights. Then the Lord asks if that's what he wants most to be. When Gawain says yes, the Lord corrects him, saying he meant honor. I might be rambling with that dialogue, but it's a crucial reflection of the true motivation behind his entire journey.

And to follow up on the religion vs. paganism contrast seen in several scenes, Lowery mentioned in an interview that he intentionally chose the crown design used in the film because it resembles the halos seen on saints. Religion is a fundamental part of civilization, and as such, it played a massive role in creating the value systems that subjects followed, effectively distancing people from paganism and nature while providing a false sense of human importance to distract from the inherent meaninglessness of it all. It's no accident we see the Green Knight in a chapel that has long been abandoned and overgrown with thick greenery.

It started off strong, and I honestly thought I was in for a pleasant little flick to unwind with. But then, once we hit that final third, everything just went completely off the rails. I found myself sitting there thinking... damn it, I didn't understand a single thing... should I just run the ending one more time? I was genuinely losing my mind over it... until I saw here that I wasn't the only one feeling this way. 😁 It’s clear that some movies simply aren't designed for the general public. It seems obvious that the people behind this project weren't exactly motivated by making a profit. 🍿

mistyotter35 said:I’ve finished watching it, and I must say, I am somewhat at a loss as to what the director was actually attempting to communicate or convey through this film. 😵

Of course—anyone with even a shred of knowledge about the original story, or just someone who actually likes archetypal tales, didn't get a single thing out of this. The director basically took the whole premise and butchered it with some weird, modern cultural spin and context. Honestly? It felt like a total violation of the original tale.

Jack Cook7 said:I think I actually get it now.

Man, honestly? Better if I hadn't. There are just these random, nonsensical scenes scattered all over the place that are supposed to show "what the writer meant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a late 14th-century Middle English chivalric romance. The author is unknown; the title was given centuries later. It is one of the best-known Arthurian stories, with its plot combining two types of folk motifs, the beheading game and the exchange of winnings. Written in stanzas of alliterative verse, each of which ends in a rhyming bob and wheel,[1] it draws on Welsh, Irish and English stories, as well as the French chivalric tradition. It is an important example of a chivalric romance, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest which tests his prowess. It remains popular in modern English renderings from J. R. R. Tolkien, Simon Armitage and others, as well as through film and stage adaptations.

It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who dares any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain, Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving the lord and the lady of the castle where he is a guest. The poem survives in one manuscript, Cotton Nero A.x., which also includes three religious narrative poems: Pearl, Cleanness and Patience. All are thought to have been written by the same author, dubbed the "Pearl Poet" or "Gawain Poet", since all four are written in a North West Midland dialect of Middle English.[2][3]

Basically, it’s just some dumb woke fluff instead of making a movie about what the original poem was actually aiming for.

Spot on.

swiftpanther3 said:That's because death is really the core theme here, which basically picks up where Lowery's previous film, "A Ghost Story," left off. Sure, someone could watch this and just take it at face value as a moral fable about a knight whose mother orchestrated a game with the Green Knight to help him grow up, but it's pretty hard to miss that recurring motif.
Like Jack Cook7 mentioned, the Green Knight has pagan roots, so you can view the Green Knight as a personification of death, nature, or paganism. You can create this dichotomy between death/nature versus man/civilization and religion/paganism. Some people have drawn parallels between this movie and Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" because, in both, the protagonist struggles with himself before finally preparing to face death.

That scene in the forest was likely meant to emphasize *memento mori*, where we witness the indifference of nature—where one man's death means nothing because the greenery will eventually swallow everything anyway. That's why Gawain decides at the very end not just to kneel under the axe, but to actually strip off that magic belt protecting him; he knows there's no point running from death.

In my opinion, the movie isn't a masterpiece, but it's a much better adaptation of Arthurian tales than anything Hollywood has churned out in the last decade. For a tiny budget of $15 million, they achieved quite a bit. What I do like is that the protagonist isn't your typical hero who instinctively knows what to do or lacks fear of death. Instead, Gawain tries to do the right thing and often messes up despite his good intentions. Honestly, we don't even know how badly he wants to be a knight. He knows what's expected of him and passively accepts his role, even if he isn't sure it's worth the effort. Near the end, when he talks to the Lord, the Lord asks why he's bothering with the Green Knight, and Gawain answers uncertainly that it's for honor, since that's what makes knights knights. Then the Lord asks if that's what he wants most to be. When Gawain says yes, the Lord corrects him, saying he meant honor. I might be rambling with that dialogue, but it's a crucial reflection of the true motivation behind his entire journey.

And to follow up on the religion vs. paganism contrast seen in several scenes, Lowery mentioned in an interview that he intentionally chose the crown design used in the film because it resembles the halos seen on saints. Religion is a fundamental part of civilization, and as such, it played a massive role in creating the value systems that subjects followed, effectively distancing people from paganism and nature while providing a false sense of human importance to distract from the inherent meaninglessness of it all. It's no accident we see the Green Knight in a chapel that has long been abandoned and overgrown with thick greenery.

It feels like this whole thing is just a subversive, postmodern spin where they basically took the original story, flipped it on its head, and tossed in a bunch of random stuff. Like, they turned the witch/Morgan Le Fay figure into Gawain's mother—talk about a pivot. And instead of the classic version where Gawain is this brave, moral knight at King Arthur's Round Table—the guy who’s super loyal to Arthur and basically a protector of women—they turn him into this clumsy, aimless loser that Arthur barely even recognizes. He’s just drifting around with random women, including one who loves him and gives him a son, only for him to ditch her for a few coins. Just cold. Then you’ve got that weird subplot with the ghost of Winfried—where she almost comes back to life by pulling her skull from the bottom of a lake to revive some mythological "feminine" energy. And the second half at the Lord's court? Totally warped with horror elements, sexualization, and homoerotic undertones. Even the Green Knight isn't what he’s supposed to be at the end (not the Lord of the court like you'd expect). Plus, there's that ending where Gawain inherits the throne from Arthur and dies after his son, and then his little daughter from a second marriage picks up the crown off the floor and puts it on her own head. It feels like one of those modern movie tropes where they try to make a point about how masculinity has to be sacrificed—not in the traditional sense for the greater good, but just to clear the way for women to take positions that, frankly, don't fit within the context of mythology or biology. Basically, the entire symbolism and core meaning of the original tale just gets lost in the shuffle.

It’s your typical, run-of-the-mill modern adaptation—one of those stories where they take mythological or archetypal gods and heroes and drag them down into this grotesque, hyper-realistic grit. It feels like a direct reflection of how today's society views the sacred, usually by stripping away the traditional masculine elements and replacing them with something more feminine. To me, it’s just another artistic symptom of the peak and inevitable decline of Western civilization now that we've ditched God and hierarchy. Honestly, it’ll probably be a huge hit with the nihilistic atheists or those naive neo-pagans out there.

Heh, finally got around to watching this. It’s great—honestly, I don't have anything smarter to add.👍👍👍

View on instagram--

The movie just landed on Max.