Obviously, I can't say how this comes across to me as opposed to how you might have wanted it to come across, but it has its own internal logic which makes it comprehensible, in some form, without any prior knowledge of the movie. It fits into a pattern of relationships that one sees in fiction, and in history, also, I suspect.
I was being somewhat wry when I mentioned 'soldierly bonding', because clearly there's nothing 'nice' about this, and the relationship that Arthur and Lancelot have has no possibility of 'going anywhere'. Hard not to talk about it in modern terms--it is what it is, I guess. Other depictions of A. and L. tend to show a more brotherly/soldierly love that is betrayed by Lancelot's involvement with G. (and I have to confess that I have never cared for L. in any way, shape or form. "Little lance". LOL.) but what you depict here, I think, is a highly problematical passive/aggressive bonding that is violent, coercive and not about love at all. I may be wrong on all counts, since I don't know the back story, but that's my reading of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-28 03:02 pm (UTC)I was being somewhat wry when I mentioned 'soldierly bonding', because clearly there's nothing 'nice' about this, and the relationship that Arthur and Lancelot have has no possibility of 'going anywhere'. Hard not to talk about it in modern terms--it is what it is, I guess. Other depictions of A. and L. tend to show a more brotherly/soldierly love that is betrayed by Lancelot's involvement with G. (and I have to confess that I have never cared for L. in any way, shape or form. "Little lance". LOL.) but what you depict here, I think, is a highly problematical passive/aggressive bonding that is violent, coercive and not about love at all. I may be wrong on all counts, since I don't know the back story, but that's my reading of it.