Woman of the Month: The Loathly Lady

Ragnell from Sir Gawaine and the Loathly Lady

It’s dispiriting that some of our greatest female characters were more inspirational hundreds of years ago than their modern-day updates. Irene Adler for example went from one of the few people (and only woman) who successfully outwitted Sherlock Holmes, to a fridged girlfriend (courtesy of Guy Ritchie) and villainous damsel in distress (cheers Moffat).

If the Loathly Lady (also known as Ragnell) has a contemporary counterpart, it would have to be Lady Catrina from Merlin. The character may well have been inspired by the ancient ballad, though she ends up being its total inversion: whereas Ragnell was a beautiful woman under a spell to make her hideously ugly, Catrina is a grotesque troll who disguises herself as a regal beauty. Ragnell was a benevolent figure who only wanted to be free of her terrible curse, Catrina attempts to seduce King Uther for her own gain. And whilst Ragnell’s story concludes with her restored to her true self thanks to the respect and courtesy of her husband, Catrina is run through with a sword after her husband’s eyes are opened to her true appearance.

Why the Merlin writers never capitalized on the story of Gawaine and the Loathly Lady is a mystery for the ages. The script practically writes itself, and Eoin Macken would have been fantastic in the role (I’ll let you decide which actress should have played Ragnell)...

One day King Arthur is hunting in the forest when he’s challenged by a dark knight, who swears to kill him if he does not answer a simple riddle: “what is it that women most desire?” He has a year to find the answer, or his life is forfeit.

Naturally, he asks the question of every woman he meets, but all give him a different answer. He despondently returns to the black knight once the year is up, but on the way comes across a hideous hag sitting on the side of the road, who claims that she knows the correct answer. She’ll give it to him, but on one condition: he’ll promise her hand in marriage to one of his knights. Seeing little choice, Arthur agrees, and knows he’s made the right decision when she reveals that the answer to the riddle is simply: “women most desire their own way.”

Thus the black knight is defeated, though now Arthur faces a grim task – to talk one of his knights into marrying a disgustingly hideous woman. Moved by pity for both lady and liege, Gawaine volunteers, and the two are duly wed. But when the time comes to consummate the marriage, Gawaine is stunned to find that the woman in his bedchamber is actually a beautiful woman, who presents to him a choice: she can remain beautiful to him alone during the nights and transform back into a monster by day, or she can retain her beauty during the day and become a wretched hag by night.

Realizing that either option could cause her equal amounts of grief or happiness, Gawaine concedes the decision to her. And of course, by giving her “her own way”, the curse is broken.  

Stories don’t get much more perfect than this, and that there hasn’t been any sort of televised adaptation (at least as far as I know) is a tragedy! It’s not just one of my favourite Arthurian stories, but one of my favourite stories, period. 

In case you were wondering, the above picture comes from a retelling by Selina Hastings, with illustrations by Juan Wijngaard. It was my favourite version when I was a kid (though oddly, it omits the lady’s name as Ragnell) and I was lucky enough to find it again at my second-hand bookshop in near-perfect condition.

Review: Excalibur

With the recent release of Guy Richie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and the subsequent reviews (let's just say they have not been kind), I decided to revisit what is generally considered the best filmic adaptation of Arthurian legend.

To say "best" is relative. The truth is that Hollywood has never managed to get a handle on the stories of King Arthur – perhaps because the mythology is so sprawling; perhaps because Arthur himself isn't anything like the typical anti-hero that modern filmmakers love, perhaps because he's quintessentially British in a way an American industry can't quite grasp (as opposed to Robin Hood, whose devil-may-care, stick-it-to-the-man attitude translates much better to Hollywood sensibilities).

If Arthur has a flaw, it was his inability to condemn his wife and best friend out of love for them (at least not until it was too late), or how his commitment to law and justice alienated allies looking for special favours. Or, you know, that one time he slept with his half-sister who then gave birth to an incestuous bastard who eventually killed him on the battlefield.

In any case, none of it translates well into the "flawed hero" archetype. In fact, a lot can be read into Guy Ritchie's interview in which he says:

I think where the pitfall has often been is trying to make King Arthur bland and nice, and nice and bland. The two qualities make rather compatible bed companions. Unfortunately, they’re not interesting to watch. Luke Skywalker was always the most uninteresting character in Star Wars because he’s the good guy. Good guys are boring.

With that attitude, is it any wonder that no one has ever done King Arthur justice? But John Boorman certainly made the attempt, and though the result is a rather strange affair, with composite characters, shifting perspectives, massive time-skips, and hefty symbolism to get across some of the finer details, it has a hypnotic quality that makes it worth at least one watch...