The Mists of Avalon
Tags: cult, violence

Plot synopsis:
The Mists of Avalon is a generations-spanning retelling of the Arthurian legend that brings it back to its Brythonic Celtic roots (see Matter of Britain). The plot tells the story of the women who influence King Arthur, High King of Britain, and those around him.
The book's main protagonist is Morgaine, priestess of Avalon, who is King Arthur's half-sister. Their mother, Igraine, is married to Uther Pendragon after Morgaine's biological father, Gorlois, is killed in battle. Rumors spread in Avalon that before Igraine knew her husband Gorlois was killed, Uther consulted with Merlin who used his magic to transform the king into the likeness of Gorlois and thus gain access to Igraine at Tintagel. He spent the night with her and they conceived a son, Arthur. Morgaine witnesses Uther Pendragon's accession to the throne of Caerleon after his predecessor, Ambrosius, dies of old age. Uther becomes her step-father, and he and Igraine have a son, Arthur, Morgaine's half-brother.
When Morgaine is eleven years old and Arthur six, an attempt of murder is made on Arthur's life. Their maternal aunt, the high priestess Viviane, arrives in Caerleon and advises Uther to have Arthur fostered far away from the court for his own safety. Uther agrees, and also allows Viviane to take Morgaine to Avalon, where she is trained as a priestess of the Mother Goddess. During this period, Morgaine becomes aware of the rising tension between the old Pagan and the new Christian religions. After seven years of training, Morgaine is initiated as a priestess of the Mother, and Viviane begins grooming her as the next Lady of Avalon.
Some months after her initiation, Morgaine is given in a fertility rite to the future high king of Britain. Their union is not meant to be personal, but rather a symbolic wedding between the future high king and the land he is to defend. The following morning, Morgaine and Arthur recognize each other and are horrified to realize what they have done. Two months later, Morgaine is devastated to find that she is pregnant.
After Uther dies in battle against the Saxon invaders, Arthur claims the throne of Britain despite questions about his legitimacy (he had been conceived within days of Igraine's marriage to Uther Pendragon). Since Arthur must now defend Britain against the Saxons, Viviane has Morgaine make him an enchanted scabbard that will prevent him from losing blood and gives him the sacred sword Excalibur. With the combined force of Avalon and Caerleon, Arthur repels the invaders.
As Morgaine's unborn child grows within her, so do her feelings of anger and betrayal toward Viviane, who she believes tricked her into bearing a child to her own half-brother. Unable to stay in Avalon any longer, she leaves for the court of her aunt Morgause, queen of Lothian, where she bears her son, naming him Gwydion. Spurred by her husband Lot's ambition and her own, Morgause tricks Morgaine into allowing her to rear her son. To escape Lot's unwanted advances, Morgaine leaves Lothian and returns to Arthur's court as a lady-in-waiting to the high queen, Gwenhwyfar. She does not see Gwydion again until he is grown and a Druid priest.
When Gwenhwyfar fails to produce an heir, she is convinced God is punishing her for her sins. Chiefest among them, as she believes, are her failure to persuade Arthur to outlaw pagan religious practice in Britain and her forbidden love for Galahad, Arthur's cousin and finest knight, who is also known as Lancelet. Although Lancelet reciprocates Gwenhwyfar's love, he is also Arthur's friend and an honorable man. This situation causes terrible suffering to both Lancelet and Gwenhwyfar.
On the eve of a decisive battle against the Saxons, Gwenhwyfar prevails upon Arthur to put aside his father's Pendragon banner and replace it with her own Christian banner. As her religious fanaticism grows, relations between Avalon and Camelot grow strained. Still, in her desperation over her failure to carry a child to term, she asks Morgaine for help, threatening to have an extramarital affair so she can become pregnant. In an attempt to keep Gwenhwyfar from doing so, Morgaine reveals that Arthur already has a son, though he does not know it.
After the battle, Arthur moves his court to Camelot, which is more easily defended than Caerleon had been. Seeking to free both Lancelet and Gwenhwyfar from the forbidden love that traps them both, Morgaine tricks Lancelet into marrying Gwenhwyfar's cousin, Elaine. Some time later, during a heated argument with Arthur over their lack of an heir, Gwenhwyfar breaks Morgaine's confidence and tells Arthur he has a son. In growing suspicion and horror, Arthur summons Morgaine and orders her to tell him the truth. Morgaine obeys. Now believing that the lack of a royal heir is God's punishment for Arthur's union, however unwitting, with his own half-sister, Gwenhwyfar urges Arthur to confess the encounter to the bishop, who imposes strict penance upon him. Then she and Arthur arrange for Morgaine to marry into Wales, far from Camelot. But because of a misunderstanding, Morgaine, who had thought she would be marrying the king's younger son Accolon, a Druid priest and warrior, finds herself betrothed to King Uriens of Wales, who is old enough to be her grandfather. Arthur yearns to meet his son Gwydion and perhaps foster him at Camelot, but each time he brings up the subject with Gwenhwyfar, she refuses to discuss it.
Morgaine marries Uriens and moves to Wales, but in time begins an affair with Accolon. The "old people" of the hills, who keep to the old pagan ways, regard Accolon and Morgaine as their king and queen. King Uriens suspects nothing, but Accolon's older brother, Avalloch, begins to; at one point, he confronts Morgaine in private and tries to blackmail her into sleeping with him as well. Morgaine sends Avalloch out on a boar hunt and is magically present when the boar kills him. In his grief for his eldest son and heir, Uriens abstains from pork for the rest of his life. Morgaine tells Accolon, who is now Uriens's heir, of the sacred marriage she made with Arthur years before. She adds that they must take the kingdom back from Arthur and the Christians and bring it back under the sway of Avalon. The attempted coup fails and Arthur kills Accolon in single combat. As Uriens recovers from the shock of losing a second son, Morgaine leaves Wales forever.
Gwydion, now grown, goes to the Saxon courts to learn warfare far from Arthur's eye. Impressed by his cleverness, the Saxons name him Mordred ("Evil Counsel"). Years later, at a Pentecost feast at Camelot, he introduces himself as Queen Morgaine's son and Queen Morgause's foster son, though he calls Queen Morgause "Mother" and Morgaine by her name. Because of his close resemblance to Lancelet, he must often tell people that Lancelet is not his father. To earn his knighthood with no suspicion of preferential treatment, Gwydion challenges Lancelet to single combat during a tourney and they fight. As they start to fight in earnest, Gwenhwyfar, who has warmed to Gwydion in the meantime, protests and Arthur interrupts the match. Lancelet makes Gwydion a knight of the Round Table, naming him Mordred.
When the knights of the Round Table leave to search for the Holy Grail, Mordred attempts to usurp the throne. In a climactic battle, the armies of Arthur and Mordred fight and Arthur is mortally wounded. Morgaine takes the dying Arthur through the mists to Avalon, reassuring him that he did not fail in his attempt to save Britain from the approaching dark times. Arthur dies in her arms as the shoreline comes into view. Morgaine buries him in Avalon and remains there to tell the tale of Camelot.

Review: I really don't like spoilers and I always try to avoid giving away a story myself, so I will just say this movie can be enjoyed by either fans of Marion Zimmer Bradley's book or the uninitiated.The scenery, cinematography and costumes are beautiful.
-The characters were clear and bold -the acting was just wonderful -almost Shakespearean at times in its intensity -The photography and scenery - just stunning - As a person with an interest in history and legends - I found the story line quite remarkable and perhaps the best retelling of the Arthurian legends I have encountered.
As a final note, I believe the casting director definitely merits an Emmy, since the little girl who played young Morgaine looked EXACTLY like a pre-teen version of Juliana, and Hans Matheson, who played the evil Mordred, Morgaine's son, couldn't have resembled Juliana more if she'd have really given birth to him!
Second, barring success on the first point, does the adaptation work in and of itself, separate from the source material?I feel that TNT's "The Mists of Avalon" fails on both counts.First, the movie has little, if anything, to do with the book.
Other than the title and the general idea (Arthur's tale told from the perspective of the female characters, primarily Morgaine), there's really very little of the book that survives the transition.
You half expect Viviane to ride in on a broom and make people grow warts.Second, as a film independent of the source material, "Mists" is just plain not a very good movie.
The rest of the cast are generally unremarkable, though I will say that Samantha Mathis turns in a good performance as Gwenhwyfar, matching the spirit, if not the letter, of Bradley's book.
The actors who play Morgaine and Arthur as children, though given little screen time, are also fairly good.Visually, there are moments when the film is impressive.
It is an audacity I see quite often in Hollywood, and I still don't understand its allure.TNT's "The Mists of Avalon" will disappoint all but the most forgiving Bradley fans, and will ultimately be remembered as yet another bad fantasy film.
At first, I thought that "The Mists of Avalon" would be just like every other tale told of Camalot, but I was blown away by the originality of this story.
I'm confident that *that's* going to be done right, and I take things like this mistreatment (my humble, Mists-of-Avalon-freak opinion) of one of my favorite books of all time waaaaay too personally.
This hack job misinterprets or leaves out just about every important aspect of the book.The story has been rewritten and greatly condensed, and I understand the need to trim things out in order to fit it into four hours.
That Morgaine would take refuge under the auspices of the very forces of intolerance that she's been harried by throughout the story shows that no one involved in the production seems to have grasped the Church's critical -- and negative -- role in the book.Leaving the destruction of the plot alone, the production values were nice enough -- some great capes!
The first part was actually ok, although several important scenes that are absolutely needed to understand the story later on (like the relationship between Morgaine and Lancelot) were edited out.
Not only did the pacing change (of course, they had to put 3/4 of the book in 1/2 of the total running time, as part one only covered about 1/4), also, every detail that would have made the story and characters understandable was left out.
Lancelot's relationship towards Morgaine, towards Arthur (!) and even towards Gwenhwyfar remains completely undefined, Morgause's motives are reduced to pure envy and the religion of the goddess is reduced to having visions and being able to part the mists of Avalon.
The movie lets her look at a statue of the virgin Mary (the very symbol of how Christianity glorifies virginity and reduces women to the sole purpose of childbearing) and understand the goddess is alive ???In short, everything remotely non-pc was relentlessly cut from the novel and the rest was turned into a medieval soap opera without any character development.
As to how the movie will appeal to someone who did not read the book, I don't know - I suspect it will be seen as a decent medieval adventure but the holes that the removal of multiple important scenes leave will probably confuse.Nice acting by Margulies, however, and especially by Hans Matheson (Mordred)..
Those problems are abundant here, but The Mists of Avalon compounds all of those by miscasting the characters, adding special effects that look like 6th grade art projects and turning the whole thing into a fantasy/soap opera.
Angelica Huston is particularly bad as a 60-year old Viviane, delivering her lines woodenly, while at the same time coddling Morgaine to a degree that the book does not contemplate.
Those who did not read the book won't care about the miscasting (though they may be appalled at Huston's acting), but I'm embarrassed for TNT when I see Viviane "raise the mists" to reveal a papier mache Avalon.
I was prepared to be disappointed because you can't squeeze 50 characters and 900 pages into a two hour movie, but I expected better casting and special effects, and a lot less hugging..
I did however watch with a strong apprehension, having read the book before seeing the mini-series; I didn't hold out much hope for a faithful adaptation.I recently re-watched it, and I believe this apprehension was justified, as I could not, unfortunately, see past the bad elements.
I cringe when I think that people who haven't read the original book might think that the story of the film was the story that Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote.
The book was profound, and it stood out as a new feminine perspective of the Arthurian legend, taking all the exaggerated mythical magic, deception and melodrama and turning them into believable humanity, with a respectful portrayal of spirituality both Christian and Pagan.One can't expect too much from a made-for-TV version of any story.
I first read the book about two years ago, and loved the re-telling of the Legend of King Arthur from the female point-of-view.
They both did the wimpy male thing that MZB originally wrote well, so in that sense they were true to character.Great Music, Cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is AMAZING, the costumes by James Acheson & Carlo Poggioli were pretty fantastic and Julianna Margulies are the reasons I would give for watching this film.
I haven't read the book, but I liked the premise of the story, as it was revealed through the numerous ads for the mini-series on TNT...
Anyone who has read the book, "Mists of Avalon" and loved it will hate this movie.
The attempt to unite pagans and Christians under one king may seem like a very contemporary issue, but it is a human universal and one that has been repeated throughout history.It's a shame that most viewers will see this interrupted with commercials; it's a beautifully moody film with lots of excellent photography, sets, and costumes (even if the latter look a little too Medieval for accuracy).
full of cliches, a storyline which tells us far more about today than the mythic past (Goddess worship, power hungry women, people seeking personal fullfilment, heroes who look more like jocks on a high school sports team than real warriors  - who in any sensible film would be told to stand aside for their elders, antagonism towards Christianity...).
Why can't you just consider the movie as it is, without constant beratement as to how it's not exactly like the book?I saw the movie last night for the first time, and found the story to be compelling, the acting to be top-notch, and the sets, costumes, and music to be a perfect match for the story.
Seriously, seeing Arthur proposing a threesome with Guinevere and Lancelot was the last thing to imagine  Or to see how Morgaine lost her virginity (don't take it literally) A bit too disappointing for an epic story of the High King I would have expected something more joyful and less pervert.
The acting couldn't have been better(not to mention Michael Vartan and Edward Atterton are easy on the eyes as Arthur and Lancelot:) Well, after seeing the movie I ran to Barnes and Nobles and got the book..and am anxious to start reading it.
So, basically any fan of Camelot legend, more than likely will enjoy it, even if you arent familiar with the legend this is probably the best movie to learn about it(personally its a bit more realistic and true to the tale than Merlin was)SO GO RENT IT!
What's immediately clear in watching this mini-series for anyone's who's carefully read the book is the moment MZB passed and the producers got full control of the film's direction.
I once read, that they don't take more great sci-fi fantasy books, and adapt them to movies, because not even sci-fi fantasy fans watch them, and enjoy them.
Well, we don't because the movie producers change the books we love so much, it is agony to watch them.I read earlier reviews of this movie, and I see most of them complain of either the "true" historic value, or the fact of the women being behind things.
Where the book was thought-provoking, and a good book for college reading, this movie was plainly written by christians.I want to close this with one quick thing, as a non-christian, I was offended by the fact that everything has to make christianity look good, and all of the rest of the faiths like mine, look like a bunch of non believers who are lost.
the reliance on an "earth mother" hurts more than helps, the women are powerful only because they support the men, and the hearth is certainly the dominant image of the role of women, a role enforced by an older matriarch rather than truly chosen.i haven't read the book, unfortunately, but i can only hope it treats the topic in a more complete way than the movie..
The only people who would really understand what's going on in this movie are those who have read the book (I spent a lot of time filling in back story for the benefit of my friends), and the fans are the ones least likely to care, given how uninteresting this adaption is.
But it's the kind of love story where you know what the characters are thinking and what they feel rather than just something rudely stapled on to appeal to the women.Mists of Avalon is also wonderfully shot and has many scenes of unique atmosphere.
When I learned it was being turned into a TV movie, with Julianna Margulies as Morgaine, I HAD to read the book before watching the movie!
If you are a fan of the actual book 'Mists of Avalon' then this movie will prove to be a surprise and a disappointment.
While one does recognize the casting challenges in aging - having grown women play 17 and 15 year old women (Morgaine & Morgause), and a big chunky Uther with a huge beard all fly in the face of the actual characters described in the book.
Now, I've never read the books, but I've seen a lot of the movies telling the King Arthur Story.
They deleted entire characters from the book, changed the whole plot line and made the pagans and priestesses look like a bunch of heathens, destroying the beauty that Marion Zimmer Bradley created in her book.
So why let Mordred live?""I got the feeling that much what was in the book could not be put into the movie and thus we lack events that probably would make the story more 'sensible'," Kristl said."Another strange thing is the passivity of Morgaine.
Movie changes some critical facts from the book but both versions are amazing, especially if you are pagan and always wanted a more fair version of Arthurian legend.
Watch this movie, THEN read the book and you'll have a clearer sense of who Viviane and Morgaine are.
As the stories of Arthurian legend (maybe myth?) have evolved through re-tellings and expansions over the centuries, this retelling also goes in directions from Marion Zimmer Bradley's book, which openly created a different presentation and interpretation of the stories of Camelot.
I cannot profess to have read every telling over the years of the Arthurian tales, but being a student of multiple religious faiths including "English paganism" (not simply that of the Druids, but also the little people) I can see much of the potential of the book.Unfortunately, the faith issue was not the topic of the movie, nor was the ability of Arthur, first through force against the Saxons, and then through conversion to Christianity of those same Saxons, to unite England.
I liked the casting for the most part (Julianna Marguilles is great, and Michael Vartan and Edward Atterton (although I have to confess that I actually thought Arthur was played by Chris Masterson until about an hour ago) did an awesome job (and they're both extremely good looking...but that's beside the point).So overall, I think it's a very good movie but a very bad adaptation.
"Mists of Avalon", based on the novel by Marion Zimmer Bradley, shows us the tragic tale through the eyes of Morgaine Le Fay and I find the movie to be superior to most cinematic interpretations of the legend I have seen over the years, including Excalibur.
We first met the story told by the character we always judge as the "bad girl" from the common reading of the Arthurian legend: Morgaine.
The acting was strong where it needed to be and although the film may not follow the book to a tee, it is simply another re-telling of a great story.
But since we are not here to evaluate the written work, which undoubtedly is far superior, I do give it five stars for its standalone value.For the first time since I can remember, we get a coherent view into the otherwise mysterious world of Druids and High Priestesses of Avalon and their worries about the various cultural invasions and intrusions into their untouched world.On the visual side, this TV movie should be considered a winner: the costumes reflect the accurate period in which the story takes place.If you are looking for knights in their shiny armors, you're in the wrong place, and this is actually good, because there were none between the 6th and 9th Century A.D. The only armor which could have eventually been seen was a long outdated Roman one...Now to the actresses/actors: they are all great performers who deliver memorable, strong performances and are all of a very high calibre.The storyline is subtle and is treated with respect.
Shame.But in my personal view, movies are made or destroyed by a story, actors and directors, not just by music or special effects.If such was the case, we could very well listen to an audio book or watch digital cartoons.Thank God there is still a human component in movie making and with it comes some good and glorious imperfection, which in turn, gives a job to so many people to gossip about.With all its flaws and imperfections, this movie truly deserves my appreciation and my five stars.
But she did a wonderful job with what she was given.In many ways the movie tries to make the story more politically correct but doesn't realize that the book is not only politically correct but it is truth.
Anyone who has read the book  The Mists of Avalon knows it is the most intriguing, complex, and human retelling of Arthurian legend ever told.
As a huge fan of her work, I think you lessen it when you don'taccurately portray that which she wrote about.If you want to really enjoy The Mists of Avalon, do yourself a favor and read the book.
I saw the Series and was very satisfied, "The Mists of Avalon" being one of my favourite books since I've read it the first time, now over 13 years ago.
The story is imho very good adapted from the book, and there are more details as in older versions of the King-Arthur-saga.
'The Mists of Avalon' tells the story of King Arthur.
'The Mists of Avalon' belongs in that special category of movie/mini series (along with 'Ever After') that could be called "Feminist Revisionism".The whole point of this work is to recast the Arthurian Legend so that the women are more important.
I believe the movie was based on a book of the same name, which purported to tell the story from the women's point of view.
It seems that everyone is really down on this movie because it wasn't like or as good as the book.
Personally i can't think of more than one or two movies that were as good as the book they were based on.
A lot.)On its own, it still could have been better (the image of Avalon looks like a postcard, I'm afraid to say), but it is as worth your time as any other Arthurian movie, especially, say, "Excalibur"..
I Liked the Movie More Than the Book!.
I saw the movie before I read the book.
I just read the book.It goes without saying, though I'm saying it anyway, the book is better.The movie takes a really good idea, --telling the Arthur legend through the eyes of Morgaine, and then proceeds to tell the same story as every other version of the legend.I am eager to see a more faithful adaptation of Bradley's book.
I am a big fan of the legend of Arthur and of Marion Bradley's book.
I think the acting in this tv movie was decent, but if I hadn't read the book already, I wouldn't have known what the heck was going on half the time.