Let's cut right to the chase: this is a terrible documentary. That's really all you need to know. If you want to know exactly why King Arthur's Britain had me tearing my hair out, you can read on, but no matter what, you know the basics. It's terrible.

I'd probably have found it unsatisfactory in any case, but certainly King Arthur's Britain started out in a unique position with regard to me as a reviewer: I'm actually a literary scholar with a pretty substantial grip on the Arthurian story. That means that I bring a definite interest in the material with me - no worries on that account - but it also means that I know what's what. For a well-made documentary, that wouldn't be a problem. For this one, it's the kiss of death.

The 147-minute film is broken into three parts, each standing more or less alone but fitting together into a larger overall story. (Or at least I think that's the intention; there's a lot of repetition of the same points, so it often feels like we're spinning our wheels and going nowhere, instead of moving onward.) Part 1 is called "King Arthur's Britain," and seems to focus on the Roman occupation and later withdrawal from Britain. Part 2, "The Not So Dark Ages," covers the centuries after the Romans left, and Part 3, "The Invasion That Never Was" addresses the Saxon invasions.

The central problem with King Arthur's Britain is already implied in the titles of the separate parts. Historian Richard Pryor, who hosts the documentary and is presenting his own ideas in it, seems obsessed with proving his own ideas and overturning incorrect assumptions about the past. Well, great. Except that his approach is badly flawed on both counts. To begin with, it's very clear that Pryor has his own pet theories and is actively looking for any evidence that could be twisted or turned to support them... even if there are other, better theories that would explain the same evidence. It seems that every other sentence that comes out of Pryor's mouth starts with "I think..." or "I believe..." And when he does look at archaeological evidence, he's all too willing to use it to spin wild theories, such as concluding (dramatically!) that the placement of churches along waterways meant that the people viewed the water as sacred. (Hello - what about the utility of travel by water? Are all port cities sacred sites too? I think not.) Archaeology is a science, but Pryor, as he presents himself here, is no scientist: instead of examining the evidence to see what it means, he hunts for bits that can support his preconceived ideas. Perhaps off-camera he's a better historian and scientist than that (I hope so), but in his on-screen quest for additional drama, he does a real disservice to his profession.

So the evident bias in Pryor's approach is one strike against him. The other, more conclusive one is the nature of the "incorrect assumptions" that Pryor frequently rails against. These are, apparently, the ideas that: the Romans were a brutal occupying force that subjugated the helpless Britons; that after the Romans left, the country sank into a morass of barbarism for centuries; and that the Saxon invasions were sudden invasions by foreign royalty, featuring (again) the extermination of the hapless Britons and their replacement by the invading peoples. The entire program of King Arthur's Britain is built around disproving these supposedly entrenched ideas.

Except that I'm not sure who, exactly, is supposed to hold these mistaken ideas. All of them are extreme statements that nobody familiar with the modern understanding of British history would make. Maybe someone who has only heard second-hand information from decades ago would hold these preconceptions... but the way Pryor makes it sound, they're what everyone thinks.

What we get, then, is a lengthy documentary that tackles three separate straw men, "disproving" ideas that nobody remotely current with the field actually holds. But wait! It gets better. Pryor doesn't just disprove outdated theories, he goes to the opposite extreme, in each case going out on a limb away from what the contemporary understanding of the material is. There's no real substance to the claims, though: he shies away from letting any other expert go into much detail on-camera, and the "evidence" that's presented is often shallow, not really supporting his claim. The section on language changes, for instance, is presented in vague terms, and what's presented doesn't really support Pryor's argument... but we're not given much time to worry about that.

Yes, let's talk about editing. King Arthur's Britain seems to be edited to try, as much as possible, to distract the viewer from actually thinking about the claims that Pryor is making. He'll make a statement... we'll get some flashy images to dazzle us for a moment... and then the program will cut to a totally different scene so that we won't think too much about how his claim didn't make much sense. Whenever a potentially interesting fact is mentioned (which isn't often), it's never developed.

So, when push comes to shove, this is a documentary that really ought to be avoided. It's not just badly done; it's not just shallow and uninformative; it's also biased and gives a very peculiar interpretation of British history. Oh, and in case you're wondering, it doesn't refer much to King Arthur. He's just tossed in here and there, probably to sucker in unsuspecting viewers.

The DVD

Video

King Arthur's Britain is presented in a widescreen anamorphic transfer, at its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The image quality is acceptable; colors are good, and the print is reasonably clean. Some edge enhancement is present, along with the occasional shimmer, and the image is somewhat soft overall.

Audio

The Dolby 2.0 soundtrack is satisfactory. It's generally clear and clean, but sounds a bit tinny at times.

Extras

The only special feature is a text biography of Francis Pryor.

Final thoughts

This is a bad documentary. A repetitive, badly structured presentation is only the icing on the cake, as the program itself gives a distorted and biased perspective on early British history. It's a shame, since the material is fascinating, but I have to advise that you avoid King Arthur's Britain entirely.