giw

During preparations for Thanksgiving a few years back, my dad noticed that no one had made any candied yams. Fine, we bought a can, warmed them up and set them out. Nobody touched them, pa included. "Why," we asked, "did you insist on the yams?" Simple--tradition. With Thanksgiving you need candied yams.

And with New Years in central Europe, you need "Dinner for One." That people here love it, is clear. *Why* they love it is an absolute mystery. I honestly believe that it is enjoyed primarily because it is tradition -- it is beloved, so people love it. Being married to a German, I have now seen this short at least five times; I *have* laughed during it. Of course, I can pretend to like yams, too.

The film relies entirely on the clownish antics of the protagonist, Freddie Frinton, as he steadily drinks himself into oblivion. Purely pie-in-the-mush humor here, with gags that were old when the film was made forty years ago. Neither is Frinton a genius of physical comedy, his timing truly hit-and-miss in the skit.

If you are from central Europe, you have already seen this film. Otherwise, spare yourself the bother.

I was actually surprised--I'd expected the movie to be much worse than it was. The effects and action scenes were, of course, "thrilling," "breathtaking," "ground-breaking" (supply your own PR adjective). Perhaps more surprising was the acting, which was tolerable, even convincing. The characters weren't complete card-board cutouts, and hinted at a bit of depth. And the film was atmospheric without being comical.

The film totally and utterly lacked a plot, unfortunately. Ultimately it was little more than a series of vaguely-connected battles, love scenes and angst-filled monologues, slavishly plodding to the only possible conclusion: the conversion of Artus into Arthur, King of the Britains, and the gathering of his followers 'round the Round Table. The producers promised a rewriting of the Arthurian legend; instead we get little more than a time-shift, this telling taking place a millennium before the classic setting, and characters that are slightly more interesting than the archetypes of the original tales.

Moreover, excepting the primary characters, character motivation was totally absent. Why were the Saxons invading? What motivated the Saxon leader--was he simply cruel? Was it merely blood-lust? The search for a worthy adversary? And was his son a closet pacifist, or a wanna-be king? Evil, or misunderstood? Were the Romans decadent, misguided, or multifaceted? Ultimately all peripheral characters were merely props for the continuation of the film.

I did enjoy the film, however, hence my five-star rating. It was fun to watch, if not particularly moving or enlightening.