Canadian Gothic: Political Medievalism at Ottawa’s Parliament Hill

For Americans, the politics of the Middle Ages tends to concern one form of government: monarchy. But Canada, composed of the British colonies of North America which did not reject monarchy in the late eighteenth century, seems to have historically held a strikingly different view of how the Middle Ages fall in the narrative of political progress. In the British tradition of constitutional monarchy, after all, the origins of the parliamentary system lie in the Magna Carta of 1215. Over the following centuries, this early-established constitutional monarchy gradually evolved into the recognizably republican system that Canada was subject to by the mid-19th century.

Construction of Parliament Hill’s Centre Block in 1863.

Parliament Hill (the collective name for the Canada’s capitol buildings in Ottawa), built between 1859 and 1876, was designed as the visual antithesis to the United States Capitol building. Rejecting the Capitol’s neoclassical architectural precedent for seats of legislative government, Parliament Hill was constructed in a decidedly Gothic Revival style, following the lead of the UK’s still-under-construction Palace of Westminster. The bold architecture of Parliament Hill gave the medieval parliamentary tradition a seat of administration for North America. The buildings of Parliament Hill are even situated on a dramatic mount that rises high above the Ottawa River, as if a European castle. Among the most prominent structures in this complex is the Library of Parliament, in the form of a fantastical Gothic rotunda. This building presents medievalism as not just compatible with, but consistent with intellectualism. The architecture of Parliament Hill places Canada’s seat of republican government within a vestibule of medievalist sensibility.

The fanciful Gothic interior of the Library of Parliament.

The use of medieval imagery in the buildings of Parliament Hill expresses just how maneuverable referencing the Middle Ages can be in modern political discourse (even visually). In the United States, the medieval is frequently viewed as politically reactionary. In Canada, the medieval can connote a tradition of political reform that finds its origins in 13th century England. In both, the medieval has a history of snaking its way into contemporary political rhetoric.

Why We Like The King Arthur Movie

In the modern movie interpretation of the long loved mythical tale King Arthur we see a handful of changes compared to the Geoffrey of Monmouth article. When investigated, these changes are quite historically inaccurate and definitely do not correctly represent the article we read. For example, in class we talked about the fact that in the movie trebuchets were used but the trebuchet was not invented until the 12th century but the story of King Arthur takes place in the 5ht or 6th century. Another example of this is the inclusion of a strong female lead played by Keira Knightley while there are not any female characters of major importance in the Geoffrey of Monmouth text. Now one could say that these changes are made to make the story more modern as this is a 21st century piece of film but I would disagree as there are other aspects of the film that are not as modern thinking such as the strange nudity scene involving Keira Knightley as well as the the scanty outfits that the Woads wear compared to their male warrior counterparts. So if there are all these inaccuracies about the tale of King Arthur in the film, then my question is why did it do so well in theatres both in the United States and worldwide? The movie made a $50 million gross in the United States alone and earned another $150 million in the rest of the world.

My hypothesis for as to why this movie reaped in cash while seeming low effort is quite simple. People don’t really care about historical accuracy or complete gender equality when they are going to see a movie. Especially when it comes to the action/adventure genre movies are judged based on how cool that fight scene was or how capturing the plot line is not how historically accurate the story is. This is the reason why we see a lot of action movies nowadays that are loosely based upon or even just draw one or two aspects of a story from medieval or earlier times and then modernize it to appeal to audiences of today.

Biases in Film-making: What About the English?

In the introduction to the trial Daniel Hobbins addresses the reliability of a text or trial conducted by the English, against whom Joan had just fought a war. Hobbins believes the text is accurate, and the trial lacks enough bias to skew the ruling. He cites the fact that the transcript was printed and circulated in Latin, a language accessible to people from many countries at the time, as evidence for self-vindication on behalf of the judges. In other words, the judges wanted to be as transparent as possible because they knew their decision was contentious. They believed the trial itself, and all the evidence collected for it, would justify their ruling to those who still supported Joan. By circulating it far and wide they were declaring that they had followed all procedures correctly and had committed no wrongdoing in condemning Joan.

In the matter of bias Hobbins mostly discusses the figure of Cauchon, who led the inquisition. The later inquest focused on him and how much his desire for power and favor from the Burgundians or the English influenced his decision. Hobbins dismisses bias due to the depth and detail in the evidence collected, stating that Cauchon was obsessive in his quest to be accurate. Despite this, Hobbins acknowledges that the trial was enormously political in nature, that the end result was already decided, and that religious authorities were constrained by the desires of the English. He does not believe that the English did or could purposefully force their desired outcome. More importantly, he doubts that they forced her into men’s clothes so that she would be declared a relapsed heretic and handed over for execution.

“The Messenger” displays the exact opposite opinion. The trial is portrayed as entirely biased. Joan’s condemnation and execution are forgone conclusions and the mockery of the trial must play out for the sake of image. The English threaten the head inquisitor, reminding him that he answers to them. They actually arrest a dissenting priest, one who is well respected and from Rome, who refuses to take part in the trial. They demand that Joan be tortured until she tells them what they want to hear so that they can cease with the trial and execute her. When Joan is asked to sign her abjuration and the priests beg her to reconsider her stance the English are impatient to simply burn her. And when all else fails, they enter her cell and create circumstances where she must return to men’s clothes, which will force the Church to denounce her as a relapsed heretic and hand her over for execution.

While Joan in the film puts the clothes on herself and doesn’t tell the priest what happened, Besson still casts blame on the English for her death by having them force her into a situation where she must choose to wear men’s clothes or be partially nude. One option leads to a loss of dignity, the other to death. She just chooses a preferred option.