ROBIN HOOD (Ridley Scott 2010)

[Chris Knipp]

Ridley Scott: Robin Hood (2010)

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8376/robinhoodnewpic7.jpg
SOME IMAGES ARE WORTHY OF HOWARD PYLE (OR SOME SUCH ILLUSTRATOR)

Robin Hood the prequel

I take it that the humorlessness of the new Ridley Scott Robin Hood film is just the way things came out rather than by any firm design to drain all merriment out of the merry men, Friar Tuck, Little John, et al. The cinematic panache of this popular English legend of the 1200's has dropped ever since Eroll Flynn. Kevin Costner (1991) was never noted for that quality. And a more dour and gloomy Robin Hood than Russell Crowe would be hard to find. Jake Gyllenhaal was doubtless busy camping it up as a Persian prince for Disney. Now, Scott's folks in this movie, the yeomen and the wenches, do try to be jolly. There's a lot of dancing of the earnestly medieval drum-beating, foot-stomping kind. The trouble is it's much outweighed by those other medieval activities, boiling-oil casting, arrow-shooting, sword-fighting, and dying of wounds. You may really miss that dashing fellow in the green cap. Mr. Crowe is dressed in sweaty grays.

In narrative terms this version of the popular hero represents a series of choices among varying historical (or unhistorical) legends with some new flourishes added, notably one about the Magna Carta. Early ballads apparently do not explain why Robin became an outlaw. The stories differ on whether he's a nobleman or a yeoman of noble character, though his rank has gone up over time. King John, the younger brother who succeeded Richard the Lionhearted, has not fared well in history, and here he's a selfish upstart who allies with an impostor, Godfrey, who's English when he wants to be but works for the King of France, a slovenly wretch who slurps raw oysters and hides from the battles. The writers give Crowe's Robin a new gambit. When first seen he's a guy known as Robin Longstride returning, wearily, from the Crusades. He is present when a nobleman, Robert of Loxley, is killed in a skirmish with the French, and King Richard has just died too, so Robin becomes Robert, urges his best mates to pretend to be knights, and brings news of the king's death back to the English court. It's a tricky maneuver, and the wily Godfrey doesn't buy it.

When he's in danger of getting wiped out by the French and needs all the help he can get, this new King John agrees to Crowe's Robin to sign a pact to grant rights to the people. But later he reneges on the promise and declares Robin an outlaw to avoid being bothered by him further. This leaves unexplained King John's actual association with signing the Magna Carta.

What struck me as most strange and most interesting was having the venerable (and still wonderful) Max von Sydow -- famous from Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, where he played a returning noble crusader, this time cast as a stay-at-home, too old for a Crusade, the father of Robert of Loxley. Robin comes to find Loxley's house and father and, thereby, "Maid" Marion, who in this version is the Crusader-widow wife of Robin of Loxley. He married her years earlier and then went off at once to the Holy Land. Max, that is, Loxley senior, who is blind (a nice touch, especially since he dies in a sword fight), forces Robin to take on the identity of his son so the greedy new King John, or whoever else is robbing unfortunate nobles in the name of the Crown, won't seize his considerable land holdings -- 5,000 acres, Marion says -- when he's gone.

Marion is a yeomanly role for Cate Blanchett, who's seen doing some medieval plowing of those acres at first. They've fallen on hard times, been wiped out by tax collectors. Ah ha, yes! Tax collectors. Call for Robin Hood! Ridley Scott's movie does emphasize the need to protect the English from the English Crown's rapacious desire to grab land, crops, and valuables, as well as the French King's desire to grab England. But this isn't a rob-the-rich-give-to-the-poor Robin Hood -- which in fact is a later permutation of the character. Here he's just more a kind of legal advocate, a civil rights activist.

Loxley's mansion has huge rooms, but the floor is strewn with straw and the bedroom is full of dogs. Cate Blanchett does a good job considering that she's given nothing logical to do. She must alternately be down to earth, working a plow when needed; regal on horseback; so pure she threatens to neuter Robin if he touches her; then warm and womanly when things get friendly between them by and by. Good role for Cate perhaps, bad one for us to relate to in any coherent way.

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is conceived by the writers (Brian Helgeland and staff) as a prequel, with old-fashioned movie scroll captions at the outset that look like a Classics Illustrated Comic Book. A similar scroll comes in at the end to announce "The Legend Begins." Begins what, though, exactly? Russell Crowe looked pretty tired when the movie began. We're pretty tired when it ends two hours and twenty minutes later (slightly sooner at Cannes, where this was the opener). Unfortunately many of Robin Hood's pals (except Friar Tuck, who turns up later) were along from the Crusades, so they don't get the usual colorful introductions. And despite some stomping and drinking and wenching, there's not a lot of camaraderie. When you take away that and then eliminate the robbing of the rich, you take away most of the fun of the Robin Hood legend. (Except it's just about to begin.) True, there are some energetic bad guys, chief among them young King John (Oscar Isaac) and the spy, Godfrey (Mark Strong, Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes). But the lasses get short shrift, and so do the buddies. Yes, this is a grim and violent take on a once inspiring (if hokey) legend, and no amount of lovely Welsh woodland landscapes can change that. Despite a certain reliable blockbuster action momentum in its many fight and battle sequences, this Robin Hood is light on charisma and charm and is not one of the films Sir Ridley will be most fondly remembered for.

[Johann]

"Yeomanly"- great word there.
I have not yet seen seen this but I definitely want to.
I did watch Kevin Reynold's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, only because it was shot by Stanley Kubrick's cameraman Doug Milsome.
And his camera work is lovely indeed. But I felt the movie was weak. Kevin Costner is utterly ridiculous as Robin of Locksley.
His costumes are awesome, but what the hell is he doing in this role? His hair...Good God his mane is like Jon Bon Jovi's around the time of "Slippery When Wet" was released. A fluffy mullet. You may be a deadly archer Sir (psst: it's only movie magic!) but you're acting in this was...I-Don't-Know-What...
Beautiful cinematography tho- maybe I'll just watch it silent from now on.
Thanks for the review Chris.
I'll be seeing this soon and posting on it.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the note on PRINCE OF THIEVES' d.p. It has been favorably remarked that at least Russell Crowe isn't wearing a mullet. "Yeomanly" Cate? Yes, well, she is rather androgynous, isn't she?

In places the new ROBIN HOOD has lovely cinematography too especially in the long shots of battles and horses racing through the woods. Armond White points to "Scott’s superficial 'beauty': a couple of dusk landscapes (amazingly subtle lighting by John Mathieson) and a splendid view of French ships roiling on blue, misty waves." But he claims these "are not 'cinematic' images" but "mini TV commercials" (alluding to Scott's publicity film origins) that lack "existential vision" (wha?). Maybe the effort is to evoke the much loved illustrations of Howard Pyle -- not unsuccessful in shots such as the one I used to illustrate my review.

Unfortunately all the color is in the landscapes, not in the characters and the hero and the story in White's words echo "the insipid realism of Fuqua’s 2004 King Arthur, the grungy, anti-poetic reboot of Arthurian tales."

[cinemabon]

It is interesting to note the increase in grit and grime as a trend in film. Directors and art directors have fallen into the trap that if we only muddy up the set and bring in some realism that will lend itself to the storytelling. The problem is that all this grit tends to weigh heavily on the audience and often bogs down the storyline. Look at Scott's "Gladiator" and you get the point. Let's see the underside of life, seems to be the point of Scott's films. Let's see life's seedy side with all the sweat, all the dirty filthy skin (this could get very Freudian), and all the gore that life throws at us... now that's entertainment. Scott's "Robin Hood" is an exercise in drugery and tries to add historical credence to what began as a minstrel ballet.

Robin Hood after all is a legend, not a real figure. As legends go, his time does not necessarily coincide with history. As we know, King John (1167-1216) was not a very successful king. In fact, he lost every battle and a big chunk of England to France, which pissed off many Englishmen. It was not some noble peasant uprising that forced the king to sign the Magna Carta. It was noblemen upset over losing their lands. The legend of Robin Hood did not arise until ballets of the mythical man began to show up in Minstrel shows (not the kind in Vaudeville either) around the 15th Century England. The exact author is not known, but the tale began as a storytelling device and morality tale. As with all stories passed down through the time, the tale became embellished with Friar Tuck and Maid Marion nearly a century later. However the idea of a "Robbing Hood" (a hooded bandit) originally dates back to the 12th Century (about the time of John) and shows up all across England as a despicable creature who robs people on the road. He is neither admired nor loved by the people. In 1266, the record shows of a Robert Hood described as a murderer and he actually lived in Sherwood Forest (which really was not some big forest, by the way). He may have contributed to the over all "legend" that later developed. Robin Hood and Maid Marion were part of the "May Festivals" which celebrated mating rituals in England. In this case, Robin rescues Marion from an evil knight only to woe the maid.

Needless to say, the legend that we all know: Robin Hood, an English nobleman, robbed of his right by John, persecuted by the Sheriff of Notingham, lived in Sherwood Forest with Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck, and Little John; and he loved Maid Marion - this tale is a result of three major works written by a variety of authors between 1450 and 1600. 19th Century illustrators gave us the look that we've all come to accept in how the characters appeared. Even later storytellers added in the part about the "best bowman" in England. The longbow did not arrive in England until 1180, but was not used in the military until nearly a century later. So historical accuracy and Robin Hood do not exactly match the time in which he often presented.

Filmmaking is another story. In trying to take this story and give it credence by adding gritty realism becomes a bore in my mind. What is the point? We might as well take Paul Bunyan and make him a sweaty, hairy, tall Canadian, put blisters on his fingers and show how he gallantly and courageously chopped down the old growth forest and destroyed an ecosystem. Let's take the legend of John Henry and make him a runaway slave, kept out of white establishments, he gallantly and bravely pounds his way down a railway track, suppressed by his white bosses and unfortunately and heroically dies of a heart attack when only trying to perform his job.

This "dumbing down" of realism, heaped on the audience to lend credence to a "legendary" story is a farce. This stylistic trend that began with films like "McCabe and Mrs Miller" and has continued since that time makes movies a dreay prospect. If I want to eat mud, I have a yard full of the stuff. If I want to see people brutally murdered in a realistic fashion, then I should look at documentaries. But when we go to the movies, we should at least be presented with a story that is entertaining and not some dreary prospect that makes us feel as if we should have had a nap rather than go oh so drudgingly into that bad night.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/710/6a00d8341c630a53ef01348a.jpg

So Hollywood and Ridley Scott have dumbed down the Robin Hood story and tarted it up with grime -- using the story of a rob-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor champion of the people to rob us poor moviegoers and line the coffers of those rich studio execs, eh, cinemabon? (Lots of stimulating points here.)

The Magna Carta, as every schoolboy knew when schoolboys knew things, was indeed King John's agreement with nobles, not some upstart yeoman posing as a knight. You're certainly right to point out the new movie's pointless distortion of established history on this point.

Scott's new film sure isn't much fun, as I am only one of many to note and I guess you would agree.

But bringing gritty "realism" to on-screen storytelling of a traditional tale from folklore or legend: is that always a mistake? Pier Paolo Pasolini brought the techniques of Italian neoraalism and the use of authentic, unglamorous locations and people to retelling the Decameron, the 1001 Nights, and the Canterbury Tales in the early Seventies and it worked really well.

Or is it just that the noisy, violent, dirty blocbuster trend exemplified by GLADIATOR is ultimately numbing and debasing every legend and passage of history it grinds up in its maw? I didn't mention GLADIATOR. Many have though. It was generally deemed a success I thought. However I personally don't much remember it. More and more, the action blockbusters run together. Especially when they're soaked in grime.

"What do you get if you mix 'Gladiator,' 'The Return of Martin Guerre,' 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'Elizabeth,' 'Troy,' 'The Seventh Seal,' and a hundred buckets of mud? The answer is 'Robin Hood'—the latest version, that is, directed by Ridley Scott," wrote Anthony Lane in The New Yorker. Anthony Lane's review (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/05/24/100524crci_cinema_lane) runs us through some of the more important film Robins. Sony apparently just released a package (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/05/new-robin-hood-dvd-collection-is-a-mix-of-rich-and-poor.html) of four famous ones on DVD.

Would Russell Crowe even be a good action hero with any director, any style of film? Though he came to the fore as a violent tough in ROMPER STOMPER, he doesn't strike me as one. He has no panache or charm. He excelled in THE INSIDER, which rather ironically came out just before THE GLADIATOR, and is a logical choice for stuff like BODY OF LIES and STATE OF PLAY. He was suitable (just barely -- but it showed he can act) -- in A BEAUTIFUL MIND (though I find that screenplay pernicious, with its clichés about doomed genius).

I thought it was ballads rather than ballets that brought the legend along.

None of this has anything to do with the kitsch classic BLADE RUNNER, which nearly everybody loves for, I'd say, good reason. Or ALIEN, THE DUELLISTS, or THELMA AND LOUISE. Along the way, Ridley Scott has made a few good movies. But his collaboration with Crowe is up to the neck in mud.

[cinemabon]

I suppose I should capitulate to films like Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" that needed to be set in actual Italy (although Jesus of Nazarath seemed too much like King of Kings with Jesus being so pretty and having long wavy hair, something that would have gotten Mary stoned, and we're not talking marijuana). Films do lend themselves to realism when it comes to giving them credence and you made some good example. I must concede that point. However, you made me roar when you mixed your film title metaphors and included the pix of the handsome lad showing off his tights (the ultimate parody in "Top Secret" where the ballerina dances across the "tops" of male ballet dancers). I'm glad we agree on one thing related to Ridley Scott. He seems more interest in making money than art. Can they run out of historical subjects to over exaggerate? History is ripe with repeated attempts to improve on the past... hence, remakes.

"Joey... do you like gladiators in movies?" Captain Over from "Airplane"

[Chris Knipp]

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5443/theadventuresofrobinhoo.jpg
EROLL FLYNN IN ROBIN HOOD (1938)

The "handsome lad showing off his tights" is Eroll Flynn in the 1938 ROBIN HOOD, directoed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley and with Olivia de Havilland, Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone. It was not meant as a joke to put up the thumbnail of him but as a reminder of earlier, lighter, more fun versions of Robin Hood on film. I thought everybody would recognize him, but maybe the image was too small?

Films by nature are concrete. If you read a legend or hear it told to you, you can imagine anything you want, or keep it pretty abstract in your mind. I have this same problem with Jane Austen. The crinolines and dogs come through and the subtleties of the sentences are lost, on screen. But Pasolini (whose series of famous story collection films I may admire more than many here) succeeds in making his people in his Decameron and Flowers of the 1001 Nights and Canterbury Tales vivid and human and real, while still keeping them exotic, by mixing his locations, costumes, and other sources. His were not commercial productions aimed at making millions. At most he was only hoping to get his films released in Italy.

[Michuk]

Who was Robin Hood before becoming Robin Hood? And why should we care? Well, I didn't care. But it's not a bad film. It's watchable. It's just mediocre. Everything is mediocre except for Max von Sydow as Cate Blanchett's blind father.

And Russel Crowe... He's not really that bad after all, it's just that the script doesn't give him much space - he's not going through any particular change like in Gladiator, he's not even much in love, he's just a regular fellow who doesn't seem to have the slightest idea why Ridley Scott wanted to make a film about him.

Watch it for acting and for the fight scenes. But preferably, skip it to punish Scott for being to lazy to come up with an original script.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, the prequel idea is silly. However the traditional Robin Hood stories of modern times always show him "becoming" Robin Hood, developing some motivation for being who he became and being joined by his band of merry outlaws. I gather maybe you are unfamiliar with Robin Hood stores, that they don't have them in Poland? Watch some earlier, preferably much earlier, Robin Hood movies or read some Robin Hood children's books or the classic Howard Pyle book, and you'll get an idea of the tradition that Ridley Scott is debasing and making mediocre. I agree that Max von Sydow is great as always and I said that in my review. The man who played King John was not bad.

The problem is not only Russell Crowe. The character's usual motivation is weakened in this version. But Crowe lacks the panache of the legendary figure as we know him. And if you don't know him, you need to learn about him to comment. A legend is a legend, not an anecdote.

[Michuk]

We have Robin Hood books in Poland :) We even have our own version of Robin Hood -- Janosik, a Czech legend recently adapted in a feature film by Agnieszka Holland (a director you might recognize). I watched a few Robin Hood movies before and none of them was any good. I heard thaht a TV series from 80-ties was the best Robin Hood adaptation but I must have missed it somehow.

"The man who played King John was not bad." -- I agree with that. I think acting in general was above standard. The problem with the film is more general. It's exactly what you wrote in the review: it's light on charisma and charm. It's simply not powerful enough, not entertaining enough and the characters are uninteresting. If it wasn't for the acting the the cinematography it might have been a disaster.

[Chris Knipp]

I was being silly to say they'd not know Robin Hood in Poland. It's also true that the movies are mostly not much. On a certain camp level though, I think one can love the one I have referred to, the Michael Curtiz 1938 one. Those were great actors, and Erroll Flynn had dash, charisma to burn.

Agnieszka Holland is a director whose work I have loved. I also would not be surprised if an 80's TV Robin Hood series was really great. I liked EUROPA EUROPA, OLIVER OLIVER, and TOTAL ECLIPSE, which were all three bad-boy stories, or stories about youths who carried out bold exploits. It might not be unfair to say she has turned into something of a hack, though, doing TV directing here and there even if it was THE WIRE.

Like Ridley Scott. We have to admit that he is basically a hack, even though he has made some good films. He doesn't hold out for making just the personal artistic ones as the auteurs do. But while Ridley Scott has never been an art house film director (in French they say "films d'auteurs" and it is translated in subtitles "art-house films"), whereas Agnieszka Holland has been. Maybe you can ell me other good stuff she's done, maybe films in Polish we can't even see here.

[Michuk]

I was being silly to say they'd not know Robin Hood in Poland. It's also true that the movies are mostly not much. On a certain camp level though, I think one can love the one I have referred to, the Michael Curtiz 1938 one. Those were great actors, and Erroll Flynn had dash, charisma to burn.

Agnieszka Holland is a director whose work I have loved. I also would not be surprised if an 80's TV Robin Hood series was really great. I liked EUROPA EUROPA, OLIVER OLIVER, and TOTAL ECLIPSE, which were all three bad-boy stories, or stories about youths who carried out bold exploits. It might not be unfair to say she has turned into something of a hack, though, doing TV directing here and there even if it was THE WIRE.

Like Ridley Scott. We have to admit that he is basically a hack, even though he has made some good films. He doesn't hold out for making just the personal artistic ones as the auteurs do. But while Ridley Scott has never been an art house film director (in French they say "films d'auteurs" and it is translated in subtitles "art-house films"), whereas Agnieszka Holland has been. Maybe you can ell me other good stuff she's done, maybe films in Polish we can't even see here.

My favorite film by Holland was "Kobieta samotna" (a lone woman): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082625/ - from the amoung of ratings I take it was never shown anywhere except Polish public TV.
Her second most acclaimed film here in Poland (hell and I'm writing it from London) is Goraczka (Heat): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082374/ - also not very popular outside as I can see although it was nominated to Goldern Bear in Berlin and got a Silver one for best actress performance.

I haven't seen her Washington Square (1997) and a recent Copying Beethoven (2006) but they got good reviews.

She recently directed a few episodes of a Polish political TV drama "Ekipa", a series kind of resembling British "The Thick of It". I haven't seen "Janosik" yet, it got mixed reviews.

[Chris Knipp]

Sorry not to know about those. Did you like Europe Europa, Olivier Oliver, or Total Eclipse? Somehow I felt Holland could have made more original and artistic films but got led astray, maybe by the need to make money.

[cinemabon]

I am curious, Michuk, why you chose (Kobieta samotna 1981) as your favorite film. I believe one reviewer called it "the most depressing film of all time... most people can't watch it through to the end." Whereas the second reviewer called it a "moving unhappy love story... strongly connected to Poland in the 1980's" And how does that relate to "Robin Hood?"

On the other hand, Chris, I read the review by Anthony Lane. It was spot on. He is extremely articulate and very familiar with the subject. He quoted from several sources I could not find anywhere. I also enjoyed his criticism of Crowe's accent. I believe that if an actor is playing the part of a person from a particular culture, it behoves them to adopt the proper accent. One person who does this flawlessly is Meryl Streep. I understand that last week during a BBC interview, Crowe stormed out when the reporter compared his accent to a cross between Australian and Irish. Lane had a similar problem. I can understand why the British tend to want their English accents correct, as it places a person to his region. Crowe, a naturalized Australian, has problems ridding the accent at times. His "brooding" personality fits this troubled Robin. However, most of his characters seemed troubled. I can't see him playing anything else.

For my generation, I believe the 1938 Michael Curtiz film is the one we most identify with Robin Hood. While the music is perhaps heavy applied like too much frosting, and the characters reduced to cardboard cut outs, the fencing lesson at the end is a wonderful scene (Basil Rathbone had to be careful not to hurt Flynn as he studied fencing for years and was much better at it... he lost to Flynn twice, the first time in "Captain Blood.") I did not see the Robin of Locksley series originally produced by the BBC for American television between 2006 and 2009. It had a very large following at first with a huge drop off by the third year. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_(2006_TV_series)

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for all this additional information.

I'm not sure myself how Agnieszka Holland came up. I always have loved Eroll Flynn and Basil Rathbone, whose impersonation of Sherlock Holmes is as classic as Flynn's of Robin Hood. Also there's nobody like Doublas Fairbanks, Jr. for swashbuckling roles like THE PRISONER OF ZENDA and SINBAD THE SAILOR.

Anthony Lane often appears frivolous and also has come off as preferring literature to cinema in his writing, but despite his offhand English wit he is very knowledgeable and of stuff you can't find on the World Wide Web. I tend to disagree with you on Streep; I think her accents seem too studied. But it's true even Crowe's voice sounds Australian, and unlike many English actors, he doesn't do other accents convincingly. But it is his depressed, troubled quality that makes his casting as Robin Hood inappropriate.