Robin Hood: A legend is re-invented
When Academy Award winners Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe give the legend of Robin Hood the “Batman Begins” treatment, the result is, for good or bad, an entertaining movie.
Like other reboots such as “Star Trek” and the new Bond film, “Robin Hood” starts out by totally annihilating its own mythology. Scott re-imagines most of the characters in an attempt to make them more authentic to the time period. This re-invention of the characters and the legend may prove to attract or repel audience members, depending on how they feel about the original.
Robin Hood aka Robin of Loxley aka the new Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an expert archer who is returning with King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Houston) from the Crusades.
This Robin Hood is not interested in robbing the rich and giving to the poor just yet. In fact, he scams his fellow soldiers with an exercise in “the science of memory” with the famous three shells one pea shuffle. During this time, he is charged with masquerading as Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), a nobleman slain in battle. As implausible as this may sound, Longstride is able to pull this off because he has a semi-striking resemblance to Sir Loxley, namely a beard.
Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett) is not the damsel in distress the audience has come to expect. Instead, she is the very independent, tough-as-nails breadwinner of the Loxley Estate who proves that she is quite capable of being a warrior as well as a noblewoman. That’s good and wonderful, I suppose, but what I really want to know is does she like the dashing, exuberant singing swordsman.
Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) is closer to character as a clergyman who balances his allegiances to the Catholic Church and the people he serves. However, Robin Hood scholars may wonder if he keeps bees for the sole purpose of making mead to accommodate the wild and swinging parties in Nottingham just about every time the sun goes down.
The only character who was not wildly re-imagined is Prince John (Oscar Isaac); no sane audience member would dare feel compassion for him. Like previous incarnations, Prince John is megalomaniacal with a violent complex of being inferior to his brother Richard and (like any person in power) an insatiable hunger for money. However, in breaking with movie tradition, Prince John’s exploits with French maidservants are shown for all to see, including his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins). Suffice it to say, it wasn’t good for anyone: her or the audience.
Other characters who were once vital to the legend of Robin Hood are stuck in one dimension and little if any time is taken to develop their roles. For example, Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes), Alan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle) and Little John (Kevin Durand) do fight with Robin in the Crusades after some considerable screen time in the film’s beginning, but when they return to Nottingham, their only burden is going to Friar Tuck’s parties, and their only daunting decisions are which maiden to spend the night with. These are Robin Hood’s three best men, mind you.
The Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew McFayden) serves no purpose to the story whatsoever. His most memorable scene (one of two or three he actually took part in) is explaining his family lineage to French invaders to dissuade them from sacking his house.
“Robin Hood” changes its own mythology by replacing tradition with as many historical events and concepts as possible in no particular order. This endeavor proves to be very intriguing on the surface but, unfortunately, not all of them add up.
Audience members should not, I repeat, NOT cite this movie as a resource for a Middle Ages history paper. The events and ideas that are tossed around in this movie span about seven centuries of English history, all mashed up together into Hood’s lifetime. Between this mash-up of historical events and some heavy 21st century influences in terms of female empowerment and the responsibilities of government, “Robin Hood” is the furthest thing from authentic.
The battle sequences in this movie, on the other hand, are very close to authentic while staying in the superhuman reality-warping world of the summer action blockbuster. For example, the climactic invasion scene at the end could be a remake of “Saving Private Ryan.”
Ironically enough, the greatest entertainment from watching “Robin Hood” is not the action sequences or the story but rather the humor. Most of the humor is intentionally placed and delivered such as the trial and error process of picking women at mead parties and Robin using cleverly crafted one-liners to court Marion (at least he didn’t sing or do a tap dance number).
In the end, after all the one-liners, comically awkward situations and implausible events, the story transports viewers to the familiar Robin Hood legend even though the ride isn’t exactly an easy one. The characters lack reason and logic in their actions.
The purpose of “Robin Hood” is fulfilled in the final two minutes of the movie which in terms of setting and motivations should have taken place much earlier in the film. I guess Prince John was too busy with his French friend to declare Hood an outlaw in the beginning. “Robin Hood” delivers a value of entertainment which rivals any other movie currently in theaters. However, if any viewer has ever fantasized about living in Sherwood Forest, winning an archery contest, being saved by a dashing swordsman and being serenaded by him afterwards, that viewer will be horribly disappointed.
| The Mainstream is a student publication of Umpqua Community College. | About us | Advertising | Archives |