The Philippine Online Chronicles

When I heard that there was going to be a new film based on the Robin Hood mythos, my mind immediately went to the three Robin Hood films of my youth: Disney’s anthropomorphized animals of Sherwood forest, Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (about which I joked, could this new one be a Robin Hood movie without a Bryan Adams power ballad?) and Mel Brooks’s Robin Hood: Men in Tights (TIGHT! Tights). But seeing the names attached, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, it was clear that this would be a very different film.

It is very different, and much darker than all those other adaptations. In older iterations Robin Hood was a dashing, charming rogue, a glorified outlaw romancing Maid Marian, pwning the Sheriff of Nottingham, winning archery contests, and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Here we have what might be thought of as Robin Hood Zero, an origin story of how the legend Robin Hood came to be.

This telling attempts at “realism” of sorts. In its tone I can’t help but think of Antoine Fuqua’s version of the Arthurian mythos, King Arthur, where the attempt was to tell the “true story” behind the myths.

Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is accordingly gritty and realistic in its portrayal of combat, if at times it conforms more to tropes than actually creating real, believable characters. It sets out to tell an epic, and for sure, this movie is massive. There are tremendous, intense scenes, for example the opening sequence where the English, led by Richard the Lionheart, storm a French fortress.

Scott has shot some of the greatest sequences of all film, among them what has been lauded as the most accurate portrayal of modern warfare, Black Hawk Down, as well as the scenes with Crowe in Gladiator, and many more. And it’s with this hand and eye that he captures medieval combat, making it quite a sight to behold. These battles are intense, with arrows flying, maces crashing down on heads, swords clanging. Scott puts you in the thick of it, and there are some scenes reminiscent of both Lord of the Rings and Saving Private Ryan that get viewers to feel the visceral power of combat.

It’s just too bad that this kind of intensity does not translate to the whole film. It’s great filmmaking to be sure, but as a narrative film Robin Hood suffers from sprawl. Its attempts at being big, grand, and epic prevent it from developing its smaller moments. In its largeness focus is lost.

There are just so many characters doing things, so many events, and things occurring at the local, national, and international levels of conflict that the film buckles under its own weight. The focus, of course is Robin (here we learn he is Robin Longstride, Locksley having its own explanation in the film). Our Robin here is a hardened veteran with a definite sense of honor. And he goes on his version of the hero’s journey, setting off as a reluctant hero with his protectors/friends, finds a wise man who reveals his destiny to him, and finds it in him to square both his family’s past and the future of his country.

Because it works within the framework of the Hero’s Journey, Robin Hood paints its characters in broad strokes. Rather than re-imagining a lot of the characters, the story plays on our previous knowledge (witness Little John and Friar Tuck, as they are developed here). Prince/King John is still as immature and pithy as in previous incarnations, but here he is even more spoiled and cartoonish than ever.

The only characters that we feel are new are Cate Blanchett’s Marian and Max Von Sydow’s Locksley. It’s a credit to these actors that we come to understand and care about these characters, despite all of this just operating under the structures set. Russell Crowe’s Robin is distinct through Crowe’s generally subdued performance, the small changes in his mindset shown through physical acting. Other characters, such as Mark Strong who plays the equivalent of a Righwraith, or Robin’s band of merry men, seem like they could have been plucked out generically from any other medieval flick.

One of the elements that the film introduces is the possible invasion of France. After ten years of crusades, England has gone poor and with the abusive rule under John people are nearing civil war. This leads to the film’s main theme losing some of its weight.

The older Robin Hood stories were able to maintain a focus because the heroes and villains were clear. Robin had to be an outlaw because the laws were wrong. A line repeated throughout this film, inscribed in Robin’s sword says, “Rise and rise again until lambs become lions.” It’s an inspiring bit, and it evokes feelings of liberty and freedom and the idea that one has to rise up against injustices.

However, (SPOILER ALERT) in the moment when Robin in this version is poised to rise and lead the lambs turning them into lions, the external conflict against France intrudes. Instead of addressing injustice and wrong, Robin here is defending his country, uniting his people against that threat, and in effect working with the oppressor. Thus what seems like the more interesting local political dynamic is overshadowed and lost in the larger, albeit less thematically interesting, political machinations of the French.

This does lead to Robin’s becoming an outlaw, the group’s move to Sherwood Forest, and generally the Robin Hood mythos that we know of. But then it weakens the idea of striving for justice and rising up. I wanted to see the lambs become lions, wanted to witness how an outlaw inspires to topple a government, not put one into place. So from a thematic point of view, the movie doesn’t really seem to know what exact message it wishes to bring forward, other than that spoiled rich kings are treacherous and are not to be trusted, and that Robin and the rest of the people of England are fools to succumb to his lies.

If we consider this all a set-up, then some of the narrative problems are excusable. But the sprawl, the sheer enormity of everything that happens, takes away from some of the themes that the film tries to explore. The story moves one way and another. Sometimes it’s the story of the Hero’s Journey, at others it’s about political schemes, and then there are times when it seems to need to throw in elements from the classic mythos. It tumbles towards a massive battle scene that is visually amazing but narratively unfulfilling. All of these numerous and disparate story elements would have been acceptable if they had been kept under control and made cohesive. But as it stands it’s just all over the place.

Nonetheless, it’s compelling viewing because of how Scott executes a lot of scenes. It’s worth watching if you’re interested in seeing a master pull off some technically amazing sequences. But it doesn’t feel very important in terms of story or new additions to the Robin Hood mythos.

I forked over the cash for this because I’m a big fan of both Ridley Scott and the Robin Hood mythos. I enjoyed myself because of that, and also because I like well-executed action sequences. If you’re a like-minded viewer then you will probably feel that catching this iteration Robin Hood is worth your time and money. It doesn’t have the charm of the Disney one, the romance of Prince of Thieves, or the laughs of Men in Tights. (Also, no power ballad.) What it does offer is a gritty origin story which may not go down well with many, and does not feel too memorable or essential. It’s good filmmaking, but it never reaches the epic heights that one could have expected.

Photo: “Robin Hood - Russell Crowe” by Worthing Theatres, c/o Flickr. Some Rights Reserved