Skip to main content

Old Robin Hood

When I was a young guy, I wrote an episode of the Hanna-Barbera / Cinar animated TV series (then wildly popular in the States - the top-rated Saturday morning cartoon show for a season, 1991), Young Robin Hood, with my friend, Thor Bishopric.  Our episode was called "King For A Day" - and one of the key scenes involved Robin intercepting King John's crown in the forest, and the power of that robbery going to his head.  Imagine my delight in seeing that Ridley Scott's new shot at a trilogy reboot epic, Robin Hood, features a similar moment.

When I co-wrote my Robin Hood show, it was okay for Robin to steal from the rich, and use arrows.  In the second season, Disney took over, and banned all reference to distributive justice or sharp pointy stick use.  They also wanted Robin out of the woods, and to stop co-habiting with merry boys.  The series soon tanked.  This new film version - critics claim it is the 100th such movie - isn't quite as morally sound or po-faced as the Disney version, but almost.  Robin Hood isn't much fun, or given to quips.  Or lithe leaps.  Instead, he speaks out against the massacre of Muslim people, and is put in the stocks, later impersonating a noble until he discovers his father was the executed author of the Magna Carta document and its claims on royalty in favour of the rights of the common man.

Robin Hood (here Robin Longstride, aka Loxley) as played by Russell Crowe, is a battle-scarred, muscular, middle-aged, plain-spoken Yorkshireman and proto-Clegg, against taxes on the poor, and in favour of liberty.  This is a seriously well-made and researched movie that borders on being dull and worthy, without ever quite failing to entertain enough to be less than good.  It is rarely thrilling or utterly enthralling, though sometimes its villains - particularly rising-star Mark Strong (in another bald baddie role) - amuse with their vicious lack of nobility.

I believe the main fault is with the story structure - clearly influenced by intelligent TV dramas like The Wire.  TV shows can have long and complex arcs that allow for in-depth anatomies of power corruption - and this film tries such a structure - so we see the inner workings of the government and monarchy of England in 1200 AD, from king's mother, to king, to king's wife, to marshalls, barons, sheriffs, and lowly archers and pikemen, friars and wenches; and, of course, turncoats and spies (using bird-sent messages).  The key theme might be Fealty - who pays it, who spits on it - and Fatherhood, I suppose.  Or, put another way, leadership.

Heavily indebted to King Lear (Robin Hood like Cordelia tells one king an uncomfortable truth out of love and is punished; a blind man is taunted by a traitor, etc) and Henry V (those arrow showers), the screenplay gets medieval on the audience, displaying a virtuoso grasp of how to sack a castle or village.  Such gritty authenticity showing the levels of Gotham City worked for The Dark Knight - here it seems like homework.  The problem is, Robin has no clear goal for the first two thirds of the movie (overlong at 140 minutes) and only gets to know and confront the villains (including lusty and dishonest King John) in the last half hour - where, indeed, and excitingly, he rescues a mannish Marian (Cate Blanchett) from drowning in surf or being eviscerated by the oncoming French foes - and finally, aptly, uses an arrow to finish some business.

If there is a sequel, it will likely be better, because the stage is now set - Robin is an outlaw, and King John clearly delineated as evil.  I enjoyed seeing Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet, Alan Adale, and Little John drunk on mead.  I liked Robin sowing seed in the dusk.  I liked when he told Marian he loved her.  But next time around, he better say something funny, too.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…