Christopher SoallRobin Hood: A Review
June 10th 2010 11:14
There must have been fairly mixed reaction when the news that Ridley Scott was making an origin picture for the classic English tale of Robin Hood was revealed, especially when Russell Crowe was confirmed as the person who was going to take the lead role.
Some must have been licking their lips, as 'Gladiator's lush representation of historical conflicts would be given the opportunity to meet with Europe at the time of the Crusades. Others may have been dreading to hear Russell Crowe's attempt at an English accent or just how much liberties would be taken with the history of Medieval Britain.
The former of that demographic will not be dissappointed when they see the depiction of a siege of a fort in France as the Coeur De Lion makes his way back to England; and are introduced to the skilled archer Robin Longstride. One is almost able to hear the whizz of arrows flying past the ears or the sludgy resistance of mud underfoot.
Scott also skilfully utilises some of the more traditional elements of the Robin Hood tale, whilst maintaining the aesthetic that he introduces, when Robin is accused of cheating by 'Little' John, and a fight ensues. This is similar to the folktale, where Robin challenges John to a staff fight in order to cross a bridge. The appropriation is more suited to the battlement setting, as one could imagine the bridge crossing taking place in lush green Sherwood with Errol Flynn deftly wielding his staff.
Some of the themes are also introduced, as after the fight, King Richard asks Robin of his true opinion about this Crusade - and when he gets an honest answer, he speculates about what it takes to make a true Englishman, after the costly wars that he has lead across Europe.
And indeed, it is effective that the inciting incident of Richard being killed by an arrow shot from a crossbow by what appeared to be a chef. It would perhaps be considered by some story enthusiasts to be symbolic of the tragic character arc that Richard had created for himself, as when the audience see the situation back home. Townships starve, with supplies of grain being stolen and pillaged.
When the soldiers carrying the crown of the fallen King back to England, they are ambushed, and when Robin discovers them, he agrees to fulfil the dying wish of Robin of Loxley; to bring back a sword to his father.
This leads to yet more wonderful thematic exploration; that of the relationship between father and son. When the Lord of Loxley suggests that Robin pose as Marion's husband, so that she wouldn't lose the land that she owns. This is done in wonderful contrast to the lack of power that women seemed to have, as even though Marion (portrayed with a wonderful working class cynicism by Cate Blanchett) does all of the work, and essentially is the baron, but is still under the control of the infeebled Lord.
The same could be said of the Mother of King's, Eleanor of Acquitane, who tries to guide her son, and new King John as he makes the unpopular decision to demand the taxes from the Barons to replenish the barren coffers drained by the wars abroad.
So, all considered, it is a very strong set-up, with the gender politics and baronial conflicts the basis; but that perhaps leads to the major weakness of the film for me. It focusses a little too much on the broader picture, when it could have been a bit more of a comparison of the gender relationships in Sherwood and London, and how the baronial conflicts affected them. Mark Strong's treacherous character could have easily been lifted out of the character he played in Sherlock Holmes.
The final battle where the English successfully repel the French invasion is a little unconvincing, as is the contrived appearance of Marion in full armour to fight really undoes all of the excellent structural and symbolic work that had been done up to that point. This unbelievability really leaves a sour taste in the mouth, because of how excellent much of the film is before then.
The latter of my original demographic may have been proven right in their fears about the liberties being taken with the history of the country.
And Russell Crowe's accent isn't that bad.
Some must have been licking their lips, as 'Gladiator's lush representation of historical conflicts would be given the opportunity to meet with Europe at the time of the Crusades. Others may have been dreading to hear Russell Crowe's attempt at an English accent or just how much liberties would be taken with the history of Medieval Britain.
The former of that demographic will not be dissappointed when they see the depiction of a siege of a fort in France as the Coeur De Lion makes his way back to England; and are introduced to the skilled archer Robin Longstride. One is almost able to hear the whizz of arrows flying past the ears or the sludgy resistance of mud underfoot.
Scott also skilfully utilises some of the more traditional elements of the Robin Hood tale, whilst maintaining the aesthetic that he introduces, when Robin is accused of cheating by 'Little' John, and a fight ensues. This is similar to the folktale, where Robin challenges John to a staff fight in order to cross a bridge. The appropriation is more suited to the battlement setting, as one could imagine the bridge crossing taking place in lush green Sherwood with Errol Flynn deftly wielding his staff.
And indeed, it is effective that the inciting incident of Richard being killed by an arrow shot from a crossbow by what appeared to be a chef. It would perhaps be considered by some story enthusiasts to be symbolic of the tragic character arc that Richard had created for himself, as when the audience see the situation back home. Townships starve, with supplies of grain being stolen and pillaged.
When the soldiers carrying the crown of the fallen King back to England, they are ambushed, and when Robin discovers them, he agrees to fulfil the dying wish of Robin of Loxley; to bring back a sword to his father.
This leads to yet more wonderful thematic exploration; that of the relationship between father and son. When the Lord of Loxley suggests that Robin pose as Marion's husband, so that she wouldn't lose the land that she owns. This is done in wonderful contrast to the lack of power that women seemed to have, as even though Marion (portrayed with a wonderful working class cynicism by Cate Blanchett) does all of the work, and essentially is the baron, but is still under the control of the infeebled Lord.
The same could be said of the Mother of King's, Eleanor of Acquitane, who tries to guide her son, and new King John as he makes the unpopular decision to demand the taxes from the Barons to replenish the barren coffers drained by the wars abroad.
So, all considered, it is a very strong set-up, with the gender politics and baronial conflicts the basis; but that perhaps leads to the major weakness of the film for me. It focusses a little too much on the broader picture, when it could have been a bit more of a comparison of the gender relationships in Sherwood and London, and how the baronial conflicts affected them. Mark Strong's treacherous character could have easily been lifted out of the character he played in Sherlock Holmes.
The final battle where the English successfully repel the French invasion is a little unconvincing, as is the contrived appearance of Marion in full armour to fight really undoes all of the excellent structural and symbolic work that had been done up to that point. This unbelievability really leaves a sour taste in the mouth, because of how excellent much of the film is before then.
The latter of my original demographic may have been proven right in their fears about the liberties being taken with the history of the country.
And Russell Crowe's accent isn't that bad.
| 102 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
