The critics deadpanned this addition to the Robin Hood film library, choosing to mostly focus on Crowe's "incorrect" accent and lament the sacking of the original script that saw the Sheriff as the hero and Robin as the villain. Reviews like that immediately set off alarm bells that perhaps these nitpickings were smoke screens. Afterall, who was alive in the late 12th century to tell us that the persona di
dn't have an Irish or Welsh flavoured accent? Why should the Robin Hood legend bow to 21st century story-telling conventions that grey villains and make heroes out to be the real misguided folk? (Although ironically the latter isn't far from today's truth.)
Having seen and throuroughly enjoyed the version that was actually made, I understand why H-wood was disappointed. Crowe's "Robin" isn't championing the redistribution of wealth and stands up for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--the very ideals that would lead to the Magna Carta (the patriarch to America's own founding documents).The only other Robin Hood film to do this was 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn.
Cate Blanchette brings as much gravitas to the Marian role as did Olivia de Havilland in '38. She's no easy mark for Robin and it takes the full length of the film for Robin to turn her eyes in a way that isn't a distrustful glare. I thought the touch at the end may have been a bit of a cow-tow to feminism and unrealistic to the period, but it was tasefully handled and in no way detracted from the story.
My biggest gripe with the story was Scott's disappointing representation of the Crusades in film (again) and Richard's wars with the French. It's especially disappointing given the filmmaker's clear love for the long ago. I don't know.. maybe the studio forces such a period film to be sure to criticize the Crusades and be apologetic about Europe's role.
The opening title card tells us that the film starts after King Richard has returned from his "plundering" during the Third Crusade and is making war on the French, who decided to take some of his lands while he was gone (under the duplitious watch of King Phillip, an ever present rival of Richard's throughout most of his life). In the case of the latter events--umm, isn't Richard simply being a good king by making war on those who would steal from him?
But in the case of the Crusade, Scott lingers a bit longer, making sure that the audience knows that in his opinion, the killing of 2500 Muslims at Acre was "godless". The interesting thing here is that Scott would have us infer that the majority of those killed were women and children (quite the opposite) and that he simply killed them for no reason (untrue). In both cases, Scott stands at odds with most historians! But that isn't even the most important of the case.
Within the context of the time, it is the concensus of scholars that Richard had little choice but to kill the prisoners. First, because he was leaving Acre and he couldn't have the men (who comprised the majority of the prisoners) joining up with Saladin to fight against him. Second, because Saladin had been stalling for time to regain his strength for an attack, and was playing games withan agreed upon prisoner exchange. Third, the prisoner exchange (which was to include the True Cross captured at Hattin) technically had been agreed to by a lesser-officer without Saladin's kowledge and it wasn't an agreement he particulary liked. And fourth, Richard may have wanted a bit of revenge for the hundreds of Templar and Hospitaller captives that Saladin had had beheaded (by amateur soldiers no less) following Hattin.
The most interesting of all is that records, written by a known Muslim archivist of Saladin's army, speaks of the Acre incident very matter-of-factly.. as if he understood the decision and would have done likewise in a similar position of war. And later on, when Richard and Saladin come to terms at Jaffa, they deal with each other honorably--as if the Acre incident wasn't so much of an issue. This is significant given the long memory of the Muslim warrior.
Although the film bows the head a bit to modern filmmaking conventions (e.g. the Crusades were simply white Christian guys looting the world, killing "innocent" Muslims along the way, and robbing the Islamic community of its rightful lands--as if the Muslim community had been living in the Holy Land since the Creation), it's refreshing to see a modern filmmaker get the Robin Hood legend closer to historical than any other. It was interesting to see a film that told a bit of a prequel than the story everyone mosly knows. Crowe's Robin Hood fits quite nicely beside my Errol Flynn version.
GRADES (based on a 32" Dynex HDTV & a Samsung BD-P1600 Blu-ray player):
Film: A- (theatrical version)
Blu-ray: A (video), A+ (audio), B+ (extras--no commentary from Scott, Crowe, and/or Blanchette?!; good 1 hr making-of though)
Recent Comments