I’ve read that Robin Hood was probably not a real person, but that Prince John - later King John - was. King John is nobody’s favorite king, since he seemed to have trouble winning wars. It was so bad that his subjects wanted to rise up against him, but encountered a problem. The usual thing to do, back then, when you had a bad king was rally behind another king and push the first one out.
There wasn’t, though, a good alternative to John, so they made him sign a list of laws, instead. They might have call it the charter, but there was already a charter about forests. Since it was longer than that, they called it the bigger charter.
As much as we might like codes of law, they don’t do a good job of swashbuckling, so we need a person-hero to stand up to John instead, in the person of Robin of Locksley. Errol Flynn swashes and buckles from beginning to end in his signature role. We don’t waste any time getting a reason for him to turn outlaw - not that kind of movie - but we do spend time with him convincing Lady Marion (Olivia DeHavilland) that John is a butthead and that taxes are too high. I suppose she has hair, but I don't think we can actually tell that from the movie itself.
Our villain this week is - Basil Rathbone, again, this time as Sir Guy of Gisbourne. Prince John, Sir Guy, and the Sheriff make an ineffective team against Robin Hood and his merry men.
After Zorro, last week, I wonder a bit about what makes a hero. At least, a movie hero. Robin is a better archer and better swordsman than Sir Guy - and he’s more honorable, refusing to run Guy through when Guy loses his sword. In stories, we don’t get to ask whether we should follow someone for being decent and honorable. They are always better fighters, as well, so we don’t have to make the hard choices.
And, once again, I kinda miss the point. The Adventures of Robin Hood is a fun, fun movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment