Robin Hood

Sometimes a film may not meet your expectations, but still be a good film. When Ridley Scott (Gladiator) decided to tackle the legend of Robin Hood, he completely went against all clichés. Gone is the archery contest to flush Robin out, gone is the battle between Robin Hood and Friar Tuck, gone is the secret life of the Merry Men living in the forest. This Robin, Russell Crowe (Gladiator) is Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard’s army who assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley at the request of Sir Walter, Loxley’s father. This Robin is the Robin before the legend. A war weary veteran who has returned home, only to find his own country in ruins, a country ravished by greed, unjust taxation, and poor leadership. This Robin sounds a little too close to home.

In Ridley Scott’s version of Robin Hood, Robin is played as an older wiser man. Abandoned at the age of six, he somehow managed to arrive at manhood will a strong sense of ethics. This is not a cocky, sarcastic, witty Robin, trading barbs with his friends and enemies. Crowe’s Robin is a tortured man who has seen injustice. And when circumstances sets him outside the law, then he will work lawlessly to put things right. This is a man with a mission.

I have to admit that I have enjoyed previous versions of Robin Hood as action-adventure films. I appreciate jocularity and I find male bonding and camaraderie an attractive thing to watch. And as far as Robin Hoods go the 1938 sword-fighting scene between Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone still thrills 72 years later. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for other interpretations.

What I enjoyed the most about Ridley Scott’s vision was the relationship between Robin and Marion. Cate Blanchett (Aviator) portrayed a fierce Marion. Abandoned after a week of marriage, she was left behind to manage a 5,000-acre estate and a blind father-in-law. This Marion was not a lady in waiting, imprisoned in the society of court, but rather a woman who was waiting for her man to get home and trying her best to give him a home to come back too. This Marion was a perfect match for Russell Crowe’s Robin and their chemistry was palatable. In my opinion this was the best part in the film.

As a director, Ridley Scott is a master of warfare, grand battles at epic proportions. But I felt that this seemed a little out of place. I always imagined Robin as a close fighter, or an archer. More like an Indian fighter, attack and retreat. But I did perk up at the sight of Russell Crowe charging on a white horse. Crowe is an expert horseman and it was thrilling to watch him handle his mount. But as inspiring as that was, it didn’t feel like Robin Hood. I guess I’m still bound by my expectations.

If this character was not named Robin Hood, we’d probably be singing the praises of this film and citing its authenticity. But because we all grew up will our own preconceptions of who Robin Hood is, it’s hard to let go of our fancies. Whether it is the athletic devil-may-care Douglas Fairbanks, the roguish Errol Flynn, the driven Kevin Costner or the stuttering Daffy Duck, everyone is free to his own interpretation. Every generation puts their own stamp on the legend and Ridley Scott is obliged to do the same. The only question we should be asking is, is the film entertaining? I think it is. I wouldn’t call it the definitive Robin Hood, but I would call it provocative. And any film with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett is a plus in my book, especially Russell Crowe on a horse.

Rating: First Run Robin Hood takes up a cause