Don't bother me, I'm pretty (Robin Hood)
May. 16th, 2010 10:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pbrayAs soon as the opening credits rolled, identifying the period of John's unjust rule as the early 12th century, it was obvious that Dame History would spend the next two hours and twenty minutes sobbing quietly in the corner. Then, as Richard the Lionheart is killed on his way home from the crusades, while besieging a French castle, I waved good-bye to history and settled in to watch the spectacle.
And, indeed, it was fun. Wildly historically inaccurate, of course, but thoroughly enjoyable. Right up until the moment that Maid Marian led a group of ragtag boys into the climactic battle, having supposedly secretly ridden all the way from Nottingham to the Dover coast. jpsorrow also commented on this in his blog-- it was a false note, one that made no sense storywise. Instead it was nearly a direct ripoff of Eowyn's storyline, including Marian's attack on Godfrey, the evil mastermind.
And there was no reason for it. Marian had already proven herself a heroine. She'd held together her people in the face of hardship and oppression, shown herself loyal and faithful to a husband who'd abandoned her to go crusading only a week after their marriage. When the hall is stormed by Godfrey's men and she is captured, she coolly waits until her would-be rapist is in her embrace, then stabs him in the back, killing him. After all of this, having her show up to fight off the French invaders cheapens what she's already accomplished. And did we really need to take a time-out in the midst of a battle so Robin and Marian can kiss and declare their mutual devotion?
The ending of the film harkens back to Gladiator as Russell Crowe's character, having earned the respect of soldiers and nobles alike, is now seen as a threat to a weak ruler and must be destroyed for his presumption. Now an outlaw, Robin retreats to Sherwood Forest, presumably to begin his legendary career, and leaving open the possibility of sequels.
Despite the flaws, I enjoyed the movie. But anyone who came to the movie expecting to see the stereotypical Robin Hood would likely be disappointed. Many of the familiar characters were there, but there were no archery contests, no feasts in the forest. The only robbery on English soil was the theft of a shipment of seed grain, which was immediately planted. The Norman Saxon conflict was left out, instead the English were portrayed as a unified people divided only by unjust taxes. The Sheriff of Nottingham showed up, but he was an annoyance rather than mortal enemy, and had no quarrel with Robin. People who were waiting for these well-known motifs would leave the movie unsatisfied.
In many ways the movie suffered under the weight of the name Robin Hood, with all of the baggage that has been attached to it over the years. I can't help wondering how audiences would have reacted if the names had been changed, and this had been presented as an original story instead.
And, indeed, it was fun. Wildly historically inaccurate, of course, but thoroughly enjoyable. Right up until the moment that Maid Marian led a group of ragtag boys into the climactic battle, having supposedly secretly ridden all the way from Nottingham to the Dover coast. jpsorrow also commented on this in his blog-- it was a false note, one that made no sense storywise. Instead it was nearly a direct ripoff of Eowyn's storyline, including Marian's attack on Godfrey, the evil mastermind.
And there was no reason for it. Marian had already proven herself a heroine. She'd held together her people in the face of hardship and oppression, shown herself loyal and faithful to a husband who'd abandoned her to go crusading only a week after their marriage. When the hall is stormed by Godfrey's men and she is captured, she coolly waits until her would-be rapist is in her embrace, then stabs him in the back, killing him. After all of this, having her show up to fight off the French invaders cheapens what she's already accomplished. And did we really need to take a time-out in the midst of a battle so Robin and Marian can kiss and declare their mutual devotion?
The ending of the film harkens back to Gladiator as Russell Crowe's character, having earned the respect of soldiers and nobles alike, is now seen as a threat to a weak ruler and must be destroyed for his presumption. Now an outlaw, Robin retreats to Sherwood Forest, presumably to begin his legendary career, and leaving open the possibility of sequels.
Despite the flaws, I enjoyed the movie. But anyone who came to the movie expecting to see the stereotypical Robin Hood would likely be disappointed. Many of the familiar characters were there, but there were no archery contests, no feasts in the forest. The only robbery on English soil was the theft of a shipment of seed grain, which was immediately planted. The Norman Saxon conflict was left out, instead the English were portrayed as a unified people divided only by unjust taxes. The Sheriff of Nottingham showed up, but he was an annoyance rather than mortal enemy, and had no quarrel with Robin. People who were waiting for these well-known motifs would leave the movie unsatisfied.
In many ways the movie suffered under the weight of the name Robin Hood, with all of the baggage that has been attached to it over the years. I can't help wondering how audiences would have reacted if the names had been changed, and this had been presented as an original story instead.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-16 07:33 pm (UTC)Which is one of the things to think about when you read a fantasy where there is an unbroken lineage of kings stretching back into the misty past--real history doesn't work that way.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-16 09:15 pm (UTC)Which is one of the things to think about when you read a fantasy where there is an unbroken lineage of kings stretching back into the misty past--real history doesn't work that way.
True. I used to think the brutality surrounding Roman politics couldn't be topped, but then I read Scottish history.
Of course, being as realistic as possible trying to evoke a certain earlier period can be so relentlessly depressing that you might lose your audience.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-16 10:03 pm (UTC)For example:
The Windsor Dynasty
King George V
Reigned 1910-1936
King Edward VIII
Reigned January-December 1936
Abdicated. Never crowned.
King George VI
Reigned 1936-1952
Queen Elizabeth II
Reigned 1952-Present
No doubt the Chinese (as a nation, not as individuals), if they still had Emperors, would say, "Call *that* Dynasty?"
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-16 10:31 pm (UTC)Well, the first Emperor of China didn't have his dynasty last much beyond himself. The Chinese did have their own nasty histories as well, now that I think about it.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-17 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-17 01:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-18 12:24 am (UTC)Except insofar as you've already ordered them to be... well.... eunuchs.