Has Ridley Scott filmed the definitive Robin Hood?

11 May 2010

Gerard Wood

Of all the movies due this year, surely the one with most promise must be Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood. What an amazing convergence of elements: a timeless story, a director of Scott’s stature, an outstanding cast headed by Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, and a talented writer in Brian Helgeland.

So does Scott deliver what many of us were hoping for, the definitive retelling of the Robin Hood legend? No, sadly, I don’t think he does. His aim was slightly off and he missed that opportunity. But is the movie really the “bloated, self-important dirge of a film” that reviewers like The Age's Jim Schembri describe? Far from it. Scott may have missed the bullseye, but he most certainly hit the target with his version of Robin Hood and it is as good as the best we’ve seen on the big screen to date. Like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven before it, Robin Hood takes its subject seriously and what Schembri dismisses as self-importance is actually Scott's respect for the story.

Epic in scale and spectacle, the look of the film is quite astounding. From the beautifully realised landscapes to the most intimate interiors, the attention to detail in visualising life in twelfth century Europe is extraordinary. Far less gruesome and graphic than we’ve come to expect from Scott, the battle sequences are suitably spectacular, though without pushing the envelope. And it’s no surprise that the stellar cast deliver exactly what is demanded of them, Crowe, in particular, embodying the integrity of Hood like no other before him. Almost all the main roles are well cast. William Hurt stands out as William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, and is quite mesmerising, with a gravity to his performance that draws the eye whenever he's on screen. If I do have a complaint about the characterisation, it's with Lady Marion. Cate Blanchett's performance is a delight for the most part, but even she can't stop things from descending into silliness when she dons armour and charges into the thick of battle with a bunch of kiddies on tiny ponies. This is political correctness gone too far.

Where the movie is less successful is its recreation of the political and social complexity of the period, both of which are grossly over simplified and not entirely convincing.

Don’t confuse this with the criticism of some reviewers that the movie’s version of history is more fiction than fact. That sort of criticism is simply naïve. The story of Robin Hood is not history and as soon as Hood is imagined as a key player in twelfth century England, fact flies out the window faster than an arrow fired from a long bow!

At the same time, it’s a mistake to think of it simply as a children’s story. Robin Hood is the stuff of legend and mythology, a figure who emerges  from popular consciousness at a time of oppression and he symbolises a focal point for resistance, as well as a people's desperate wish for a saviour. While it might not be history, the story of Robin Hood is very much grounded in real experiences of the very worst kind. But in over simplifying the political and social context which gave rise to the legend, Scott fails to ground his story in a fully realised and convincing reality.

What he delivers better than most however is a certain gritty historical realism. It is after all his stock and trade: the look of the film, the action, which is superb, and the behaviour of the characters (for the most part) have an integrity that is true to life. While it's not humourless, don’t come expecting any merry men as some limp-wristed reviewers have, pining after the sort of “camp” humour dished up by Kevin Reynold’s abysmal Prince of Thieves. 

Unfortunately what is missing from the film is that solid foundation in reality, which is why for all its many positives, this is not the definitive Robin Hood on film. On the one hand Scott gives us the amazing visual detail and gritty realism that the subject matter has been crying out for, but on the other he doesn’t provide the social or political complexity that would ground it in a truly convincing world. Scott gives us the look of twelfth century England but not the reality of the time and place. Too much of the plot is reliant on what are implausible elements of fairy tale: amazing coincidences, incredible revelations, and the like, all too fanciful to be utterly believable. Scott delivers a rousing adventure, but in the end it doesn't quite break free from the limitations of fantasy to be anything more than a great entertainment.

But he almost pulls it off.

And don’t forget that this movie is really only the preface to the legend of Robin Hood, giving us the events which lead up to Hood becoming an outlaw and rebel. As we reported a while ago, Scott is seriously contemplating a sequel, and maybe that will succeed where this one only just fails.

Robin Hood will open the Cannes Film Festival on 12 May and is released almost everywhere from 12-14 May.

Related Articles

Harrison Ford being cast in new Blade Runner film...
Here's a twist. While we reported that Ridley Scott would no...

Blade Runner sequel and Prometheus update...
Director Ridley Scott is about to return to science fictio...

Ridley Scott directing Blade Runner follow up...
This is amazing news. According to Deadline, Ridley Scott is...

Richard Carpenter's iconic Robin of Sherwood now on Blu-ray...
Over the years we've had cause to mention Richard Carpenter'...

Guy Pearce confirmed for Ridley Scott’s Prometheus...
Australian actor Guy Pearce has joined Ridley Scott’s Alien ...

Blade Runner sequels and prequels happening...
The iconic science fiction film Blade Runner, based on a boo...