Book Vs. Movie: Robin Hood
By Russ Bickerstaff
May 19, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
And in this corner: the Movie, a 112-year-old kid born in France to a guy named Lumiere and raised primarily in Hollywood by his uncle Charlie "the Tramp" Chaplin. This young upstart has quickly made a huge impact on society, rapidly becoming the most financially lucrative form of storytelling in the modern world.
Both square off in the ring again as Box Office Prophets presents another round of Book vs. Movie.
Robin Hood
Robin Hood is a character of ancient British legend - a 600-year-old (or so) outlaw hero. Initially passed by word of mouth, the stories that make-up the legend of Robin Hood have been manipulated, mutated and evolved quite a bit over the years. Several hundred years after the first surviving Robin Hood ballads, an American writer and illustrator performed some rather major work on the legend in his novel The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. Published in 1883, the novel advanced the 19th century trend of portraying Robin hood as less of an anti-hero and more of a straight-ahead hero - one who robbed only from the rich and gave the fruits of his labor to the poor and downtrodden. Over 120 years later, another group of Americans look to explore the legend in the format of yet another feature film under the direction of a prominent British director. How does the ancient novel’s revision of the legend stack-up against modern re-imagining of it?
The Book
Howard Pyle had been writing Robin Hood stories for various publications in the late 19th century. They had been successful enough for him to consider putting them together into a single, coherent work. Written in a fabricated old English that’s friendly to more contemporary American ears, Pyle’s 1883 Robin Hood stands up remarkably well over a century after it first appeared in print.
Pyle’s narrative style is grandiose to say the least. The novel opens with a sweeping introduction by the author. It’s an invitation to the reader to indulge in “moments of mirth and joyousness in the land of fancy.” From the first line, (and even the title) it’s apparent that Pyle isn’t interested in drawing out the darker ends of a story about a legendary outlaw.
Make no mistake about it, Pyle was trying to appeal to a young audience (children, in fact) with legends that had likely originated outside of children’s stories. The refreshing thing about this is the fact that it was written long before the days of overly simplified, overly sanitized Disney-style children’s fare. There’s an admirable complexity to the light tone of the novel that explores some of the difficulties with black and white morality. That it is able to do this without compromising brisk pacing, action or overall tension speaks to Pyle’s strengths as a storyteller.
The novel wastes little time in getting to the story of how Robin Hood became an outlaw. When Robin was 18, the Sheriff of Nottingham held an archery match. The prize was a butt of wine. A talented archer, young Robin struck out for the Nottingham match from Locksley Town by way of the Sherwood Forest. Along the way, he encountered a group of drunken yeomen who ridiculed a man of his inexperience for having the audacity to enter the contest. Robin agreed to a wager against the men that he couldn’t slay the first deer they saw with a single arrow. When Robin won the bet, a fight broke out. Robin nearly escaped unscathed. Much to his dismay, along the way he had accidentally killed one of the men. And thus was he an outlaw - first degree manslaughter and poaching one of the king’s deer. It was a mistake of youth - a stupid error that resulted in Robin being branded an outlaw. He made the best of things - gaining a trademark sense of humor about it all. If he was to be an outlaw, then he would endeavor to help others from beyond the confines of normal legal behavior. It’s a really compelling origin for the character that doesn’t lay all of the negativity on an oppressive government or even a particularly evil or brutal sheriff. There’s clearly an unspoken complexity here.
In the course of the adventures that follow, Robin’s behavior seems to be a primer for future leaders. When the Sheriff sends a clever and arrogant tinker to arrest Robin, the hero sits to talk with him. Throughout the conversation, the Tinker is unaware that he is talking to the man he’s been sent to arrest. Rather than brashly challenging the Tinker to a duel or some such nonsense, Robin talks with the man, never volunteering his identity. It’s never really asked of him, either. Robin lifts the arrest warrant from the Tinker and goes about his merry way. Later, the Tinker is made aware of his gaffe and tracks Robin down once more. Rather than meeting the Tinker with force, Robin offers him the opportunity to join his group of thieves. The lesson: You and your competitor might benefit more from joining together than tussling it out. Something one might want to consider even if they’re confident that the competitor is not a threat.
Later on, the Sheriff is so upset with failed attempts to capture the outlaw that he launches an army into the forest to try to capture him. Robin Hood makes a very shrewd decision here: despite the fact that he and his men are probably better suited to combat in the Sherwood forest that is their home - though they could easily best the Sheriff and his men and have it generally much easier without them - Robin tells everyone to go into hiding. Combat would inevitably result in the slaughter of the Sheriff’s men. Robin may be a thief, but he’s not a murderer (or words to that effect). Contemporary action heroes seldom make this kind of decision, though it would make for a very interesting twist on the traditional summer action sequence. Suffice it to say, Robin’s pacifism pisses off the merry men a great deal, concerned as they are with being seen as cowards.
Later on, when a member of their party goes to gather intel from the world beyond the forest, he gets captured. The lesson here: doing what’s right may not only be unpopular, it may even put one at a strategic disadvantage and potentially result in the potential loss of a friend. Morality may sometimes have to outweigh personal concerns - not exactly the sort of thing that one would expect from modern children’s fare. Pyle’s work is filled with these interesting little bits of wisdom that never feel forced or overly obvious. The pacing of those elements and the overall episodic nature of the book make it exceedingly readable - light fare with a reassuring bit of substance to it.
The Movie
The original inspiration for the current Robin Hood was a clever mutation of the original premise. It focused on a rather sympathetic portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham, forced between enforcing unjust taxation and a man who is subverting the law. The Sheriff was sort of an early crime scene investigator. The Robin present in the original script was evidently more of the traditional outlaw. However, as such things usually go in the process of pre-production, the original script became compromised and the film ends up being much less innovative.
As stated by Director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down,) this incarnation of Robin Hood is meant to be an introduction to the character - those events that caused him to become an outlaw. Everyone knows who he was as a legend, but how did he get to be what he was? It’s an interesting idea and it would’ve been nice to see that idea make it to the film. Instead we get a fairly interesting period action film with Robin Hood’s name stamped on it. With 46-year-old Russell Crowe in the role, it would seem quite silly to have Robin Hood start out at the age of 18. A very grizzled looking actor, Crowe looks every day of 46, which makes for a bit of a problem with respect to the period - 46 was a pretty advanced age in the 13th century (when the events of the story are set.) It’d be a bit strange to be starting a legendary career as an outlaw at the end of one’s life…so the film already has a bit going against it in the way of vitality.
To their credit, neither Crowe nor Scott look to preserve the title character’s youth. He’s an archer - a common solider (46-years-old and still a common soldier?) who gets caught-up in the politics of the age. There’s something of a mishmash of intrigue involving a knight being ordered to kill the king of England by the King of France - kind of a weaker, watered-down version of themes found in certain Shakespearian histories and tragedies. Really, the plot isn’t very compelling and not worth going into here as it has little direct relation to the original legends.
What is worth getting into is the overall depiction of the title character. Much has been made of Crowe’s suspiciously Irish-esque accent in the role (which prompted Crowe to storm out of one recent interview,) but arguing finer details feels kind of irrelevant next to what the script is asking of him here. Russell Crowe has proven in the past that he’s an accomplished actor who can competently deliver drama (on and off the screen) but here he’s not given a whole lot to do. The Robin Hood character here is rugged and aggressive. This is perfectly okay, but you could get the same kind of performance out of a nameless stunt performer, a particularly talented bulldog or a staggeringly talented side of beef. There’s no finesse here and the character lacks any substantial appeal.
This is not to say that there isn’t something going on beyond the raw aggression and historically inaccurate interpersonal drama. Early on, Robin’s playing a shell game - the idea of having Robin Hood moving around the shells in a common con has its potential, but the scene quickly dissolves into fisticuffs - foreshadowing of the overall mood of the rest of the film. This isn’t intelligent. This is aggressive and brutal.
The forest itself is even a bit of a disappointment here, particularly with Ridley Scott behind the camera. Previous Ridley Scott films like Alien and Blade Runner and even the otherwise ham-fisted 1492: Conquest of Paradise had lush, beautiful visuals that slowly migrated across the screen, allowing an audience to simply sink into the reality of the film’s atmosphere. Here everything is very practical and narrative. There’s little environmental depth. The real disappointment here is the fact that some of the film was actually shot on location in the actual Sherwood Forrest. Sadly, like Crowe’s extensive archery training for the role, the authenticity of the forest blurs into the dark wallpaper that is the rest of the film. Realistic or not (historical inaccuracies aside) there should be some sense of magic about Robin Hood. There should be something beyond the sweat and blood of 12th Century combat that engages the viewer emotionally. Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood fails to do this.
The Verdict
With a production budget of $200 million and an opening weekend that may land somewhere around $100 million worldwide, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is likely to break even for everyone involved in worldwide ticket sales, but without a very warm critical reception and the likelihood that it won’t have made as much money as the 1991 Kevin Costner Film (Which grossed nearly $400 million worldwide.) Between this and less than stellar reviews, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is unlikely to be anywhere near as influential as Pyle’s late 19th century Robin Hood novel.
Whereas Pyle’s Robin has a kind of complexity that still feels remarkably fresh over 100 years later, Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood lacks the crafty sophistication of the character in Pyle’s book. Crowe’s an aging common archer in the crusades who found his way to prominence. It may be more gritty - darker than previous Robin Hood tales, but it’s not a terribly compelling grittiness. By contrast, Pyle’s Robin Hood made difficult decisions - solved problems in interesting ways that have yet to make it into a feature film adaptation. A pity - it would make for such a good drama in the hands of a really talented director - someone like Ridley Scott, for instance…