DERRING-DON’T
Don’t expect much swashbuckling in this turgid “beginnings” story of Robin Hood, just about redeemed by the actors.
JUN 13, 2010 – IN THESE REVISIONIST CLIMES, how can any self-respecting director commit to a straightforward narrative about a merry outlaw who robbed the rich and rewarded the poor? Ridley Scott, accordingly, imagines the inevitable “prequel” where, for starters, Little John isn’t acquainted with his future boss in a pissing contest on a log bridge. Friar Tuck, now something of an amateur apiarist with a thickset Olde English accent, announces himself as Friar Took. (The first time around, it sounded like he was interrupted mid-sentence. I kept waiting to know what the friar took.) Will Scarlet is no longer Robin Hood’s nephew, but a fellow archer in the army of the beleaguered Richard the Lionheart. And most disconcertingly, Maid Marian is no maid at all – unless Scott knows something we don’t, perhaps that the husband who left her after a week of marriage did so without choosing to exercise his conjugal rights (a highly unlikely turn of events, given that Marian arrives in the form of Cate Blanchett).
And that’s just the surface. Underneath lies the not insignificant insinuation that were it not for the urgent exhortations of Russell Crowe, the Magna Carta may never have been signed. How’s that for a revisionist take on history? That’s also the crux of the frustration with Robin Hood, this heedless conflation of timeless legend with Middle Ages fact and modern-day psychobabble. (Why is this Robin so not a merry man? Because his father abandoned him while he was young. Thankfully we’re spared the backstory that the Lincoln green tunic was, in reality, an attempt by drought-stricken Englishpeople to recall what a flourishing harvest looked like.) The Anglo-French courtly intrigue is mostly a drag. Scott is too high-minded to unleash on the proceedings a larger-than-life villain like Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, who had the decency to dine on half of Sherwood Forest by the time he was dispatched. The bad guy here (the chrome-domed Mark Strong) is an imperious bore who invites no identification with his movements and motivations.
It’s the domestic moments that redeem the drudgery. Blanchett and Crowe strike up a touchingly low-key rapport, situated someplace between the piquancy of youth (as portrayed by Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in The Adventures of Robin Hood) and the peevishness of dotage (Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in Robin and Marian). When Marian helps Robin shed his chain mail, in preparation for a hot soak, the actors convey the sense of a silent spark, one that will never really ignite into a tempestuous fire. They’re practical people. They behave like grown-ups when they first meet, as strangers. They behave like grown-ups when we leave them, much in love. Twelfth-century England, aching from oppression by a king convinced that time and tithe can wait for no man, was probably not the most fertile breeding ground for passion amidst the yeomanry. Robin and Marian may be war-ready spitfires on the outside, but they appear tired inside. Blanchett and Crowe convince us that they’d like nothing better than to retreat into a cocoon of quiet contentment.
This twosome, however, is effortlessly upstaged by a couple of towering thespians. Eileen Atkins makes a marvellous Eleanor of Aquitaine, refusing to flinch even when her decadently wayward son, the future King John, stands up in bed and waves his erection in her direction. (She barges in on his lovemaking with a “French pastry,” his not-yet-spouse Isabella; the audience, mercifully, glimpses only the royal buttocks.) There’s enough indication that there was something very interesting going on in this household, especially between mother and son, and I wonder if Scott was hinting that John was something of a mama’s boy in more ways than one. Even later, when Eleanor slaps John, now king, he boasts to an aide, “I broke her skin more than she did mine.” Maybe Scott, while still on this revisionist rampage, should take a stab at The Lion in Winter next, with Henry and Richard completely sidelined. What a light that might cast on Eleanor’s confession from that film, “I am locked up with my sons. What mother does not dream of that?”
The other touch of silken class comes from Max von Sydow (as Sir Walter Loxley, father-in-law of Marian), who traverses a lifespan in his few moments of screen time. When he learns, from Robin, that his son is dead, his response is near-Shakespearean. Finally giving vent to emotions long-suppressed, he acknowledges, “My grief has been waiting for this day.” But as soon as he decides to make Robin a stand-in for his son, his youth returns – he chirps that he woke with “a tumescent glow.” What a pity, then, that Scott keeps abandoning his actorly assets in favour of numbing spectacle. The battles are staged with a terrible beauty, but once you’ve seen one attack with showers of arrows and spurts of scalding oil, you’ve seen them all. It’s only in the coda that Scott, finally, deigns to throw in images from inside our heads – a deer slung on a shoulder, an outlaw commune ensconced in the forest, Robin and Marian in each other’s arms. The end comes up just as the movie many of us walked in for has begun.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
ramesh
June 12, 2010
rangan,
I’m torn about ridley scott’s cgi historicals legacy. On one hand I thought gladiator was shakespherean on the other we ha e this. ( I even liked his ‘crusades’ film ‘kingdom of heaven’ which was a little too politically correct for my tastes..The takeaway I seem to be getting from his hollywoodized half formed idea, which are nevertheless shot by a list hollywood, is that history legend and mythology is open to revisionism like never before.
he that captures the cgi ,now owns historical truth..and myth.
LikeLike
A
June 12, 2010
Aren’t the complaints about it being revisionist in its storytelling a tad unfair, since its the viewer in that case who is carrying in those expectations, which the filmmaker isn’t obliged to deliver? We are fine with Sherlock Holmes being reimagined: can’t we extend that to Robin Hood.
Disclaimer: I haven’t seen this movie though. Its possible that Guy Ritchie does a far better job making his world an acceptable one than Ridley Scott.
LikeLike
Suman
June 13, 2010
Rangan – Someone should use your reviews as readings in Film school or in classes of cinema! Geez dude, I need a dictionary for perusing your weekly tabs!
LikeLike
moolib
June 13, 2010
“were it not for the urgent exhortations of Russell Crowe, the Magna Carta may never have been signed. How’s that for a revisionist take on history?”
Not a valid criticism — this is fictio, with a fictional set of characters set in a historical period. The story of Robin Hood itself is not actual history. Books and movies do this all the time — if not for that we’d have very little historical fiction at all. What about Last of the Mohicans? What about Ivanhoe?
LikeLike
moolib
June 13, 2010
In response to comment #1, there is very little cg in Robin Hood. Nothing like there was in Gladiator. In gladiator, they recreated Rome….here they just recreated some cliffs and a few arrows. The rest was old fashioned sets and real people and horses.
LikeLike
brangan
June 13, 2010
A / moolib: Whether with this film or with the Sherlock Holmes re-do, I wasn’t criticising the revisionist aspect — merely observing. Of course filmmakers can do what they want. My problem was more the “heedless conflation of timeless legend with Middle Ages fact and modern-day psychobabble.” And “The Anglo-French courtly intrigue is mostly a drag.” Somehow the combination didn’t sit well for me. The Robin-pretending-to-be-Loxley shenanigans were more interesting to me.
LikeLike
ramesh
June 13, 2010
A: “since its the viewer in that case who is carrying in those expectations, which the filmmaker isn’t obliged to deliver?”
isnt this the classic case for writing revisionist history?
Moolib, This is true,(kingdom of heaven was much cgi’d though. ) the broader point was that the director feels the power of cgi gives him the right to tell the story as if he can arrogate to himself the right to, to quote poster above, “heedlessly conflate timeless legend with Middle Ages fact and modern-day psychobabble.”
not that American films have never been accused of this before , disney’s version of fairy tales being case in point, but CGI has put the power of creating cinematic texts of such detail and authenticity that its possible that the originals get supplanted in people’s imaginations by postmodern blotting of time and historical accuracy.
This is also relevent today , especially, because more people are alive today than have ever been part of the human race. Think about that. the sum total of all your pitas pitrus and pitamahas that ever exixted before today is smaller than the world population today.
You teach this population an Idea,and capture its imagination, and you have the equivalent of the chinese cultural revolution in art.
LikeLike
brangan
June 13, 2010
Suman: Which words did you need a dictionary for? I’m genuinely curious.
ramesh: That is a very valid point. History was always shaped by the cinema, to some extent, given that it’s far less taxing to see, say, Quo Vadis or The Robe than read Gibbon. But the alarming verisimilitude of today’s visuals is something else altogether. Even those who know better are bound to think this is what really happened. (Of course, that’s not my beef with this film — it’s that the history they’ve chosen to “interpret” isn’t shown in an interesting-enough manner.”)
LikeLike
Ratnakar
June 13, 2010
Some how i feel some characters should be left as they are. Don’t understand why we need to pyscho-analyze every fictional character.
What next an Indiana Jones, who feels guilt pangs about Imperialism and Colonialism?
Or James Bond, gets guilty over his one night stands, and seeks eternal love with the girl he slept?
LikeLike
Venkatesh
June 13, 2010
Ratnakar : “Or James Bond, gets guilty over his one night stands, and seeks eternal love with the girl he slept?”- Aren’t we there at that point already ?
LikeLike
ramesh
June 13, 2010
rangan
I was talking about all three(four) films, notjust this sub par effort.
LikeLike
arijit
June 14, 2010
still waiting for your take on shutter island rangan… 🙂 also your BR on Raajneeti…which i thought was a failed adaptation of both mahabharat and godfather…scenes and characters inspired from epics don’t necessarily result in an epic…
LikeLike
Deepak
June 14, 2010
Did “Batman Begins” start the whole franchise reboot thing. With the emphasis being on the events that shaped the protagonists character and future actions?
How different is that from our tamil films and the spate of Subramaniyapuram clones that we’ve had recently?
LikeLike
SS
June 14, 2010
Rangan,
U r joking, right? We need dictionary starting with Derring-do till verisimilitude. Atleast I do. But not complaining abt it… I like the sound of that “verisimilitude” tho… need to practice to use it in daily conversation 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
June 14, 2010
arijit: Shutter Island still not released in these parts. BR on Raajneeti this weekend.
Deepak: I’m not sure. What about Casino Royale? Earlier or later?
LikeLike
Radhika
June 14, 2010
I think Deepak is right – it began with Batman – all that angst ridden introspection by not so heroic Michael Keaton – the James Bond bit came later – and wasn’t it with Brosnan anyway, not Craig, I mean, the move away from the cheerfully amoral Bond?
I thought Robin Hood was fairly timepass till the Magna Carta bit – it wasn’t so much the concept as the handling – the Bollywoodized flashbacks to a dead father and the grieving son with his surrogate father – and the Amar-Akbar-Anthony like discovery of the spot where the father died and his handmarks exist were laughable – and the halfhearted espousal of democracy – how a stonemason got the nobility to agree to the concept in the first place – it was just so sketchy and hurried through. And Crowe was too stolid for an icon who is supposed to be a mischievous guerilla, not weary and almost bored. How many themes was Ridley Scott trying to forcefit into this? There was the Arthurian Sword, the Martin Guerre story, the post-iraq reference to a godless war, the democracy element – uff, no wonder it became so unweildy in the second half
LikeLike
Deepak
June 14, 2010
That was later…Casino Royale – 2006. Batman Begins – 2005
LikeLike
Kannan
June 15, 2010
Hi Rangan. Looking forward to Raavan/an?
LikeLike
Kashif
June 15, 2010
Totally unrelated but brilliant. Please Watch this
LikeLike
Shankar
June 15, 2010
Baddy/Deepak, Even the Star Wars series for that matter…
LikeLike
brangan
June 15, 2010
Radhika: speaking of Martin Guerre, have you seen the Hollywood remake Sommersby? I thought it was one of the rare remakes that managed to capture the spirit of the original.
Kannan:How does one answer this obvious a question? Yes, I guess 🙂
Shankar: No dude. The Darth Vader arc was not a “reimagining.” It was very much part of the first trilogy too, just expanded in the latter trilogy. I think Deepak’s right about Batman Begins being the first to reimagine a franchise property.
LikeLike
ramesh
June 15, 2010
rangan: ‘how does…’
my answer : honestly, after they lift the embargo. 😉
LikeLike
brangan
June 15, 2010
ramesh: ada paavi manushaa… paathuttiya? 🙂 Which version, Hindi or Tamil?
LikeLike
ramesh
June 15, 2010
ranga, kannamma neeyum sollathe naanum sollalai..ok?
LikeLike
brangan
June 15, 2010
ramesh: No dude. I’m serious. I haven’t seen it. I thought you were just kidding earlier.
LikeLike
ramesh
June 15, 2010
oh ok..illai thursday. Hindi.
LikeLike
Radhika
June 15, 2010
BR “speaking of Martin Guerre, have you seen the Hollywood remake Sommersby?” Yes – I remember doing a double take at Richard Gere in that role – I mean, he was rather a star type rather than an actor type and I first thought it was odd casting but he was quite competent, I recall.
“I think Deepak’s right about Batman Begins being the first to reimagine a franchise property.”
Oh, I thought he just meant Batman itself – I thought Michael Keaton’s Batman in 1989 was the original retelling of the story – I remember there was this uproar at the casting, with Burton thinking he was perfect to play a conflicted, dark persona and fans of the comics thinking he was just not the physical type to depict a superhero. It was brilliant casting – one may not like the retelling itself, but for a retelling, it made perfect sense to put Keaton in a role. I mean, imagine Reeves as Superman and Keaton as Batman and the intentions of the movies are made so clear.
LikeLike
kanishk
June 16, 2010
Rangan – Are you going to watch both versions this week? Any thoughts on your preference, leaving aside professional obligations for a sec?
LikeLike
Suresh
June 16, 2010
Maniratnam must be asking his assistants, “indha ooru innuma nambala namdindu irukku?”. “adhu avanga talaehuthu”
LikeLike
ramesh
June 16, 2010
http://sify.com/movies/tamil/fullstory.php?id=14945621
dei pasangala, (and I mean you mani santosh and the other boys) you have a decent start from curiosity, do NOT let bad word of mouth screw it up for you. you better have some control over the tamil market’s word of mouth because mani films traditionally get killed from terrible day 3 word of mouth in the chennai market.
watch your backs guys. good luck.
LikeLike
Padawan
June 16, 2010
Watched Karate Kid? How was it?
LikeLike
Iniyavan
June 17, 2010
@Suresh U better reserve your “humour” sense for something else.
LikeLike
brangan
June 17, 2010
kanishk: I have to see Raavan first for the review — but even otherwise I think this would be the preference, over Raavanan. For the simple reason that I think this is a film conceived in Hindi and then retooled for Tamil. (Even the lyrics give that sense — they don’t “fit in” as well as the Hindi version.) I could be wrong though. In any case, I’ll definitely watch the Raavanan too — if not for a BR, then at least for curiosity’s sake. Many times, time permitting 🙂 Who knows when the next Mani movie will come out?
ramesh: See, this hype is annoying. “Tickets for all shows in multiplexes have been sold out for the first week…” This is so not the case. I was at a book launch at Citi Centre yesterday (Wed) afternoon, and afterwards I strolled over to INOX to check for Raavanan tickets. They were available for Monday night. Wouldn’t they at least call the multiplexes and find out?
On a side note, however, after the advance booking for VTV and this film, it’s awesome to see that a director (as opposed to a star) can still pull in crowds on his name — at least in Chennai. I don’t think the cult of the director is as prevalent in, say, Mumbai, at least as evidenced in the advance booking.
Padawan: Yes, I did. Not bad at all. I was going to do a BR with Jackie Chan as the centrepiece, was was asked to do something on Raajneeti instead. Hope fully, the week after — unless Raavanan cuts in 🙂
LikeLike
bran1gan
June 17, 2010
This comment from ramesh was lost in the transfer:
Rangan
that is indeed awesome that mani pulls these advances, but what i really want to see is initial buzz, good word of mouth, mani puts up weekend rates for the film( 3 idiots style).
Marketing is usually somewhat wishy wshy like that, however, if they are really adding 5 AM screenings ver the weekends, that is indeed good news. hope the film doesnt vaarify esseku pisakku-ly. wih mani films there is a 30% chane that it will(thiruda thiruda, KM, Gru- wory filmsthough some were)
LikeLike
kannagi
June 18, 2010
Any wonder the preference for abhishek’s hindi version? His high-school drama expressions will be lauded here. Even a high school kid will do better than abhishek’s clueless dus sar waale and an unconvincing smile ffollowing that. But ofcourse he will be givn a natl award by this site.
LikeLike
kannagi
June 18, 2010
Also, mani thinking in hindi? What all excuses people give to truth which is love for abhishek – I will be ashamed too mind you if I was abhisheikh fan, and will give all other reasons but hide the real reason
LikeLike
Gradwolf
June 18, 2010
Oh please write that Jackie Chan piece! And if you can’t squeeze it in, make it a bitty rumination 😛 Just a bigger one!
LikeLike
rameshram
June 18, 2010
“Also, mani thinking in hindi?”
Andha aalu tamillaye shorthand la than yosipparu….idhula hindila vera snicker snort.
LikeLike
rameshram
June 18, 2010
if i were T rajendar(not that there is anything wrong with that) i would say “nagee nagee kannagi”
LikeLike
radhika
June 20, 2010
“Friar Tuck, now something of an amateur apiarist with a thickset Olde English accent, announces himself as Friar Took. (The first time around, it sounded like he was interrupted mid-sentence. I kept waiting to know what the friar took.)”
By the way, this isn’t so much Ye Olde English as it is the local dialect – see the Dalziel and Pascoe series on BBC and you’ll hear “putt” pronounced as “put” and so on – soomthing, yoong…
LikeLike
Johnny
January 2, 2013
That’s “Friar Took”‘s native accent, shared with millions of fellow Yorkshiremen. Same one he has in Game of Thrones, A Knight’s Tale, and (in case you think he’s just doing an “Old English accent” in those too) The Full Monty. If you want to accuse someone of a horrendous accent, there’s a rather more obvious candidate.
LikeLike