Robin des Bois

Watching Robin Hood today, I realized that I had seen it in the only venue for it to be shown, on the big screen with organ accompaniment. A film like Robin Hood loses so much on the small tube.

It was one of the most expensive films ever done during the silent era, the castle set for King Richard the Lion Hearted must have been cost a mint or two. But given the popularity of Douglas Fairbanks, probably at the height of his career, the producer knew they'd get their money back and then some. The producer being Fairbanks himself had infinite faith in his prowess at the box office.

Alan Hale made the first of three appearances as Little John in various Robin Hood films. He was also Little John with Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood and with John Derek in Rogue of Sherwood Forest. Little John here has a very extensive and different part, Hale is first seen as Fairbanks's squire before circumstances force Doug into outlawry.

Fairbanks is the Earl of Huntingdon, favored knight of Richard the Lion Hearted. But the usual Robin Hood villains Sir Guy of Gisborne and Prince John are doing their worst. John as played by Sam DeGrasse covets his brother's throne and Gisborne played by Paul Dickey has designs on Lady Marian Fitzwalter (Enid Bennett) beloved of Fairbanks.

Fairbanks and Dickey go along on the Crusade with DeGrasse left to mind the store and steal the kingdom. Fairbanks gets word about the stuff John's pulling from Lady Marian and tries to leave. King Richard imprisons him for desertion. Of course Fairbanks escapes and the real meat of the film begins.

All the sidebar stories about the various characters among the Merry Men join Robin are not included in this film. Fairbanks and Hale escape and go back to England where he becomes the legendary Robin Hood.

Wallace Beery is a most unusual Richard. He's quite the merrymaking king indeed. Of course the closest Richard has been played in real life is by Anthony Hopkins in The Lion in Winter.

Millions throughout the world fell under the sway of Doug's charm and athleticism. This Fairbanks film as did the others he made had a great message about right coming out on top, good triumphing over evil and good embodied in the clean living physical specimen of Douglas Fairbanks.

It's hard to imagine, but in the silent screen era as in no other, movie stars were placed on a pedestal as they aren't now. Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford were the closest thing to royalty we had in America. Tom Cruise&Katie Holmes, Brad Pitt&Angelina Jolie, don't rate anything close to those two. They even lived in a magic castle known the world over as Pickfair. Mary lived in it in fact until she died in 1979 after the fairy tale marriage fell apart in the more sobering decade of the Thirties.

I could not have had the experience of Robin Hood that I did had I not seen the film at a special screening in Shea's Theater in my city of Buffalo. The musical score as played by a live orchestra in some places or even the single organist as the audience heard in this case. Andrew Wos, who is president of the Buffalo Chapter of the American Theater Organ Society played his own score in accompaniment to the film. I asked him afterward whether he was playing the original score from Robin Hood and he said it was his own composition. If it wasn't the original score, it should have been. He told me that it was easier for him to do his own score than learn something else.

Hopefully this score will accompany even a television viewing of Robin Hood to heighten your experience. And you will get some idea in watching Robin Hood as to why Douglas Fairbanks was the ideal man of his times.

This early silent epic was actually the sixth version of the classic English fable to reach the screen, and it remains, even today, by far the biggest. Every shot is framed to highlight the extraordinary production design, which included a full-scale medieval castle built just off Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles, reportedly the largest set ever constructed for a motion picture. The film draws heavily on the romantic heritage of chivalry, and favors the origins of the character over his legendary exploits, following the Earl of Huntingdon (not Locksley, as in later films) into the Crusades, where he and King Richard are marked for death by the treacherous Sir Guy of Gisbourne. It isn't until the fourth (or fifth) reel that Douglas Fairbanks (in one of his definitive roles) finally exchanges his suit of armor for Robin's trademark feathered cap, and goes (literally) skipping through Sherwood Forest. Viewers more accustomed to the Errol Flynn archetype may find it an odd interpretation of the role, depicting Robin Hood as a girl-shy, over-age adolescent, liberated when he turns outlaw. And Fairbanks, always more acrobat than actor, all but dances through the part.

I have seen many Robin Hood-films and this is definitely one of the better ones. It has lavish production values and some great acting, notably by Wallace Beery (King Richard) and Douglas Fairbanks (Robin). I also liked Enid Bennett as Maid Marian. The one weak point is the plot, or rather, part of the plot. The film consists of two distinct parts of about equal length. The first concerns what most other Robin Hood picture treat at best in passing: the backstory that explains how the earl of Huntingdon becomes the eponymous outlaw. The second part is about the exploits of Robin and his merry men up to the return of King Richard. This part is excellent; it is fun and fast-paced. By contrast, the first half drags and fails to generate much suspense (on the upside, it offers Beery more screen time, and he is definitely worth watching). Still, I am rating this part 6 stars. The second half gets 8 stars, which gives me an average of 7. Good film, all in all, and definitely worth watching 100 years after it came out!

I am a history teacher, so on one level, films like "Robin Hood" make me a bit crazy. However, it is so entertaining and fun that, for once, I need to just chill out and enjoy the film--and keep pesky reality from interfering with enjoying a darn fine film! Let's briefly talk about the film's MANY historical inaccuracies. Like all Robin Hood films as well as the various Ivanhoe films, King Richard I (a.k.a. "the Lion Hearted") is shown as a virtuous and good king, while his brother, John, is shown as a conniving dog. While history has not been kind to John (and it probably shouldn't be--especially as he unwisely took on the Church and lost as well as the Barons), it has somehow created a myth about Richard totally undeserved. In my opinion, he was the worst kind in English history and I assume most historians would agree that he at least was in the top 2 or 3 of the worst. He cared less about ruling England and spent almost his entire reign in his French territories or out massacring people in the Crusades. Now this does NOT mean that Richard was any sort of religious zealot. Instead, he was an opportunistic maniac who simply liked killing people!! His atrocities while on the Crusades are simply amazing for a supposedly Christian king--massacring entire towns and breaking pretty much every one of the 10 Commandments!! He was a horrible, horrible person in every respect--and NOT the hero he's portrayed to be in films.

As for Robin Hood, he didn't exactly exist. Now there was a crook who was similar in some ways--though he lived later than the hero of legends and had the pesky habit of stealing from the rich and giving to himself!! Instead, the Robin we know about is passed down from legends and songs and as a result, there are many differing (and often diametrically opposed) stories about this swell guy--all of which are pure hogwash.

Now you'd think after my complaints that I couldn't have possibly liked the film. Well, this isn't the case simply because apart from the historical license, this is a perfect film--and as good a silent film as you can find. While I have some doubts as to the truth of contemporary stories that Douglas Fairbanks did ALL his own stunts, the stunt-work in this film is as good as any silent film--and better than what you'll even find today. That's because whether it's always Fairbanks or not, the physicality of the stunts is amazing--and even better than Fairbanks' other great films. Plus, if it ISN'T always him doing the stunts, it's integrated so well that you could swear it was! Now if all the film consisted of were great stunts, it would not be a great film. I personally hate films that are all stunts and with lousy plots ("Mission: Impossible" is a great example of this). Howeverr, the film also features some of the loveliest film work I've ever seen--with cinematography that is breathtaking and highly artistic. For you artists out there, the camera work, sets, costumes and style is pure art nouveau come to life--like it was lifted right off a painting from this craze of the 1890s and early 1900s. The plot is pretty good as well--and I especially like how the lion's share (nice choice of words, huh?) is about how Robin came to be an outlaw--something even the wonderful Errol Flynn version failed to do (though it, too, is a classic). In addition, grand acting, a huge cast and a well-spent budget all worked together to make a perfect film...provided you can ignore the historical inaccuracies. Any person who considers themselves a connoisseur of silent films must see this film--it is that important and that ground-breaking. A delight from start to finish.

By the way, that IS Wallace Beery as King Richard!

The Douglas Fairbanks version of "Robin Hood" is still good entertainment despite showing its age at times. The role gives Fairbanks a perfect chance to display his energy and charisma, and he is helped by lavish sets and scenery that recreate the world of medieval England. Wallace Beery as King Richard also is a nice complement to Fairbanks. Later versions, such as the Errol Flynn version which is still the best of all the Robin Hood movies, had many resources available to them that this one didn't, but this older version works well and is more enjoyable than most of the more recent movies based on the legend.

The story and characters are familiar from many other books and movies. But it includes some interesting scenes that cover or add parts of the legend that are not in a lot of other versions - for example, about the first half of this movie takes place before any of the events in the Flynn movie. It makes it interesting to watch even if you've already seen plenty of other "Robin Hoods", and amongst other things it gives Beery as Richard a lot more screen time. It is acted in the somewhat exaggerated style of many of the silent melodramas of the era, but in this case that tone, while perhaps providing an occasional unintentional chuckle, fits rather well with the subject matter. It's also worth paying attention to the grand sets that were constructed for the film. They were apparently rather renowned in their day, and they still do a good job of evoking the right background. Overall, it was a very good film for its time and one worth watching today.