Robin des Bois

Robin Hood has come to the big screen in many ways and with many faces. Errol Flynn in 1938 remains the classic, although it is a little dated by modern standards. Kevin Costner starred in a big-budget 1991 version, notable for an outstanding Alan Rickman as an over-the-top sheriff but otherwise fairly forgettable. (If you're lucky.) I've seen most of them, and the best by far is Robin Hood, directed by John Irvin and likewise released in 1991. Patrick Bergin is a dynamic Robin Hood, hitting the mark with the perfect mix of arrogance, compassion, charm and devil-may-care, hell-bent glory-seeking. Sure, there's a list of noble reasons why Robin Hood takes to the forest to fight Norman oppression and protect the unfortunate Saxon serfs from tyranny. But let's face it, Robin is a hero who enjoys what he does. He loves nothing more than laughing at danger and tweaking the nose of authority. It's easy to see that Bergin enjoyed the part, and his pleasure translates to the screen, making it an enjoyable romp for viewers. Bergin shares Sherwood with a fine cast. Uma Thurman is a surprisingly strong Marian. Owen Teale is an excellent, fun-loving Will Scarlett, and David Morrissey is the best Little John I've seen yet. Jeff Nuttall is also a picture-perfect Friar Tuck. On the Norman side, Jurgen Prochnow is the malicious knight, Sir Miles Folcanet, who pursues Robin through the forest, and Jeroen Krabbe is Baron Daguerre, a greedy lord with a conscience. There's a brief, but impressive, appearance of Edward Fox as the would-be King John. The movie boasts excellent swordplay, good costuming, authentic-sounding accents (Are you listening, Kevin?) and some great pagan symbolism. This film also has immense respect for the history behind the legend. While we may not know much about the real Robin Hood -- if there even was one -- we do know a lot about the time period in question, and Irvin keeps his cameras focused on the truth of feudal Britain. This is a Robin Hood I can believe in without reservation.

Don't be put off by the "TV" in the title-this is a full-blown, first-class movie. Patrick Bergin gives his Robin a sense of humor and a spark of humanity. Uma Thurman, though not the most beautiful girl in the world (that honor still remains with Olivia), is sexy, vivacious, and definitely post-modern. A few scenes don't quite develop as far as they can, but all is forgiven by the Parade of Fools in the climactic moments. One big difference between this movie and Flynn's is that here they use broadswords rather than rapiers (more realistically). Instead of the "tck tck tck" of swordplay, here there are loud "Clangs" when the blades miss their target. It makes for a really good setpiece battle between Robin and his fierce (here, French) enemy. Nothing will replace the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, but this account is vigorous, funny, and filled with little surprises.

In the cinema, as in most areas of life, one occasionally comes across some strange coincidences. In 1960, for example, there were two filmed biographies of Oscar Wilde and two of Coco Chanel in 2009. Two films about Wyatt Earp appeared in 1993/4, although that was due less to coincidence than to creative differences among the team working on "Wyatt Earp", differences which led to the creation of the rival film "Tombstone" on the same subject. In the early seventies two studios were working on disaster movies about skyscrapers on fire, but in this case the coincidence was detected early on and the studios joined forces to produce the film now known as "The Towering Inferno".

1991 was the year which saw two films on the legend of Robin Hood. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster starring Kevin Costner, is by far the better-known of the two. This lower-budget version, simply entitled "Robin Hood", was only shown on television in the USA, although it was released in cinemas in other parts of the world. It did not feature any big Hollywood names; Uma Thurman may be a big name today, but in 1991 she was still more of an up- and-coming starlet.

As in "Prince of Thieves" and several other films on this subject, Robin is portrayed as a Saxon earl, here named Robert Hode. (The idea that Robin was an aristocrat was a later addition to the legend; the recent 2010 "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe reverts to the original story by making him a Saxon of more humble origins). He falls foul of the authorities, and is declared an outlaw, when he intervenes to prevent a miller, who has been caught poaching the King's deer, from being blinded. He flees into Sherwood Forest, gathers together the "Merry Men", and fights for justice and the rights of the Saxon peasantry against the corrupt Norman nobility.

The film includes all the usual cast of Merry Men, including Little John, Will Scarlett, Friar Tuck and Much the Miller, as well as Maid Marian, but, oddly, not the normal villains. There is no Sheriff of Nottingham and no Sir Guy of Gisborne, and Prince John only puts in a brief appearance. (King Richard does not appear at all, although he is referred to). Instead, Robin's main antagonists are the Norman aristocrats Baron Roger Daguerre and Sir Miles Folcanet. (That is how it is spelt in the cast-list, although "Falconet" might be a more plausible French spelling). Sir Miles is a straightforward villain; it is he who wanted to have the unfortunate miller's eyes put out and he who is Robin's rival for Marian's hand. (She, of course, will have nothing to do with him). Daguerre, however, is a more ambiguous figure. He is Marian's uncle and originally Robin's friend; the two later fall out but are eventually reconciled, and Daguerre is converted to Robin's vision of an England where Saxon and Norman can live together in peace.

One similarity which links this film with the Russell Crowe version is that both aim at a more "naturalistic" view of the Middle Ages to the romanticised "Merrie England" view presented in the Errol Flynn classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from 1938 and, to some extent, in "Prince of Thieves". Some might think this sort of naturalism misplaced in a film which is based on legend rather than historical fact, but both directors (John Irvin here and Ridley Scott in 2010) clearly felt that a film dealing with a peasant revolt against oppression should show us something of the conditions against which the peasants are revolting. Mediaeval life is therefore portrayed as drab, dirty and dangerous, not as something colourful and exciting. The look of the film is dark with muted colours; the leafless trees in Sherwood Forest suggest that the story takes place in winter and early spring.

Patrick Bergin makes a charismatic hero, but few of the other characters, Thurman included, make the same impression. There is nothing particularly wrong with the performances of Jeroen Krabbé as Daguerre or Jürgen Prochnow as Folcanet, but neither of them makes as memorable a villain as Basil Rathbone's Gisborne in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham in "Prince of Thieves". Another weakness is it that lacks any real exciting or swashbuckling action sequences; not even the final attack on Nottingham Castle really counts as such. The climactic duel between Robin and Folcanet is in nothing like the same class as that between Flynn and Rathbone.

This "Robin Hood" is certainly better than "Robin and Marian" from the seventies, which manages to be both dull and unrealistic, but I would not rate it as highly as either the 2010 version or "Prince of Thieves", both of which could generate greater excitement. As for "The Adventures of Robin Hood", that set a very high standard, and in my view none of the versions since 1938 have really lived up to it. 6/10

Okay, let's get this straight: just because ROBIN HOOD is more realistic and less bombastic than Kevin Costner's ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES from the same year, that doesn't make it any good. It might be a more traditional film, but I actually prefer the Costner version, despite the many faults, errors and cheesiness, purely because it's a lot more fun.

ROBIN HOOD gets a lot more of the facts right but it's lacking as a decent piece of drama, mainly because the characters, although carefully depicted, are all rather unlikeable. That's particularly true of Patrick Bergin, whose Hood, all wild eyes and wilder hair, appears to be something of a sociopath instead of the folk hero of old; I just can't buy Bergin in good-guy roles, and that's the same here. Stick to SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY, buddy.

The supporting actors are better, with one exception. Jurgen Prochnow is less hammy but no less amusing than Alan Rickman in the Costner version, and it's always good to see Jeroen Krabbe in Hollywood fare. Owen Teale, Danny Webb and David Morrissey are all good choices as Merry Men. The exception is Uma Thurman, who's terribly miscast as Marian; the scenes in which she disguises herself as a boy are excruciating.

Other than that, the script is overlong and underwritten and the action scenes just aren't very exciting. The sets and costumes are decent though, so it's just a shame that more effort couldn't have gone into making this a rousing swashbuckler of old. Instead it's a dour, uninspiring and ultimately forgettable version of a classic story.

Action? Adventure? Swashbuckling excitement? Well you have come to the WRONG Robin Hood for that. The choreography is non-existent. But that's okay.

There are other reasons to watch this movie, especially for aficionados and romantics. The costumes and sets are beautiful, delicately balanced between realism and romanticism. The greenery is lush, the settings are well chosen. There is a poetry in the dialogue, and the acting is heart-felt. This movie makes you think a little bit, including a moving, moral ending.

The classic trope scenes of the Robin Hood fairy tale are a let down. Little Jon on the river is painful to watch, and not in a good way. The bow staff fight is a yawn, as is the absurd "action" scene of Robin floating down a gentle river. If you seek excitement, again, this is the wrong movie.

On the other hand, you are treated to a version of the Robin Hood tale that offers an educational slant. Unlike Prince of Thieves, this Robin Hood dives into the Saxon-Norman antagonism that characterized the centuries following the successful invasion by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Set one to two hundred years after, this Robin Hood takes place in an England that is hosts to a ruling class of French/Viking descent. (There is even a clever allusion to the French Baron being a descendant of pirates).

As mentioned, the acting is quite good, as is the script. The characters, which at the start of the film seem one-dimensional, become infused with real humanity as the movie progresses. No cartoon villains here, just flawed humans from a vicious era, and a meditation on the attractiveness and seductiveness of simple decency when presented as a possibility.