When is a movie just a movie? Looking at my four previous film analyses, one would assume that I imagine every film has some deeper subtext, some complexity beneath what the audience sees on the surface, and that for a movie to truly be great, it must have some profound hidden meaning. Even though it seems like the easy way out, sometimes a great movie is just a movie which happens to be really great-- understand that here I'm using the word "movie" here instead of "film", because even though they technically mean the same thing, they have different associations within this imaginary dichotomy we've developed in regard to motion pictures-- you see movies at the "movie theater", you see films at the "cinema". Get it now? What I'm moving towards is the idea that while in reality movies and films are the same thing, for many people, the word "movie" conjures up a very specific image. When we refer nostalgically to this cultural pastime of "going to the movie theater", Francois Truffaut is not the first thing we visualize. Instead, more lighthearted classics come to mind-- Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings-- because there's something about the adventure genre in particularly that seems to strike a chord with pretty much everyone. Perhaps it's our predisposition to the mono-myth of the "hero's journey", or perhaps it's simply that there's a rush of adrenaline that these types of stories give us, that good feeling, the "summer blockbuster" experience. So, in this case, a lot of great movies are great because they subvert expectations, challenge us, and present a powerful idea, and this certainly describes a majority of the films I talk about. But it's refreshing when a film comes up which is great simply because it satisfies the expectations of what a movie should be; movies like this we evaluate based on how well they are able to produce that "summer blockbuster" experience.
That's where the classic Errol Flynn Robin Hood fits in. It's hard to find a movie which so purely fits into this popular ideal of the classic family adventure film; to quote Roger Ebert-- "The Adventures of Robin Hood was made with sublime innocence and breathtaking artistry, at a time when its simple values rang true. In these cynical days when swashbucklers cannot be presented without an ironic subtext, this great 1938 film exists in an eternal summer of bravery and romance. We require no Freudian subtext, no revisionist analysis; it is enough that Robin wants to rob the rich, pay the poor, and defend the Saxons..."1 Trying to look for deeper substance here would not only be futile, but it would also be a misinterpretation of the film. To analyze this film, I'm going to have to take a look at how and why it's so good at simply being an adventure movie. And though there are many drawbacks to the generally restrictive concept of genre, it's situations like this where it really becomes helpful. Comedy, horror, romance: if you decide to make a film in any one of these genres, you naturally have to adopt certain restrictions. And yet like many other artistic methods, genre can be used to liberate creativity through such restrictions. The Adventures of Robin Hood takes the restrictions of adventure archetypes and soars with them; Shoot magazine describing it as "pure escapism, epitomizing the very best in Hollywood matinee adventure storytelling."2 Figuring out exactly how this movie is able to do this requires a bit of reverse engineering--that is, taking it apart one layer at a time so as to understand how it was constructed.
A good place to begin is by looking at the film's cultural context- not merely considering the film's context in the culture of the time period in which it was made, but also the position that this film holds in today's culture. No matter which version of Robin Hood is your favorite, each incarnation of the merry bandit owes something to the 1938 Technicolor classic. This is the definitive version of the story-- if I asked you to list all of the basic components of the Robin Hood story, almost all of them would show up back here. There's Friar Tuck, Little John, that red hat guy no one knows the name of, Much the Miller's son, Prince John, Maid Marian, Maid Marian's sidekick, the conniving court advisor, and of course the Sheriff of Nottingham. But beyond characters, there are also particular scenes and episodes which we associate with Robin Hood, such as the archery contest where Robin Hood splits the arrow, which this movie implanted in the public memory. The influence of this film isn't just restricted to Robin Hood films-- not only do traces of it show up in children's films like Tangled or Brave, but without this film, we wouldn't have Danny Kaye's immaculate parody The Court Jester. And it doesn't stop there- it might even be said that The Adventures of Robin Hood was the film which marked a clear end to the talkies era and began the Golden Age of Hollywood.
If you asked a good handful of people which movie really brought color to the big screen, the title that would get the most mentions would probably be The Wizard of Oz. Truth be told, though, color film had been around since the very beginning of silent films, when the frames were painted by hand, and Technicolor had been around since 1914-- but because of the Great Depression, many studios had to cut costs. When the Great Depression ended, the stage was set for dreams like The Wizard of Oz and The Adventures of Robin Hood to become a reality. What a lot of people don't realize is that The Wizard of Oz isn't important because it used color, but because of how it used color; beginning in sepia tone and then transitioning to a world of lush and vibrant scenery which draws attention to its full spectrum of rich tones. In a way, The Adventures of Robin hood did the same thing a whole year earlier, using saturation to bring out the stark hues of the film's medieval costuming. For a while in cinema, the name Errol Flynn was synonymous with a certain type of adventure film-- mention him to anyone over sixty, and you're bound to see a bright flash of recognition on their face. The Adventures of Robin Hood was, in many ways, the big break of Errol Flynn's career. This film not only catapulted forward a great actor and a great director, but also a studio which has since become a household name: Warner Bros.
And Errol Flynn wasn't the only one whose career skyrocketed as a result of Robin Hood. Now, a lot of people are familiar with the film Casablanca, but very few can actually name from memory exactly who directed it.3 The man's name was Michael Curtiz, and before he directed such popular hits like Casablanca, White Christmas, or Yankee Doodle Dandy, he directed a 1935 swashbuckler Captain Blood. It was this film which enabled him to be drafted as director for Robin Hood, just as it was The Adventures of Robin Hood which enabled him to take on further projects down the road. (Really, half of the people working on The Adventures of Robin Hood were Captain Blood alumni-- this includes Errol Flynn himself, Olivia de Havilland, and Basil Rathbone and famed Hollywood composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold.)
I suppose the point which I'm trying to make here is that it's very tempting for film analysts to look at films in the same way that literature analysts would look at a novel-- that is, by seeing the film as the product of one man's imagination: the director's. And while this isn't a bad approach when looking at some directors, it's films like Adventures of Robin Hood which illustrate that many films are a product of a wide range of talents. This film particularly is such an excellent example of this because instead of using the story's simplicity as an excuse to make the film equally simple, the studio instead hired the best people possible for each part of the filmmaking process, and each of them were working at the best of their abilities. The team of screenwriters began with a really hammy script and improved it with razor-sharp dialogue and a certain elevation of manners and language that's refreshing to immerse yourself in. German production designer Carl Jules Weyls, who went on to work on The Big Sleep and Casablanca, gives us beautiful scenery in every single set piece, winning the film the Oscar for Best Art Directing.4 Before The Adventures of Robin Hood, when a film won Best Original Score, the award was given to the head of the studio department, not the composer. Yet Erich Wolfgang Korngold's use of Wagnerian leitmotifs within the various scenes of the film demonstrated a new level of mastery for movie soundtracks. By winning the Oscar, Korngold brought more attention to film composers, essentially changing soundtrack history forever. We also can't forget Fred Cavens, who choreographed all the fencing, or professional archer Howard Hill, who shot all the arrows-- when people get shot in this movie, they're getting shot for real. The secret? Padded costuming.
But going beyond mere production values, we find a deeper layer of storytelling. The creators of this film were faced with a special kind of a challenge when creating this film. How does one create a story based on a legend with so many different variations? When we think of a superhero like Batman, we think of him as a single fictional character-- when, in reality, even within comic books, the masked vigilante has dozens of different incarnations. Nolan's version of Batman has become so definitive because he was able to select the best bits and pieces from the best versions of the character, whilst keeping true to the essential elements of the story-- there has to be a butler named Alfred, his parents have to get shot in an alley outside a theater, he has to be rich and have a nice car, etc, etc. The Adventures of Robin Hood still remains for many people the definitive version of the story because in many ways it did the same thing. There was the Robin Hood of Howard Pyle's children's book; there was the Robin Hood of legends and folk songs, and then there was the invisible Robin Hood historical figure who may or may not have existed. The film draws much of its story from Howard Pyle's "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood", while deriving much of its art design from the colorful illustrations of N.C. Wyeth. Some influences are harder to notice-- for example, the film uses elements from Sir Walter Scott's classic novel "Ivanhoe" to work Robin Hood into a believable historical context. It was Sir Walter Scott, after all, who popularized the idea of Robin Hood living within the time of King Richard the Lion-Hearted, and the film not only borrows the idea of Norman-Saxon tensions present in the novel, but it also lists Robin Hood's real name as "Sir Robin of Locksley"-- a name first attached to the green bandit by Scott himself. Even previous film adaptations of Robin Hood figure into the mix: Errol Flynn was the clear successor to silent film actor Douglas Fairbanks, and was inspired by not only Fairbanks' performance, but also by his drive to do nearly all of his own stunts. When you see him riding up the rope to the top of the castle, that's actually him doing that.
And still, the story that we see in The Adventures of Robin Hood is more than an assembly of the old-- it's also the beginning of something new. The film sets up Guy of Gisbourne as a much more prominent villain than the Sherriff of Nottingham, who is reduced to more of a bumbling obnoxious villain, and Basil Rathbone plays the part excellently. Rathbone's performance is rivaled only by that of Claude Rains as a sophisticated yet slightly effeminate Prince John. And though the villains are cowardly; they're more than mere cardboard cut-outs for the hero to knock down. In other words, their evil is established in the story: the theft, brutality, murder, and attempted rape that they're responsible for are made clear to us in one brief montage, but they're made clear to us nonetheless. Consider also the position of Guy of Gisbourne as Robin Hood's rival for Maid Marian's affections. Maid Marian isn't Robin Hood's designated romantic partner immediately-- in fact, he has to slowly win her affection through stuffing his face with meat in front of her and whatnot. This love triangle adds a further layer of intrigue and brings deeper audience involvement to the film as we watch it unfold. And then of course, there's Robin Hood himself. Over at popmatters.com, Steve Pick and Steve Leftridge offer up a pretty decent breakdown of the character-- how Robin Hood is the perfect balance between ruggedness and sophistication, essentially the ideal gentleman, also noting how Robin decides to give up his position of power as Sir Robin of Locksley to defend what he believes is right, establishing a parallel to self-sacrificial main characters in other Michael Curtiz movies.5 Ebert himself points out how Robin Hood may display concern when enemies are closing in, but how he never really displays any fear: "Another actor might have wanted to project a sense of uncertainty, or resolve, or danger... but [Flynn's portrayal of Robin Hood] observes not in fear, but in anticipation."6
While The Adventures of Robin Hood may suffer from some traditional Hollywood flaws-- such as Robin Hood's unlimited arrows, the terrible aim of the palace guards, and the ridiculous fact that no one can recognize Robin Hood in his lazy disguise that he wears to the arrow contest. And yet, there's a good old fashioned charm to the film: the idealized hero, the old-fashioned values. We know who's going to win in the end, but it's not about that, it's about how they win. The Adventures of Robin Hood succeeds at being such a purely excellent adventure film because it takes previously existing work and churns it into one large culture blender to create a definitive film version of a legendary story which has been endlessly imitated but never surmounted. So modern filmmakers, if you're seeking to craft a good, solid adventure film, take some notes from the masters: because it doesn't matter how simple the story is as long as you present it with perfection.
Sources:
1Ebert, Roger. "The Adventures of Robin Hood". Chicago Sun-Times. 17 August 2003. Print.
2"Academy Award Winner 'The Adventures Of Robin Hood' (1938) Screening Spotlights The Production Designs Of Carl Jules Weyl." Shoot Publicity Wire. DCA Business Media LLC, 17 June 2015. Web. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
3Leftridge, Steve and Steve Pick. "Double Take: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)". Popmatters. Popmatters Media, Inc., 26 January 2015. Web. Retrieved 28 February 2016.
4Shoot Publicity Wire.
5Popmatters.
6Ebert.
No comments:
Post a Comment