Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings

Tax the Rich

Movie Monday

Robin Hood with Russell Crowe and a lot of other good actors reminds me of the "feudalism" in my banner, for you can't say "Robin Hood" without thinking "feudalism." Or, at least, you shouldn't. Mythical Robin Hood existed as England was coming out of the Middle Ages and the opening explanatory posters tell us that he lived in the 1200's. Though I know that directors and screenwriters play fast and loose with history, I'm saying this is all happening before 1215 when King John is forced by his nobles to give them some powers in the Magna Carta.

We first meet Robin fighting with John's older brother, Richard, who, while the king at the time, has been away from England for many years fighting in the Crusades. Ah, the Crusades! Don't get me started on that coconut. In fact, Richard and Robin when we first meet them aren't in the Holy Lands but rather storming French castles. Just let me say, I liked the look Ridley Scott gives to the Middle Ages. I like the depth of his royal characters. Although, Richard, John, Eleanor (queen mom) and Isabella (John's French tart and wanta-be future queen) are minor players, they do play important roles and Scott fleshes them out so you're interested.

For example, when we first meet Richard we see immediately that he may have the appellation Lion-Hearted but he should have the one: Foolishly Stupid. But he is regal and knows his powers. He asks Robin about a recent capture of a town and is told that it was a genocide and placed the king on the side of evil. Does Robin get a reward for his honesty? Does the king have an epiphany with this criticism? No way; the next scene shows Robin and his men in the stockades awaiting further punishment for insolence which will come after Richard captures another castle.

It's a nice touch and it happens again and again when Scott deals with the royals. When Eleanor confronts John back in England about his whoring with Isabella (who is the French king's sister, by the way) while he has a wife. John successfully counters her criticisms ending with: She's (Isabella) is my Eleanor. A witty swipe at his mom's sullied past. When Eleanor is later told John will lose England if he doesn't shape up, she's astute enough to approach Isabella as her messenger of bad news and Isabella catches on immediately.

Again and again, Scott shows character arcs in the royals. He is able to make them multi-dimensional; they may show villainy but it's with panache.

I wish I could say the same about Robin, Marion, and Walter (I won't even mention William Hurt's character. What a waste of a good actor!) Unfortunately, with them we get the Hollywood story of man and maid which is such an old, old chestnut. Robin, after his adventure returning Richard's crown to the John, sets off to return the sword of Marian's husband to his father, Walter.

Faster than you can say: Let the cat out, I can't stand its howling, Walter suggests that Robin pretends to be Marian's husband. Sweet, howling banshees! Why? OK, he has a feeble reason but we all know this gets Robin into Marian's bed chamber and they begin to play the courting dance which I assume leads to the after-movie (you just get a passionate movie kiss) "roll in the hay".

WTF? This movie was made in 2010. Not only could this movie have sex between principals without Code violations, it would have so been in keeping with the Middle Ages when forcible sex was still more common than courtly love. Even passionate foreplay without consummation because Marian says: Hey, if I get pregnant, we're in for big trouble, would have given more authenticity.

Don't present Marian as a "modern" woman (She even joins Robin in battle in armor near the end of the movie.) and then pull back to the innocent titillation which substituted for sex in the time of the Code in Hollywood.

I guess what gets me pissed is that this movie had a lot of promise in character development, just not enough daring.

But with all my grousing, watch it. Even disappointments are good time fillers.