So I’ve begun the next sporking chapter but I can’t promise that there will be any quick progress. There’s also someone’s story I’m supposed to be proofreading some more, and Camp NaNoWriMo is next month (EEK). So we’re in for a fun time, I think. Also, I should do my taxes, shouldn’t I?
I’m not sure how I landed on this as a topic, other than I’ve been seeing video updates on the upcoming heist game Hood: Outlaws and Legends and I figured that I don’t think I’ve written a Note on Robin Hood. And if I have, it’s deep in the archive somewhere and I only know of a couple people who want to go digging through that, and I’m not sure that I’m one of them.
---
On Robin Hood Adaptations
Alright boys and girls, let’s talk about Robin Hood.
Robin Hood adaptations have had a rough time of it lately. The last movie, starring Taron Edgerton was… not great, and apparently Edgerton himself wasn’t happy filming the movie, as he felt like it was a completely different thing than what he signed up for. It uses some very interesting design choices to not-so-subtly give you modern overtones about the story, and they got Lars Anderson to be the archery consultant for the movie.
Lars Anderson, the “I’ve only just discovered this method of historical archery that no one else has ever noticed and I’m the only one doing it right” guy. Yeah, him.
There was a Tumblr post that postulated that the problem with Robin Hood film adaptations is that they’re all trying to make the Robin Hood story into a social commentary on modern day, into this massive clash against The System, in which Robin leads the underdogs into a battle against the status quo. And it doesn’t work because that’s not what the story is. We know that’s not how the story goes, because most adaptations set the story at a specific point in history and if you have a grasp of English history, you know that oppressive monarchy wasn’t overthrown around the time of the Third Crusade.
He’s not even really the right build for it, is he? He’s not leading armies, he’s leading a group of guerilla fighters. The movies that really, for me anyway, sold a big battle at the end were the ones like Adventures of Robin Hood where he’s giving backup to King Richard, not just going in to save the country by himself. He’s less Superman and more like Batman (or Green Arrow, but that is an intentional parallel on DC’s part)--he deals with crises, but he’s not exactly battling to save the world. Or the country. He has his one cause he cares about (admittedly a big one with all its various facets) and that’s what he takes care of.
[Side note: look up essays on Robin Hood and its influence on Arrow.]
And it’s never as if Robin is even that much of a revolutionary. Yeah, he’s fighting for the people, but not to like, end the system. It’s to end the rule of Prince John, at most, and that’s so Richard can come back and take his rightful place. It’s not about overthrowing the monarchy or feudalism or anything of the sort. Not that it has to be, but it’s hard to argue for a revolutionary hero when the only actual change he advocates is who is wearing the crown.
Which reminds me, by the way: all of this “King Richard vs Prince John” business isn’t even necessary to the story? Look, most of what we know about the “legend” of Robin Hood and its popular depictions are heavily influenced by the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. The Third Crusade setting, the Saxon vs Norman conflict, the loyalty to King Richard, the association with the word ‘Locksley’--while I don’t know if Scott introduced these elements, he’s the one that codified them, and the interpretation we see today comes heavily from the novel Ivanhoe. A lot of the older stories don’t mention these elements. They’re either set in a non-specified point in history, or mention King Edward.
There’s no reason that Robin Hood adaptions need to have the usual setup of the Crusades. It got popular in the last twenty years because the parallels to a certain war in the Middle East was too much for some writers to pass up. And to be clear, I don’t necessarily mind--the 2006 BBC series brought up Robin’s time in and disillusionment with the Crusades a lot, and while it was very heavy-handed and built on pop cultural ideas of the conflict rather than any deep dive into history, I think it’s good for there to be a mainstream character who says hating Muslims for being Muslim is Bad. This was a much bigger deal when that series came out.
But when done badly it’s just awkward. The 2018 film tried way too hard to draw those parallels by making the ballista fire and sound like machine gun turrets, and the Crusaders’ armor look suspiciously like modern combat gear. There’s even a character calling in an airstrike, except it’s catapults.
Also the Saracens have a deal with the English Church to keep the war going for Reasons I’m sorry this movie was mostly really dumb and I’m just saying you don’t even need to do any of this. Stephen Lawhead’s King Raven is Robin Hood as a Welshman in post-Conquest England, and it works while adapting many of the elements to that setting. I would very much like to see more screen adaptations do something like this. Most of them do the usual story for the sake of it. The past couple try to be origin stories for sequels that no one wants.
Before Ridley Scott picked up his Robin Hood movie, the script in development was apparently called “Nottingham” and was centered on a sympathetic take on the Sheriff solving medieval murder mysteries that Robin Hood had been framed for. That didn’t happen because the production crew didn’t think it would sell--and to be fair, I don’t know that they’re wrong.
Still, you can make this a smaller movie. You don’t need a Robin Hood movie to be an epic battle about the fate of England. This is where I think a television approach generally works better--although, as we see with the 2006 Robin Hood on BBC, it can also go very wrong if the writers care more about dramatic twists than telling a good story. But movie or show, I think a Robin Hood movie would be better if it was more episodic, more interested in telling smaller stories about how the Merry Men met and various missions.
I don’t need a battle for the heart and soul of England. Those are okay, but I don’t think they’re what Robin Hood really needed. He certainly doesn’t need a movie to be a prequel/origin story. If he did, we have plenty of those anyway. I want more movies of Robin Hood as the scrappy guerilla fighter. I want to see him have adventures in the woods. I want to see him pulling off medieval heists. I want to see plenty of ridiculous but completely possible trick shots. It doesn’t even need to be a light-hearted story (although I would like that I think), but I think these stories would be better if they just tightened their focus to something smaller.
Anyway that’s my two cents.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment