Skip to main content

A Narrow Sketch of a Dark Robin Hood

The Death of Robin Hood is one of those chapters of the Robin Hood mythos I remember most prominently. An older Robin arrives at a priory, injured or frail, an accident with bloodletting results in him slowly dying -in his last action, perhaps with the help of a loyal Little John, he fires an arrow out a window requesting to be buried where it lands and succumbing the moment it leaves his bow. The tale, which originates in a ballad from the 17th century, doesn’t often show up in Robin Hood movies for its bleakness (an exception being Richard Lester’s Robin and Marian from 1976), but Michael Sarnoski is very much attracted to that bleakness. In fact, he builds it out.
His movie, straightly called The Death of Robin Hood, subverts heavily the romanticism of the Robin Hood legend about as far as it has yet been taken. We’ve seen dark takes on Robin Hood, but none so grim as this in which the righteous reputation of the classical outlaw is suggested to have been a complete fiction, the figure himself a violent, notorious, and ruthless killer. It is the kind of re-imagining that feels decidedly hollow, the hero made into a villain for its own transgressive sake, just for the shock and excess. Sarnoski does appear to have been motivated mainly out of that prompt, though he tries to make his film graceful and pensive where it can be.
Hugh Jackman plays the grizzled old outlaw, weary and remorseful from a lifetime of theft and murder, the romance of his legend still alive but faded among those who have encountered him firsthand. He is forever the target of the remnants of families he has destroyed -endless attempts at revenge that always end in the deaths of those seeking to kill him. But now he anticipates his own death, joining Little John (Bill Skarsgård) to do battle with the wealthy landowners targeting John's family. Ultimately, it results in him finding care in a secluded commune under a caring Prioress Brigid (Jodie Comer), wherein he muses on his crimes whilst hiding his identity.
Sarnoski's script, and especially through Jackman's dialogue, emphasizes the scale and nature of Robin's crimes to an exorbitant degree. Just as much it is stressed the nature of the Robin Hood myth as a convenient fiction to alleviate his public reputation and bring collaborators to a band of Merry Men that seems to have functioned more honestly like a cult -and most of them have since met grisly fates. This he lays out plainly in the opening segment of the movie, in which an ill-fated assassin tries to take him out, only for Robin to demonstrate in no uncertain terms his capacity for cruelty. We see it too in the manner of his murders later; he is astoundingly brutal -there are times when the film resembles The Northman in the visceral tenor of his actions against a grim backdrop more mythic than historical. But there is no revenge like in that film, no purpose. Even the noble motivation for his friend Little John is couched in a kind of moral ambivalence, and John -who lives now as Edward- isn’t necessarily reliably in the right. Robin even shoots a child to hammer home the point.
And it is all pretty hollow -this first section of the film grim in a totally toothless way, driven on the audacity of its boldness and subversion of England’s greatest folk hero. Sarnoski is a better storyteller than that and it is perplexing to see him dwell in such nihilistic material, however interesting it may be in style and atmosphere -which is quite strongly amplified in evocative cinematography and an entrancing folk musical piece, colouring the movie if only briefly in something other than dry medieval murkiness. That is what Jackman is pitching for a lot of the movie. While aspects of his performance, such as his choice of a northern accent for a character who has rarely had one despite his home turf being in Nottingham, are relatively engaging, his dismal brooding is fairly shallow and grows tired fast. He is not without moments of humanity -though they tend to come with moral caveats- such as the mentorship role he takes for John's orphaned daughter Margaret (Faith Delaney), teaching her how to hunt and make a bow. But any shades of real remorse or redemption are muffled both by his unchanging violent nature as written and Jackman's grave severity.
When the story reaches the nunnery, it does take on a modestly more compelling character -the pastoral environment is appealing and the characters are imbued with greater dimension. Comer of course brings out an intriguing flavour in Sister Brigid, whose treatment of Robin (under the name Randolph) and the manner of her religious convictions are both subject to an air of mystery. And there is also a leper caretaker played by Murray Bartlett, whose spirit in spite of his condition and sharp humourous personality makes him the movie's standout character.
Sarnoski also reigns in the grimdark tone and the violence through this stretch -apart from recurring bloodletting as part of Robin's treatment and foreshadowing- preferring instead a meditative air as he hones in on short discussions of morality and intimate moments of carving a bow or observing the general tranquility. There is another stranger, a young man with an injured eye who goes by Arthur, played by Noah Jupe -whom we understand is part of the clan that Robin and John massacred. But he proves to be a rather minor source of tension. The intention clearly is to stress the calm and peace of this space as a necessary refuge for Robin, a last place of reinvention or forgiveness. And yet again, apart from the bare minimum of his stewardship over Margaret, he is barely demonstrably moved by his time there -still open to crime and violence even if he may hate himself for it.
Occasionally, the film achieves an air of solemn comfort at the nunnery, shot beautifully in Northern Ireland. Not a lot happens, but the atmosphere sweeps you up -the grace of Brigid and the Leper, each of whom are more curious outcasts than Robin, it can have a soothing effect. And the titular scene when it inevitably comes is played very well under the circumstances -especially the symbolism of its final beat in which there is a spark of romance even Sarnoski doesn't make an effort to extinguish. Throughout the movie he shows an understanding of the role of that romance, the perhaps necessary effect of the legend -as even Robin comes to value and acquiesce to it. But it is a bit odd, the validation of an interpretation of this figure Sarnoski works so hard to undercut. The gimmick of the film ultimately comes out more shallow for this -if there is purpose to the romance, why make the character a monster?
Looking past its title character, The Death of Robin Hood might be a thoughtful, moving, if sometimes blunt and tedious film on remorse and the phantom of one's past at the end of life. Hell, just removing that central designation would change the movie's effect in a not insubstantial way. The legend of Robin Hood is a dull weight on this movie as much as it is on Jackman's character, and Sarnoski likewise struggles to reconcile it.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more