Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Year:  1991

Filming:  Color

Length:  155 minutes

Genre:  Action/Adventure/Drama/Swashbuckler

Maturity:  PG-13 (for battle sequences, thematic elements, and some sexuality)

Cast:  Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Marion Dubois), Christian Slater
(Will Scarlett), Nick Brimble (Little John), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Alan Rickman (Sheriff of Nottingham), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley)

Director:  Kevin Reynolds

Personal Rating:  2 Stars

***

    As a Robin Hood fan and an old-fashioned girl, I always raised an eyebrow when I spied this modern film version perched on a library shelf. I had considerable apprehensions on what they would do to remake my beloved Rob, and really didn’t feel I had a strong enough stomach to handle it. But eventually I figured I wouldn’t be able to make a proper comparative analysis without at least giving it a once over, so I steeled myself and prepared to deal with the foreseen mediocrity of modernization, changer in hand for necessary fast-forwarding if the pain became too intense to withstand.  

   The film opens during the Crusades where the wealthy young Robin of Locksley is languishing in a Saracen prison. After offering to take the place of another prisoner who is about to have his hand chopped off, he uses his super-galactic-super-unrealistic fighting skills to launch a massive prisoner revolt. In addition to freeing as many Christian prisoners as possible, he also rescues a Moorish political prisoner named Azeem who agrees to return the favor by saving his life someday.

    Returning to England with Azeem, Robin discovers to his horror that his father has been framed by the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and murdered by a corrupt inquisition that claims he practiced dark magic. In truth, it is the Sheriff who has been dabbling in the occult with a run-of-the-mill-creepy-hag who claims to be able to make him a success by reading the future in egg yolks. Robin, meantime, tries to secure the aid of the rather prickly Maid Marian who he has not seen since she was a child. Eventually, being hunted down as heir to the Locksley estate, he is forced to take shelter in Sherwood Forest.

    There he meets a band of outlaws who are none-too-keen to take the riches-to-rags outcast into their inner circle. But through his courage, innovation, and fighting skills, he eventually assumes command of the disorganized bunch and turns them into a hit-and-run fighting force capable of protecting the common people from the tyranny of Prince John in hopes that King Richard will return and validate their stand. After an epic battle for possession of the outlaw camp, the outlaws hold their ground, but Robin is believed to be dead. Meanwhile, the sheriff men capture a handful of peasant children and use them as hostages to force the well-to-do Marian to wed him.

    More trouble unfolds when Will Scarlett, a young outlaw who chafes under Robin’s command, offers to be a spy for the sheriff to find out if “the Hood” is still alive. But in the process of doing so, an even more unexpected twist is in store as the two men discover they are really long-lost half-brothers due to their father’s liaison with a commoner that Robin broke up! (Dysfunctional family plot…joy…) Anyway, their common bond is the link that reunites Robin’s band, and the battle to free the hostages, rescue Maid Marian, and overthrow the tyranny of the Sheriff is underway.

    Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is another big-budget would-be epic that puts glamour before substance and tries to pair historical fiction with fantasy/sci-fi in a way that is nothing short of ridiculous. Artistically, it has some entertainment value here and there, but if you are like me, and prefer to actually “get the feel” of a past time period as opposed to having it exchanged for miss-match portrayal, this really isn’t for you. Modernizations are rife from beginning to end, trying to make it all more trendy, multi-cultural, and feminist. Superman action sequences are off-putting, as are the crude, rude, and lewd actions and linguistics that are liberally sprinkled throughout.

    Whoever decided to bestow the honorable title of “Prince of Thieves” on Kevin Costner should have been run out of Hollywood on a rail. I mean the guy reeks of 1990’s California, has trouble mustering up even the vaguest hint of an English accent, and simply cannot mesh with even an obviously shoddy depiction of 12^th century England.       Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio’s depiction of Maid Marion is something of a generic girl-power model that conveys too little of the discreet sparkle and charm that I have always found delightful about her character. Plus, she seems to take pleasure viewing a naked Rob swimming in a lake! Her plump lady in waiting also proves to be a lame comic relief figure.

    The Sheriff of Nottingham is disgustingly overdone, with his topless harlots and hoaky witch sidekick who claims to be able to discern the future in breakfast food. The most disturbing sequence has to be his attempt to rape Marian, which was totally over the top and unnecessarily graphic. Little John is shown as being a foul-mouthed ruffian who’s pushed around by his formidable wife, Fanny. Friar Tuck is a drunken wreck who sings filthy ditties, only to be slightly rehabilitated when he is appointed chaplain at Sherwood. Still he stands out as a bloated bigot when dealing with the Muslim Azeem. Again, he does redeem himself to some extent by inviting the Moor to share a drink with him after Azeem saves Little John’s wife. But overall, he is fairly unlovable and a generally a disgrace to the priesthood.

    That having been said, there are some interesting twists in the plot. Getting to see Robin Hood in the Holy Land was a rare treat, and having him offer to have his hand cut off in the place of Marian’s was a gesture in keeping with his character. Having said brother charge Robin with caring for Marian after being mortally wounded is interesting as well. I thought Azeem was okay as an additional sidekick, and I had no problem with having the Islamic perspective introduced to the plot. One of the best lines from was when a little girl asks him why his skin is so much darker than her own. “Because Allah loves diversity,” he responds.

    Of course, the Crusades are generally cast in a bad light. Lord Locksley, portrayed as a man of principle, is against his son going to fight in Palestine, saying that it is vanity to force one’s religion on others (which completely misses many of the reasons why the Crusades were actually fought, but anyway…). Frankly, Islam has been extremely intolerant towards other religions during the course of its history, and making Eastern culture seem more spiritually and intellectually enlightened than the West is hogwash. It is true that technological advances were definitely made in Europe as a result of contact with the East, as it is true that later the East would make similar advances through contact with the West, as is portrayed (negatively, may I add) in The Last Samurai. 

    Some of Azeem’s lines and actions are admittedly humorous, like his declaration that he would never let a man sneak up on him “who smells of garlic, while a wind is blowing to the back of me.” He also seems to takes his sweet time to repay Robin Hood for saving his life, always putting his rather drawn-out prayer ritual first, but in the end proving that he really knew what he was doing the whole time. There is some genuinely good banter between them, especially when R.H. is stunned by the projection of Azeem’s telescope. “I don’t know how you English are winning the war,” the Moor sighs, referring to The Crusades. “God only knows,” Rob returns brightly.

     The portrayal of the Church overall may not be glowing, but it could have been a lot worse. The bishop is corrupt, Friar Tuck is a lout, and the Crusades and the Inquisition are portrayed darkly. However, it is also shown that Robin and Marion are both practicing Catholics, and that the bad guys plunder churches and misuse humble country clergymen. R.H. returns the stolen articles to the Church. One major motif that stands out in the film is the cross pendant hung on Lord Locksley’s grave which Robin assumes as a symbol to mete out justice to his father’s murderers.

    With regards to battle sequences, the long-staff duel in the river was exciting enough, if rather drawn out, with Little John using less than gentlemanly language. Later on, it was interesting to see Sherwood Forest laid out as an actual defensible compound with tree-houses, bridges, and an ingenious rope-swinging system (which Rob and Marian make romantic use of!). The battle is not your average woodland skirmish, but a full-scale assault and counter-attack. It’s cool, if a bit over-extended. The hokiest part is when Costner-Hood is thought to be dead, but then reappears, unexplained, out of the forest mist! The last battle is way overblown, and the hanging sequence last a forever before the suspended personages are finally rescued. But really I think the duded would naturally have been deceased by then!

    To its credit, this version, as innovative as it aspires to be, it does not abandon the bare essentials of the Robin Hood narrative we all know and love. R.H. is a full-fledged hero, not a Russell Crowe anti-hero, and his dedication to the English people is pure. One scene I find particularly stirring is when he when he returns to England from Palestine, and kisses the ground. Another scene I appreciated was when Robin explains to Marian how he went from being a play-boy to the man of the people: How on the Crusades, he had seen high-born men turn and flee, while a low-born man had pulled a spear from his own body to defend a wounded horse. Hence, he discovered that nobility is made manifest through acts more than birthright.

       

     So my overall synopsis of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is that it is a newbie hip-flick, trying to remake beloved classic and somehow give it more spring in its step. As I’ve outlined, it does have its positive points, but perhaps the main problem with the whole production is belief that it is even necessary to modernize all things old in order to keep up with the times, instead of letting modern audiences learn to appreciate an older setting and comportment that does not necessarily perfectly coincide with their own.

    This is all the more distressing since our present tee-shirt and flip-flop era has almost completely lost its sense of modesty and decorum, both in daily life and on the Silver Screen. The lessons and charm of the past seem to be lost to the masses, which is nothing less than tragic. If you want to watch superior Robin Hood adaptations, check out the film versions with Errol Flynn and Richard Todd, the TV series with Richard Greene, and the Walt Disney animal cartoon. They beat California Costner-Hood of Smoggy Sherwood by a running mile.

Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) meditates at his father's grave

A Man for All Seasons

 

Year:  1966

Filming:  Color

Length:  120 minutes

Genre:  Biography/Drama/Inspirational/Political/Religious

Maturity:  PG (for brief language and intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Paul Scofield (Sir Thomas More), Robert Shaw (King Henry VIII), Wendy Hiller (Alice More), Susannah York (Margaret More Roper), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), John Hurt (Richard Rich), Orson Welles (Cardinal Wolsey), Nigel Davenport (The Duke of Norfolk)

Director:  Fred Zinnemann  

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

      If I had to pick my favorite movie of all time, it would have to be A Man for All Seasons. As one of the only movies to make a Catholic English Martyr its main focus, it will always hold a special place in my Anglophile heart. But beyond that, I believe the film is true to its title and subject by being relatable to all people and applicable to all seasons.

    Paul Scofield stars as Sir Thomas More, an honorable man caught in the grip of religious and political upheaval in Tudor England. A political figure and personal friend of King Henry VIII, his future advancement seems likely even as he enjoys a quiet life with his wife and daughter at his country estate in Chelsea. However, dark clouds loom on the horizon when the king takes it upon himself to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn, on a “point of conscience.”

    Pressured to support the move by the corrupt Cardinal Wolsey, the devoutly Catholic More maintains that annulments are a matter for the Holy See, but his refusal to speak for or against the proceedings sparks the anger of the irascible king. Nevertheless, Sir Thomas is appointed Lord Chancellor of England, making his position more precarious than ever. When King Henry visits More at Chelsea, he once again tries to force him to make a statement about the divorce which results in a bitter show-down between the two men.

   When the pope definitively refuses to grant an annulment for the king, Henry breaks ties with Rome and declares himself to be Head of the Church of England. More, in turn, resigns his commission as Lord Chancellor, and he and his family adjust to a life of more limited means. But when the Oath of Supremacy acknowledging the king as Head of the Church is made mandatory, More refuses to sign it. As a result, he is thrown into the Tower of London.

    Using all his legal knowledge and pristine wit, he attempts to avert his fate while still keeping the faith, refusing to reveal his true opinions to anyone and maintaining his right to remain silent. When repeated interrogations from the peers of the realm fail to shake his resolve, his family is recruited to sway him, and a deeply emotional encounter takes place in prison. In spite of this, More holds fast to his convictions, which sets him on the bitter path of mock trial and martyrdom.

   In true British fashion, the style of this film is dry yet potent, full of both amusing wit and emotional depth. The camera techniques and visuals also aim for an almost stark depiction of the past which seemingly manages to transcend the centuries. The quick cuts from one scene to another and general lack of background music add to this poignant sense of realism. It is not cluttered with the hyperbole and sensationalism of an epic, but rather approached in a straightforward manner of a docu-drama.

    This does not mean there are not some splendors for the eye. Thank heavens, this movie filmed on location in England which makes it feel all the more authentic and personally sparks my imagination. It all seems to be as it should be – the great river used as a highway, the foggy landscapes, the Tudor buildings, the interiors of Westminster Hall. And those sinister gargoyles that serve as a constant motif are a deeply evocative display of both power and peril.

    While the music overall is sparse, the introductory theme for A Man for All Seasons is deeply impactful for me, full of the pageantry of the age but also containing undercurrents of the turmoil in the plot. There are other musical highlights to be mentioned as well. I am always moved by the scene where Sir Thomas is being led to the interrogation at Richmond Palace, and he passes a room full of revelers, laughing and dancing. Their trivial display in the face of such depth of spirit is a powerful contrast. The same is true for the bombastic music played when Henry VIII and his brightly-clad, fumbling courtiers visit Chelsea by barge.

    The cast is stellar, and Paul Scofield makes a perfect Thomas More. His expressions are wonderfully readable, and his voice has a terrific range, from his usual quiet demeanor to the bellowing finale in Westminster Hall. Wendy Hiller makes a delightfully grouchy Mrs. More, and one of the most emotional scenes is her final parting from her husband in the cell, when he tries to compliment her dress and custard to put her in a good mood. She explodes in anger and says she fears she will hate him if he should let himself be killed, and he repeats in a broken voice, “No, you mustn’t Alice…you mustn’t…” She eventually breaks down and embraces him, saying she’d gladly tell the king what she thinks of him. He affectionately repeats, “I married a lion, I married a lion!”

    The film also does an excellent job portraying the relationship between Thomas and his favorite daughter, Meg, which I always relate to because of my own close relationship with my father. Another relationship I find deeply fascinating is the one between More and The Duke of Norfolk. It is obvious that Thomas deeply values their friendship, but he also says that as deep as his affection towards Norfolk runs, God is the only one who is love through and through, and He must come first. Then he tries on purpose to get Norfolk to break their friendship so he will not be implicated with More. It always gives me a little pang in the heart as their argument escalates and The Duke tries to strike Thomas, leaving him sprawled on the ground with a look of intense pain on his face.

    To my never-ending angst, some have insisted that A Man for All Seasons is a “boring”, “unimaginative”, “conservative” film. If by boring they mean no Indiana Jones-style action sequences, well, they would happily be correct. If by unimaginative and conservative they mean that there is actually a moral conundrum that can be defined into “right” and “wrong” categories, and this film celebrates the right, they would happily be correct. It is not meant to be light entertainment, nor is it meant to be strictly academic. As Sir Thomas tells his sobbing daughter Meg, after all the arguments are finished, love is what remains. An interesting fact is that Robert Bolt, the screenplay writer of A Man for All Seasons, was an agnostic, yet always felt an abiding connection with St. Thomas for his principled stand against tyranny. The result was that Bolt did an exceptional job portraying religious conviction without being arrogant or preachy.

    As a side-effect, non-religious themes were stressed to make the film more palatable to non-Catholic viewers. At times, liberty of conscious is made to eclipse the issue of loyalty to Papal Authority and The Catholic Church. It is much easier to swallow for broader audiences, but oftentimes misrepresents the real Thomas More, who was actually stridently fought against heresy within the realm. The fact is he was a man of his age, and some of the things he did may seem rather small-minded and even a bit hypocritical in modern times. But he was also very much an innovator and a Renaissance man, determined to make the world a better place through his role in politics and maintaining his integrity and devotion to Christ’s Church even at the cost of his life. And this was a man who deeply loved life.

    The finale in Westminster Hall is unfailingly inspiring, especially as I think of Pope Benedict XVI making a speech in that very same hall just a few years ago. It always strikes the inner core of my being, and sets my jaw on edge with the sheer level of intensity. There is Richard Rich, the superficial young man who becomes the lackey of Thomas Cromwell and perjures Sir Thomas in Court. More takes a look at the chain of around his neck, and sees the emblem of the red dragon. Inquiring as to its significance, he is told that Rich has been made the High Commissioner of Wales. Then the classic line from Sir Thomas: “Our Lord said it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose his soul…but for Wales?”

    More’s final statements in the Hall are pretty explicit about his very Catholic convictions. He says Parliament has no power to meddle in the affairs of the Church or declare Henry head of the Church, and that by doing so they are going against both the Magna Charta and the king’s own coronation oath. Only the Pope has to power to judge on matters of ecclesiastical rulings, and only he can claim the title head of the Church, because it was given him by Christ Himself, who gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom.     His execution follows swiftly afterwards, after his final words: “I die his Majesty’s good servant, but God’s first.” After this we are taken back to a shot of the gargoyles and the wonderfully unperturbed British narrator telling us that most of More’s tormenters would ultimately be executed as well, usually for lesser causes, and that Richard Rich would be made Chancellor of England…only to die in his bed.

    As a Catholic, this movie is a testament to the heart of my beliefs, and I would highly recommend it as one of the greatest religious films of all time. It also demonstrates the very best and very worst of Englishness and Britishness and brings me back to my roots of how I came to love that nation and that people so strongly. Besides being focused on a saint, A Man for All Seasons stands apart as a classically-crafted, moving historical drama about a man who was willing to sacrifice everything to stay true to his faith and his conscience. Its power and poignancy will never wane, but only grow with each passing season.

Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) refuses to submit to King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw)

I Confess

Year:  1953

Filming:  Black & White

Length:  95 minutes

Genre:  Drama/Inspirational/Religious/Suspense

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Montgomery Clift (Fr. Michael Logan), Anne Baxter (Ruth Grandfort), O.E. Hass (Otto Keller), Dolly Haas (Alma Keller), Roger Dann (Pierre Grandfort), Karl Malden (Inspector Larrue), Ovila Legare (Monsieur Villette), Brian Aherne (Willy Robertson)

         

Director:  Alfred Hitchcock

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

    “Technically one of Hitchcock’s best”, I Confess is not your run-of-the-mill murder mystery. Instead, it reveals a little-known aspect of The Master of Suspense: his lingering fascination with and devotion to the Catholic Faith. Being a member of the endangered species of British Cradle Catholics, Hitchcock rarely revealed his religious allegiances in his productions, but this is a noteworthy exception, and his only film that can truly fit into the noble genre of “inspirational.”

    Montgomery Clift stars as Father Michael Logan, a Canadian Catholic priest serving in Quebec. But his routine life takes a turn when the sacristan, Otto Keller, confesses to having murdered a prominent businessman, Monsieur Villette, and Logan is sworn to secrecy under the Seal of Confession. He tries to convince the Keller to turn himself over the authorities, but instead the penitent sets out to frame the priest as the real killer.

   Meanwhile, Ruth Grandfort, the beautiful wife of a prominent Canadian lawyer, sets out to clear Fr. Logan by exposing a complex web of rumor, scandal, and blackmail that connects them both with the murdered Villette. But by bringing old secrets and new struggles to light, she only adds to the mounting suspicions that Logan was carrying on a romantic affair with her, and that he did indeed have a motive to silence Villette.  

    As the net closes, Logan must make a decision whether to flee the city and the false accusations or turn himself over to the police to be tried for murder. Even though he knows all the evidence is pointing against him and he has little hope of acquittal unless he reveals what he heard in Confession, he will not disgrace his priesthood by running away, and decides to stay and face his fate head-on.

    Once he is brought to trial, the prosecution relies heavily on the emotionally distraught testimony of love-lorn Ruth and the blood-stained cassock found among Logan’s possessions. In a twist of irony, Otto Keller, the real murderer, is also brought forward to testify against the priest. Now Fr. Logan must wrestle with the decision whether to seize his last chance to save his own life before it is too late, or to abide by the Seal of Confession.   

    This movie is one of those vintage gems that leaves one speechless by the sheer impact of the story and artful depiction of the setting. The black-and-white scenes filmed on location in old Quebec are deliciously dark and foreboding, and there are some glorious scenes of church interiors with soaring altars that seem to speak of hope in the midst of desolation. All this combines to create a seamless movement from one mood to another.

    There are also a lot of typical “Hitchcockian” bits involving doing weird things with dinnerware (like trying to balance a penny between two forks or a glass of water on one’s chin) and his trade-mark “walk-ons” as a parishioner coming out of church and a pedestrian meandering down a dark alleyway. There are also loads of suspenseful, dialogue-driven encounters and a big chase sequence with a lot of shooting. As I said, that’s Hitchcock.

    Thanks to an excellent cast, the intensity of the characters wrestling with their inner demons is palpable. Montgomery Clift portrays Fr. Logan in a deeply human way, yet makes his devotion to his priesthood the keystone of his character. There are any number of really engrossing sequences in this film dealing with Logan’s inner turmoil and the battle that rages within him between his identity as a priest and a man, comparing his own crosses to the Cross of Christ.

    The scene where he walks through Quebec, uncertain whether to run away or stay to face an unfair trial, is paralleled by the beautiful life-sized Stations of the Cross he walks past in the park. His anguished journey finally draws him back inside a church, his eyes uplifted towards the altar, before finally turning himself over to authorities. Again, in the court itself, there is a shot of Logan sitting in the interrogation box, which fades out on the face of the priest and brings into focus the crucifix hanging on the wall behind him, reminding the viewer of Christ’s own unjust trial and punishment.

    One burning question remains: Is Anne Baxter always doomed to be type-cast as a somewhat pathetic, generally annoying former flame, fading enchantress, trying to reclaim the affections of her ex-boyfriend at his expense? After a while, it gets nothing short of monotonous knowing exactly what sort of character she is bound to be! That having been said, I think she grew sufficiently comfortable with these parts to pull them off quite well. As Ruth Grandfort, she effectively makes you want to shout, “Shut up!” when she starts spilling her past indiscriminately and making things worse and worse for her Logan who she just won’t give up, even though he has clearly given her up for his calling to the priesthood. Happily, he is much more understanding towards her than Moses was in The Ten Commandments!

    O.E. Hass and Dolly Haas also do an excellent job as Otto and Alma Keller. The way Otto verbally pins Fr. Logan into a corner, testing him to see if he will reveal what was said in Confession, and taunting him with the fact that he is framing him for the murder, is so blood-boiling, heightened by the look of disbelief and horror on Montgomery Clift’s face. Alma is also a wonderfully complex character, caught between her loyalty to her husband and her own guilt for helping to destroy the priest who has been so kind to them as immigrants. In the end, she will choose to do the right thing, saving Fr. Logan by sacrificing herself.

    Interestingly, I Confess was initially not very well received because non-Catholic viewers had a hard time understanding the rationale behind The Seal of Confession and why it would so noble, instead of just stupid, for a priest to conceal the identity of the murderer. That is why the very sparse “romance” element in the film is often played up to the hilt, with movie covers displaying smooching sequences that never, ever occurred! There was also a move to exploit the murder mystery angle, introducing smothering sequences on the cover that never, ever occurred!

     But all this beating around the bush is silly, and it belies the fact that the storyline cannot be accurately called a “romance” since one party is no longer involved in the would-be relationship, and it cannot be accurately called a “mystery” since we already know who the murderer is from the start. The truth is that Alfred Hitchcock, in spite of his other ghoulish and risqué pictures, had molded a boldly spiritual, deeply inspirational testimony to his own Catholic Faith and the priests who had educated him. It makes me want to shout, “Hitchcock, why couldn’t you have made more movies like this instead of that other weird, dumb stuff you made?”   

    In spite of hang-ups in the non-Catholic world, the undeniable quality of I Confess caused it to come into its own in later years, and it has come to be accepted as an excellent example of suspense cinema, complete with unusual conundrum and powerful resolution. For me, the most poignant scene of all has to be the conclusion in which Fr. Logan once again gives absolution to his tormenter, Otto Keller, after Keller is mortally wounded. The first time I watched this, my jaw just hung open for a long time, and I knew I would have to watch it again before long. For once agreeing with the general consensus of critics, I would definitely rate this intricate study of human strength weakness and strength as the best film the Master of Suspense ever directed or produced.

Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) meets with Fr. Logan (Montgomery Clift) on board a ferry