MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Discussion > Confused messages

Confused messages

posted 12 years ago by jd-276
6 replies | jump to latest

Ignoring for the moment the issues of historical accuracy (already discussed ad nauseam), I have always found The Adventures of Robin Hood a pot pourri of mixed messages.

To begin with, it is a British story told from an American point of view. This is perfectly legitimate but it carries with it certain assumptions which rather go against the grain of the original story and present peculiarities of their own.

1) The story is set in the 12th Century when few had any concept of freedom in terms which we understand it and even fewer had any experience of it. "Good King Richard" is presumed to be the rightful monarch and the justification is that he was a "Good King" who looked after the interests of "free-born Englishmen". It really comes down to one divine right monarch over another - hardly an issue for the peasants! Oddly enough, it almost comes off as "democracy in action" except that, in the words of Monty Python's King, "You don't vote for kings".

2) Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor? Socialism! What would Libertarians think of this? It's certainly out of kilter with the themes of the day (even today, for that matter).

3) Democracy nowhere to be seen...the only way to make your point being to use violence.

These are just musings and really all I'm questioning is how it got past Jack Warner, who was a stickler for traditional themes, in the first place. Set against a European background under Nazism and Fascism, it certainly makes a point but not in the way I would have expected. Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" was probably more in line with Warner's expectations.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the film is not Politically Correct (or historically correct, for that matter). In the end, the good guys win and the bad guys get their lumps. And the hero in the panty hose runs off with the only virgin in the forest, which is what you expect.

Waddya think?

(Feel free to write this off as the ramblings of an unsound mind...)

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Reads, to me, like the musings of a "sound" mind -- in a thoughtful post. Thanks. Remember, the film was made for general audiences, including kids & grandpa, and at a time when America knew what it was (unlike today when it isn't very sure) less the ideological complexities of a media-drenched environment. So, it, like many re-tellings of ancient folklore thru the decades in film, on stage, etc., sought to "maneuver" the message to reflect the ideals of the producing nation's identity (even then, a broad mixture of both personal and public ideals). Remember, too, when this film was made, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor was a rather more in-vogue (populist?) concept (FDR, "The New Deal", etc.). A pot-pourri? I think so. Can't speak for Jack Warner -- except to say I understand he loved the script. . . Btw, I'm an idealogue and love it, too.

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

Thanks for your kind remarks.

So, it, like many re-tellings of ancient folklore thru the decades in film, on stage, etc., sought to "maneuver" the message to reflect the ideals of the producing nation's identity (even then, a broad mixture of both personal and public ideals)

Yeah, this was where I was headed with my comment about it being an American film about an English story. You've handled it more deftly than I would have. I was thinking "propaganda" but I knew that was the wrong word. It was far too strong.

National identity and the influence of myths is what I should have said.

Can't speak for Jack Warner -- except to say I understand he loved the script.

Didn't know that. Cheers for the heads up.

Warner was like a lot of movie moguls of that era. He left poverty-stricken Eastern Europe for the US and made his pile there so many of his films reflected this ideal and related ones.

I suppose if he just saw it as a re-telling of an old favourite, there would be no discontinuity.

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

Where does Errol Flynn's Robin Hood rob from the rich and give to the poor? The primary reason for the theft of tax revenues is to raise a ransom for King Richard. The people that have been maimed or burned out of their homes are getting a LITTLE help, but that's not the primary focus of Robin Hood's stealing. And how does it come down to "one divine right monarch over another"? If you noticed, a non-monarch, Prince John, is trying to illegally usurp the monarchy of his brother, King Richard. In the 12th century, freedom as a concept was not what it is today, but people knew when they were being overtaxed and oppressed by a usurper. Oh, BTW, since England was a monarchy at the time, why should it be troubling to Jack Warner, you, or anyone else that there is "Democracy nowhere to be seen"? Only an historical nitwit would criticize this film on that basis. Assuming that you are not just a sh!t-eating troll, I would suggest that the "pot pourri of mixed messages" is only mixed in your own head.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

Where does Errol Flynn's Robin Hood rob from the rich and give to the poor?

He's certainly the support of a bunch of villagers who've had their homes burnt. There are other references in the movie but perhaps you've forgotten the oath they all swear early in the film to "despoil the the rich only to give to the poor". He also makes reference to it when he robs Richard (in disguise).

that's not the primary focus of Robin Hood's stealing.

Maybe, maybe not. He certainly wants a ransom to guarantee the return of Richard.

And how does it come down to "one divine right monarch over another"? If you noticed, a non-monarch, Prince John, is trying to illegally usurp the monarchy of his brother, King Richard.

Perfectly simple. Neither is elected or there by the will of the people. In fact, John was actually - quite legally - the King at one point (though this does not come up in the film). It doesn't really matter from that point of view who is King - it is by divine right.

Oh, BTW, since England was a monarchy at the time, why should it be troubling to Jack Warner, you, or anyone else that there is "Democracy nowhere to be seen"? Only an historical nitwit would criticize this film on that basis. Assuming that you are not just a sh!t-eating troll, I would suggest that the "pot pourri of mixed messages" is only mixed in your own head.

It doesn't trouble me. It doesn't trouble me at all and no, I'm not a *beep* eating troll, thanks very much. I guess you don't understand the concept of subliminal film messages so before you come blustering in, guns ablaze with self-righteous fury, maybe consider you're taking me a bit too literally. I'm not advocating any position. I'm trying to put the simplistic messages of this film - not unlike those of The Lion King - into an historical context.

Why was it important to make this film with these messages in 1938? Or was it just a coincidence? You had Europe under a series of jackboot regimes which had ridden to power on the back of themes of oppression at the hands of the victors of WWI. The point that I'm making is that there were parallels. No harm in asking. No confusion involved on my part and for what it's worth, I actually love the film.

Someone else understood.

[–] liscarkat (18992) 3 years ago

Who gives a rat's ass about that crap. It's entertainment, not a documentary.

[–] marktayloruk (2558) 3 years ago

I wondered how they were going to pay the ransom.