Korngold's score for TAORH is now available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Korngold-Adventures-Of-Robin-Hood/dp/B0000BX5L0/ ref=reg_hu-rd_dp_imgI
There is no reason now to be confused!
Yes, The Adventures of Robin Hood glows even today in its resplendent Technicolor glory with its rich palette of silky, velvety coloured costumes (no matter how corny they might seem for a historically informed audience). Every detail looks inviting, it is totally unrealistic (how could one possibly cook such fancy cuisine, better than in the most expensive Nottingham tavern, in medieval Sherwood Forest? I don't have a clue and frankly my dear, I don't care!) but I love it! Sometimes, I just seek a film that takes me away elsewhere, where logic is no longer an obstacle and realism no longer an issue! A film where what really matters is pleasure of the senses. Is that too much to ask? Nowadays, yes, it seems that every movie director wants to have a say on contemporary issues and send us political messages AND wants to show to everybody that their films represent chunks of reality. This is total manure! The only reality that cinema is showing is more or less strongly distorted, convoluted, transmogrified through the necessities of dramatic rules. So people stop behaving like people and they are A-C-T-I-N-G. Plots stop being a faithful transcription of everyday or historic reality, and become S-C-R-I-P-T-S where virtually anything can happen, even if you want events to be as "realistic" as you would like.
Fiction movies are not supposed to be documentaries and will never become so. People do not always feel like seeing a documentary, and good ones are made according to rules and methods which have nothing to do with fiction movies. If I plan to escape from today's problems and want a beneficial escape to Neverland, most of the time, I will not go for a documentary. Any contemporary "serious movie" that pretends to show realism lies to us and to themselves. Fiction works of art have different sets of rules, and realism is not a law, but merely a choice to try to show reality through the plot of a drama or a comedy. Everybody knows, however, that any such attempts are rather vain choices because ultimately, what we see happening on the screen has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Secret rule #1 for any movie director: Reality sucks ("realistic" directors add this: ... but let's display a few sordid, or dull, or plain, or awful details that look like reality, and people will believe that this truly reflects life)...
I have a truly great time watching a movie such as TAORH, and although it has nothing to do with reality, I still enjoy it immensely and would want more!
Hey, wake up people! Robin Hood never even existed!! So let's just forget about this debate on which is closer to what, and care about qualities that really matter. So the 1938 version IS fun to watch even today for a lot of people (check the IMdB score)? There must be excellent reasons for this. What are they? Now, answers to that question would become really interesting, not a futile comparison with the "more realistic" Costner or Crowe versions...
reply
share
cwente2
13 years ago
Nicely said. I would add only this: It all seems to have started when "film makers" began calling themselves "artists" -- and taking themselves too seriously. The human condition, the "stuff" of drama (previously the product, for most, of legit. theatrical backgrounds) AND entertainment, were set to the side to make room for the more important social instruction "by" the film-school educated "for" the ill-informed masses (the rest of us outside Hollywood). Thus, the "mission" of the artistic elite (look at my bank account!) to "correct" the youngsters -- the targeted audience today. Shock and grisly reality "drive home" the "essential", politically charged messages. . . So there! . . . As you imply, the "dream factory" has become the "progressive instruction manual - illustrated".
reply
share