MovieChat Forums > Robin and Marian (1976) Discussion > One of the most realistic sword fights o...

One of the most realistic sword fights on film.

posted 19 years ago by dadoo4050
25 replies | jump to latest

The final duel is so much more realistic than most cinematic sword fights. We see these men get tired. We see the Sheriff give Robin every opportunity to yield, sometimes hitting him with the flat side of his sword instead of the blade. We see them jockey for postition with the sun.

We don't see a lot of hokey acrobatic choreography.

This and the duel between Liam Neesom and Tim Roth in "Rob Roy" are my two all-time favorite sword duels.

[–] Karl Aksel 14 years ago

The swordfighting was nowhere near realistic. It was suspenseful, and so it was a good movie-fight, but not an accurate representation of historical swordsmanship. Yes, they get tired, but much too quickly. Those weapons would be much lighter than how they were portrayed in this film. The hitting with the flat of the blade was also something seen throughout the movie, which is something you would never do with the sword. That will place stresses on the blade in ways it was never meant to take, particularly at the quillon. It would also be completely without effect on the opponent.

True, we do not see a lot of hokey acrobatic choreography, but that wasn't in vogue back then. Back when this film was made, they still laboured under the misconceptions that armour was so heavy you needed help to get up, to get on your horse etc., and that swords were heavy cast-iron slabs.

The armour in this movie deserves special mention for being particularly atrocious. The helmet of Sir Ranulf looks like a stove, for crying out loud.

[–] burgan6203 14 years ago

Granted, there was a vogue for gritty realism in the 70's and it is just as deliberate an aesthetic choice as soaring acrobatic footwork and bright Technicolor cinematography. Heck, even the fact that all the characters speak modern English isn't truly "historically accurate" since 13century English wouldn't sound a thing like it does today. However, does this hinder the overall effectiveness of the film? I'd say it doesn't and that for this story it was the right approach, but that's just me.

John Aberth(who received a PhD in medieval history from Cambridge University in England) has this to say about "Robin and Marian" in his book "A Knight at the Movies". Granted, this is only one academic assessment, but I still thought it was worth sharing.

"In line with the no-holds-barred realism of the rest of the movie, the duel between Robin and the sheriff is perhaps the most accurately staged medieval trial-by-combat on film, with the two sides exhausted from hacking away at each other in hot, cumbersome armor and wielding heavy broadswords and battle-axes. A nice piece of period detail has Robin, prior to the duel, lead out his peasant army wearing a rustic-looking, leather jerkin covered in round brass plates, while this is intercut with the sheriff being waited on by his attendents, who arm him in more costly chain mail leggings and mail shirt...Certainly of all the Robin Hood movies, it is the one that is the most historically accurate, the most respectful of the medieval ballad tradition, and the most authentic and realistic looking in terms of its production values, despite being filmed in a lightning thirty six days."(185)

I tried to dance to Britney Spears/I guess I'm getting on in years

[–] Karl Aksel 14 years ago

Strange, I thought I replied to this.

John Aberth(who received a PhD in medieval history from Cambridge University in England) has this to say about "Robin and Marian" in his book "A Knight at the Movies". Granted, this is only one academic assessment, but I still thought it was worth sharing.

A PhD in medieval history usually means he knows a lot about the medieval political picture and events, it does not mean he is an authority on arms and armour of the time. Just like a WWII expert is not necessarily an expert on WWII equipment, or that he is a military expert of the era. For medieval swords, look to Ewart Oakeshott first. Oakeshott is revered almost as a father-figure by afficionadoes of medieval arms and armour, as his works (not to mention his excellent typology) has done a lot to dispell old myths that even wise old men with expensive educations have held to be true. There really is no substitute for hands-on experience, and Oakeshott carefully measured and weighed the actual things: they were not heavy.

Even common sense ought to make people question some of these modern myths, for who in their right minds would use armour and weapons that would make them slow, after all? And if only the fighting manuals had been more widely known, the myths might not have risen in the first place. Take Talhoffer's Fechtbuch, for example, particularly the Ambraner codex of 1459: this features, among other things, a judicial duel between two fully armoured knights, both wearing full Gothic plate harnesses and fighting with longswords. The illustrations are detailed, and the commentaries informative enough: the fight is fast-paced, most of it grappling. There's even a throw, and this is in full plate armour. The fight ends on the ground, where one knight thrusts a dirk down the vizor of the other. Clearly, not even plate armour was as hampering as this movie pretended maille to be.

Granted, fighting in heavy armour is immediately exhausting to those not used to it, just as fighting naked is immediately exhausting to those not used to fighting. But if you are used to it, you can keep at it for quite a bit.

[–] jwllew 13 years ago

Pretty much what Karl here summed up, and a wonderful nod to Oakeshott whom put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into researching the subject.

BEND OVA WILLY AND PICK UP YOUR LUNCH MONEY!