|
FILMS
CNS photo/Universal
s
Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood,” which disappoints in the end, according to Bostic.
‘Robin Hood’: Love conquers justice
 Robin Hood has returned to the big screen yet again, but this time the moral quandary of stealing from the rich to give to the poor hardly even comes up.
“Robin Hood” (Universal) begins with King Richard returning from his crusade battles and ends just as Robin Hood has fallen out of favor with the recently appointed King John. The film is generally well done, but ends badly.
Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, one of King Richard’s archers. His role in the violent crusades troubles his conscience. After leaving the army, he comes across the dying Sir Robert Loxley who entrusts a sword to him to return to Loxley’s home — Nottingham.
Robin then meets Loxley’s father and widow, Marion, played by Cate Blanchett. At the behest of the father, he pretends to be Loxley so that the tax collectors will not take the family property upon his death.
He then helps the overly taxed citizens of England — whom the greedy new King John is taxing even more. Then, in the face of an invasion from the Normans, King John agrees to give some liberties to the yeomen in return for their service.
With the corrupt King John at the helm — and a sequel to set up for — things do not end as planned or promised.
“Robin Hood” is exciting, with some interesting versions of the famous Friar Tuck, Little John, and the Sheriff of Nottingham. Somehow, in its last 20 minutes, the film loses all the energy it has gained in the first two hours.
The viewer invests so much time in what seems to be a really great film only to see it unravel into a clichéd and unimaginative finale.
Robin and Marion’s love becomes primary, shorting the justice and liberty themes. The love story between the two is developed satisfactorily until, in the final scenes, Marion shows up to fight at the battle. She almost gets herself killed before Robin rescues her. Normans and English fight and die all around the pair as they embrace and kiss for an extended period.
Beyond unbelievable, this destroys the integrity of an otherwise well-developed film.
That said, the vast majority of this film is great. The very interesting moral issue of the rights of men and women to work for their living and provide for their family — a right that has been infringed upon by the ruling class of England in the 13th century — is at the heart of this great-turned-lame epic film.
Robin returns to England to find that men are not even allowed to hunt deer because all deer are said to belong to the crown. He asks Marion how someone can rule over nature, the kingdom of all men. This question is one that is at least partially addressed in Gaudium et Spes:
“Remuneration for labor is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents…” (67).
It is for these rights that Robin Longstride takes a stand and is eventually declared an outlaw. This right of each man to be able to provide for his own family if he is willing to work hard is the liberty that is at the heart of the fight in “Robin Hood.” As the film proves, a good leader responds to the needs of his people with compassion, not penalty.
This moral goal remains unfinished by the finale — perhaps this explains the choice to put Marion and Robin’s relationship at the forefront, allowing for at least partial happiness. But as unfulfilling as justice left unsserved may have been, an ending that is not focused and instead overblown is far worse.
The film is an epic tale that unravels into a mediocre love story. Love is an important value, but this critic is hoping for a sequel where justice prevails.
|
