The Adventures of Robin Hood

I had never seen an Errol Flynn movie before sitting down to watch The Adventures of Robin Hood.  It's not all that surprising, I suppose; swashbuckling movies have been out of style for decades, and the rest of Flynn's body of work consists mostly of action-adventure movies in a period where I prefer moody noirs.  Honestly, I can't think of an instance where someone has even recommended an Errol Flynn movie to me; it is entirely possible that my knowledge of Flynn comes from references made by Nightcrawler in X-Men comic books.  Still, a legend is a legend, and I thought it was past time I gave Mr. Flynn a chance.

I think we all know the basic story in The Adventures of Robin Hood by now.  The rightful king of England, Richard the Lionheart, is kidnapped by another country as he attempted to return home from the Crusades.  Richard's slimy brother, John (Claude Rains), has been temporary ruler of the land for some time, and has enjoyed living a life of luxury while oppressing the Saxon lower classes.  When he hears of his brother's trouble abroad, John takes it upon himself to raise taxes to pay for Richard's ransom.

If this was a movie trailer, you would have heard a record scratch after I typed that

Just kidding!  John is allegedly raising the cash to save the crowd favorite king, but he is secretly plotting to use the money to legitimately crown himself king.  Won't anyone stand up to this mean, mean man?  Enter Robin, Earl of Locksley (Errol Flynn).  He takes it upon himself to denounce John (in John's own castle, to boot!) and promises to fight him at every opportunity.  I could go into more detail, but the rest of the film basically follows the same major plot points that the later remakes have.  Basically, Robin Hood becomes a thorn in John's side and Robin does his best to topple the would-be king.

And by "topple," I of course mean "impale"

Okay, so my first impression of The Adventures of Robin Hood wasn't that great.  It's certainly not bad, but it failed to impress me the same way that contemporary films like Pepe le Moko, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or even another epic like Gunga Din.  I have my suspicions as to why that is, but I'll wait a bit to explain.

Hint: it has nothing to do with silly hats

The acting in The Adventures of Robin Hood is okay for the time period, but not remarkable on the whole.  Errol Flynn is naturally who you picture when you think of this movie, but there is something about his performance that doesn't click with me.  Flynn's action scenes were pretty good for the time period and it appears that he did many of his own stunts, so I like him in those bits.  It's the abruptness of his performance elsewhere that just felt odd to me.  He would go from a feisty political rant to hands-on-his-hips-head-tilted-back laughter at a moment's notice.  I will admit that Flynn looks like he's having fun on-screen, but he comes across more as an egomaniacal jerk than a hero to me. 

"'Sup, bitches?!?"

Olivia de Havilland is fine as Maid Marian; she gives a lot of dreamy eyes to Robin Hood to convey her love --- which is by no means a bad method --- but I thought the attempts to make her more than a damsel in distress, while interesting, ultimately failed. Basil Rathbone was solid as Robin's chief enemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham Sir Guy of Gisbourne.  He didn't ham it up, but Rathbone did seethe dislike for his enemy well.  Claude Rains was suitably slimy as Prince John.  I spent most of the time he was onscreen staring, mouth-agape at his ridiculous wig and disgusting beard.

Great.  Now I've hurt his feelings.

Melville Cooper was pretty good as the Sheriff of Nottingham, although his character is a lot dumber and far less threatening than just about anyone else who's played the part.  As for Robin's Merry Men, Patric Knowles matched Flynn's hands-on-hips laughter, Alan Hale played a surprisingly regular-sized Little John, and the always vocally distinctive Eugene Pallette was probably my favorite underling as the ornery Friar Tuck.

"Why, you're in Technicolor, too!"

Two men get credit for directing The Adventures of Robin Hood.  William Keighley was hired first, but was eventually replaced by Michael Curtiz when the producers were not impressed by the action scenes.  And yet, enough of both men's work made the final cut to justify co-director credits, which is odd.  I can definitely attest that some of Curtiz's action direction worked well; the sword fighting scenes in the castle are still a standard for sword fights in film.  Personally, I would have rather seen less fencing swordplay and more Princess Bride-style fighting, but it's still good, especially for the era.  I don't like that many action scenes are sped-up to look faster, but Flynn is clearly at his best in these sequences.

"You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, eh?"

It should also be pointed out that many of these scenes have become iconic; watching shadows fencing in the castle was a nice touch and Robin splitting an arrow to win the archery tournament is still classic.  The size of the production is also impressive.  The sets are enormous and there are tons and tons of extras, all wearing their gaudiest tights and hats.  The color in this film is surprisingly vivid, even by today's standards; I don't normally point out the novelty of color in films, but everything is gorgeous and bright, especially the outdoors scenes.

Everything about this movie screams "epic," for better or worse.  To go along with the huge scale, the acting performances are also very broad.  Here's the thing about the acting in The Adventures of Robin Hood: the supporting cast is playing to fit Errol Flynn's lead.  If you don't like how he delivers his lines or reacts to certain things, the supporting cast isn't going to impress you, because they are more or less props for Flynn to dash around.  This is not a subtle movie that wins you over through clever dialogue or interesting camera techniques.  This is a Hollywood blockbuster, dedicated to spectacle.  In that, it is successful.  But there are so many moments in The Adventures of Robin Hood that are not epic, and that is where this film stumbles.

Another mistake: introducing cat-style grooming to romances

Sure, I can agree that an arrow in the torso causes instant death, every time.  Yes, I am aware that Robin Hood is shown eating meat off the bone a comical amount of the time.  No, I don't care that the whole Normans and Saxons subplot is blown way out of proportion.  What I can't stand is that only villains are irritated by Robin Hood.  He rubs every single character he meets wrong at first, but eventually wins them over by being a complete dick and then laughing out loud.  And he's an attention whore!  When Richard finally reveals himself to John, it's definitely a King Moment; after maybe a second of time to react, Robin jumps in front of everybody and essentially screams "Look at me!!!"  Maybe my problem is that I never bought into Errol Flynn's performance enough and enjoyed the ride.  There are enough over-the-top quirks in this film that I can see being sources of joy for a true fan, the same way I enjoy the imperfections of many of my favorites.  Unfortunately, I was hoping for a classic and found the 1938 equivalent of a Summer blockbuster.  It's fine for what it is, I suppose, but I was left wanting more.

My Man Godfrey

Why on Earth did I catch this movie?  Good question.  It's a seventy-five year-old comedy, and I can barely stand most modern comedies, much less something that came out before the last time the Cubs were in the World Series.  Well, for starters, I love William Powell in the Thin Man movies, but they're all I've seen him in.  My Man Godfrey was also nominated for six Academy Awards.  So, while this could be be just indulging my fondness for a particular actor, the Oscar nominations imply that the film won't be a waste of my time.

Godfrey (William Powell) is living in a literal dump with a surprisingly friendly group of other homeless men during the Great Depression.  One night, a group of spoiled brat socialites show up, looking for one of the homeless men to play the part of a "forgotten man" for their spoiled socialite scavenger hunt.

One is scruffy, the other vacant.  Guess which is which.

Instead of knifing the pansies, the homeless guys shuffle away, leaving Godfrey to mock the idle rich and frighten most of them away.  One remains, though.  Young Irene (Carol Lombard) thought Godfrey was quite funny and brave for sticking up to the others --- particularly her awful older sister, Cornelia (Gail Patrick) --- and she manages to convince Godfrey to be her "forgotten man," if only to stick it to Cornelia.  Godfrey agrees, goes to the party and delivers a well-spoken put down of the idle rich in the Depression.  Irene is immediately enamored with Godfrey's promise --- such a smart, well-spoken homeless man! --- and she hires him to be her family's butler and her very own protege.  What follows is a witty man handling an awful family with wit and grace, decades before Benson.

And to think, fifty years later, a black man was allowed to be a butler on TV

The title really sums up the whole movie.  This movie rides on the character of Godfrey; it's a good thing he's supposed to be witty and charming, because that's William Powell's calling card.  Powell is very entertaining in this movie, delivering sharp comments throughout, but never seeming to tell the similar jokes the same way twice.  He was aided in his performance by a supporting cast that perfected the clueless (but generally nice) rich characters that were so common in films until the 1950s.  Carole Lombard (Powell's ex-wife!) gave a solid performance as the sweet but oh-so-dumb Irene.  I usually have a problem with overly ditzy roles, but Lombard turned that stupidity into a childishness that was more easily forgiven.

The rest of the family is more stereotypical than cute, but I'm sure they were all novel enough in 1936.  Gail Patrick was fine as the bitchy spoiled brat sister.  Alice Brady was surprisingly funny on occasion as the too-stupid-to-believe mother; while I don't have any proof of it, I am pretty sure that her line "She was white as a sheet" was sampled for the excellent song "Frontier Psychiatrist" by Avalanches.  The men were less entertaining.  Eugene Pallette played the idiot that was allowed to spoil his family and Mischa Auer played a very convincing freeloader.  Auer was more entertaining than he should have been, given his minor role, but I enjoyed his melodrama.

Gregory La Cava's direction didn't strike me as anything special, but I suppose that my modern perspective could be a little jaded.  He did manage to put up some gorgeous sets and all the actors were committed to their parts, with no one giving a poor performance.  I may not have liked all the performances, but they were all polished and as good as the script would allow them to be.  The ending is awfully abrupt, but the old school take on comedies made that a common occurrence.  This wasn't anything timeless, from a directorial standpoint, but it was a solid effort.

In an older and lauded film like this, the main question is how well it has aged.  For the most part, I would say "not too badly."  There are several lines of dialogue that underline just how long ago 1936 was (apparently, the terms "nitwit" and "scavenger hunt" were not part of the popular lexicon back then), but the movie is still able to retain its charm.  Charm it has, but the humor is a bit lacking.  It's just not very funny any more, because the social mores that were being pushed at the time are long gone now.

Get it?  He's uncomfortable!

The relationship between Godfrey and Irene is cute and Godfrey is certainly witty, but even his lines aren't sharp enough --- maybe because they're too nice --- to still be hilarious today.  I'm also not a big fan of the movie's character traits; Godfrey is so much smarter than the rich in this movie that it's a little insulting.  None of the exploits in the film stand out as particularly outrageous (aside from a few off-camera ones), and that's not a good thing in any comedy.  The characters are so pleasant and Godfrey is so clever that the script doesn't inhibit a modern viewing of this film.  It's not a timeless classic, but it's a little silly and still pretty cute.  If absolutely nothing else, I can happily say that this cute, but unexceptional, movie increased my appreciation for William Powell.

And here's the song I alluded to earlier.  Great song from a great album: Avalanches - Since I Left You.