The Adventures of Robin Hood

The 1938 version of The Adventures of Robin Hood is always fun to watch, but it does raise the question of how long such films will retain their venerated status as classics. This film represented the state of the art in filmmaking when it was released. It was one of the first color films, and the costumes are bright, often primary colors and even garish by modern standards. The red hat worn by Robin’s sidekick is astonishing. The sets are well designed and painted. Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s soundtrack still stands up as one of the best examples of music composed for film. The film is undeniably exciting and entertaining. The action rarely falters. My 16-year-old son watched it with me last night, and he admitted to liking it, despite the fact that I virtually commanded him to sit through it with me.

The overacting in the film, especially by Errol Flynn, who at times seems fueled by too much coffee, is part of the fun. His eyes, in particular, whether they are shiftily squinting or wide open in surprise or ironic glee, are fun. But they’re also laughable—we laughed several times last evening at moments when the film didn’t aim for laughter. Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian is good, and in fact I much prefer her performance in this film to the weepy and saintly Melanie of Gone with the Wind. The characterizations are broadly drawn—there is little nuance or depth to them. Basil Rathbone is adequately snarly as Sir Guy of Gisbourne, requisite villain and ally of Prince John, evil brother of the absent Richard the Lion Heart. Robin himself is full of swagger and energy, but the only way we know he is not simply a braggart and blowhard is through his actions--defending the poor and opposing tyranny. Our modern sensibilities expect heroic characters to act the part, rather than merely to act it out. In this regard, of course, Robin’s two-dimensional character looks forward to Hans Solo in the Star Wars series and to Indiana Jones in that eponymously titled series as well.

Film is a medium that relies to a great extent on technology. Film technology has advanced remarkably since 1938. As good as Robin Hood is, it often shows its age. My son noticed one of the spears flexing like rubber when it hit a wall. The filmmakers did their best to overcome the technical limitations they faced. The acting, the characters, the imaginatively conceived setting may overcome these limitations much of the time. The final sword fight between Robin Hood and Sir Guy is still impressive and exciting. The cinematography is soft and tends to romanticize the landscape and setting. The look of the film is specifically reminiscent of N. C. Wyeth’s book illustrations for the Robin Hood story. Modern cinematography would probably treat the landscape more realistically, but in this case the 1938 technology serves the storytelling better.

To what extent does Robin Hood’s heroic defense of the poor and opposition to tyranny reflect the conditions of the American Depression and the menace of Nazism on the rise in Europe?

I can imagine a time when this film may cease to impress contemporary audiences, when it might become more of an anachronism and a joke than an entertainment, when the melodrama and the formulaic array of secondary characters who trample on one’s cultural or political sensibilities in one way or the other sap the film of its vitality. For now, The Adventures of Robin Hood still puts later film versions of the story to shame.