Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

Robin Hood:
Prince of Thieves --
The Greed of the
Eighties and the
Persian Gulf War

ROBERT J. SAUNDERS
Special Issue -"Psychohistory Of The Cinema"
Journal of Psychohistory 20(1) Summer 1992

It is the nature of myths and legends that they be revised and retold in contemporary terms from generation to generation, and made relevant to their times with each retelling. One of the more enduring examples of this process is the story of Robin Hood, which has persisted in various forms, at least since the 14th century.

As of this writing, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, starring Kevin Costner, is the second most successful film at the box office of 1991. It has only just barely been eclipsed by the story of a more modem sort of hero - - Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator II. Though many consider the 1938 film version of Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn as still definitive, this new version has obviously been communicating to large numbers of people. Thus, such a film must embody shared emotions and fantasies of concern not only to Americans but to men and women the world over. If we can understand the fantasy and emotion communicated by this film. we should gain some Psychohistorical insight into what is going on in the larger society.

I want to begin with a brief discussion of the historical evolution of the Robin Hood legend because it will help make some of the underlying emotion and fantasy of the Costner film clearer.

The dates given for the occurrence of the Robin Hood stories are usually during the years 1193-94. This was a difficult period in England. King Richard had gone off to the Crusades arid during his return had been put unto captivity by the Duke of Austria. Extra taxes levied on the people to pay Richard's ransom only served to perpetuate conflict between Norman and Saxon that lied persisted for most of the previous century. Implicit in these stories is the fantasy of revolution against tyranny[1] standing up with right against might, striking a blow against inhumanity, etc. Where King Arthur and his knights were upper class heroes, engaged in noble quests for the likes of fine Holy Grail, Robin Hood was the heroic leader of the folk, the common people, the downtrodden poor in the fight against what they perceived as Norman oppression in the form of unfair laws, high taxes, and a general erosion of the quality of life. The resonance with the tax revolts and concerns about the unemployed and homeless of today seems readily obvious and does not require a great deal of explanation.

Whether or not there was a real Robin Hood is still uncertain. He may have had Celtic origins inn the woodland trickster - Robin Goodfellow. The first printed references to him appeared in the 14th century but these seem to stem from earlier (how much earlier is not definitely known) stories and ballads. These early printed stories suggest that he might have lived during the time of Edward II (1307 - 1321/27?). It was only in later versions that the time gets pushed back to the 12th century.

Certain constants persist through the various retellings of the Robin Hood story that merit our attention. He delighted in playing tricks that made the rich and powerful look ridiculous. He seems to have been an exceptional archer. What he and his men took, they readily shared with the local poor and hungry. Anyone who swore not to harm the poor and oppressed was welcome to join him. His principal opponents were the overly rich clergy, the monastic land owners, the sheriffs wino enforced unjust laws and collected unfair and oppressive taxes, and others of like character. Robin hood fulfilled a need that grew out of the continuing oppression of the poor and downtrodden by the rich. He embodied a group-fantasy of hope and longing for freedom that was born and gained meaning between the 12th and 16th century.

By the 16th century Robin is described as a Saxon noble-the Earl of Locksley. King Richard also seems to have entered the story inn this period. Richard was a popular King and his presence gave a certain status to Robin's outlaw activity. Robin did not rob any rich person to benefit the poor, rather he focused on the greedy rich, those who abused their power and would usurp that of the King for their own ends. Most importantly, Robin saved part of his proceeds to pay Richard's ransom. He was like a conduit through which the people could act for freedom and to save their imprisoned king.

In addition to his role as protector of the poor, Robin becomes the res
cuer of the King the saviour of the established order. Whether Robin Hood existed historically is not the point; in myth, fantasy, and folklore he can be seen as the perfect hero-the man who, depending on your world view and political orientation, can be what ever you want him to be. What a wonder-ful container for man's hopes and fantasies such a hero as this can be.
During our own time, children's literature and films have maintained and perpetuated such tales as the Robin flood story. The folklore and mythology of the past lives on to suit the needs of modern writers and film makers who draw upon timeless fantasies and traditions.[2]

The release of Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves received consid-erable advance publicity, planned news releases and television hype. Besides articles on the previous incarnations of Robin Hood (Chase, 1991), press releases obsessed about how well the film maker authentically depicted all aspects of 12th century life. Overlooked were such problems of production as Costner's lack of time to develop an authentic English accent, his preference for allowing supporting players to stand out (hence the opinion of many that Alan Rickman's delightfully evil Sheriff of Nottingham literally stole the film from him), and the rush to release the film by the summer of 1991. Much of the pressure for fast release was due to the fact that three different film companies were simultaneously planning Robin Hood films. Tri-Star quickly withdrew because Twentieth Century Fox and Morgan Creek/Warner Brothers had established a decisive lead in production. Fox, also realizing itself behind, scaled down its production to a television release in the United States, with large theater release in England and Europe, thus leaving Costner's film the lead if it went for quick release. The most blatant hype for Costner's film was a semi-documentary television special aired on June 13th, the night before the film was due to open at 3,175 movie theaters across the country. Robin Hood: Myth, Man, and Hero wove scenes of the Costner Robin Hood with what is his-torically known and the previous film versions. The narrator, actor Pierce Brosnan, literally gushed enthusiasm for the film, making one wonder how television could run what was really an extended commercial masquerading as a documentary about a legend.

Whether Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves proves to be the top money maker of 1991 at the box office may be less important psychohistorically than the fact that during the last 2 years three different versions of the same story were planned for production at the same time. Why three versions? Why any at all? What is going on in the larger society that the story of Robin Hood would speak to? On the most obvious level is the increasing amount of poverty and homelessness in the United States, reaching almost Third World proportions in some areas. The widening gap between finan-cially elitist upper classes and the lower working classes (especially as unemployment continues to persist) exemplifies the greed associated with the Reagan years, the Yuppie eighties, S&L bailouts, salvaging the econ-omy at the expense or the middle class, etc. Additional factors involve growing concern for the environment, natural resources and energy, and the erosion of the quality of life, especially in the cities. All these things have both real arid group-fantasy aspects. If we accept that these issues are unconscious motivating factors influencing three different producers to make yet another version of Robin Hood, then we must ask how well these films resonate with and address tie underlying emotional issues at work in the society during the last half of 1991.

Another complicating issue at work here may be the successful, and prize-winning BBC television series, Robin Hood and the Sorcerer (1984) which ran for several seasons on US public television, and continues in sporadic reruns. This version draws upon Celtic mysticism and establishes a pre-Christian link between Robin and Herne the Hunter, mystic figure of a man with a deer's head and horns, along with elements of demonic witchcraft used by Guy of Gisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham. Because of its historic accuracy and emphasis on the Celtic past the series won a BBC award.

The Celtic aspects in the NBC version of the Robin Hood story helped create a new model which appears to have influenced both the Twentieth Century Fox production (starring Patrick Bergen and Uma Thunrian) and the Warner BrotherslMorgan Creek version (starring Kevin Costner and Alan Ricknian). Both films reflect a primitive pagan quality arid a world of stark uncertainty where violence can be casual yet quite brutal almost as a given. Christianity does not seem dominant. Indeed, the representatives of institutionalized religion that we see tend to be rather corrupt. Ministering to the needs of the people seems rather low on their list of priorities. Witchcraft and devil worship seem very real in the emotional landscape of the period, especially among the rich jaded aristocrats (in the Costner film, the Sheriff's mother is a witch and he uses accusations of devil worship as the pretext to deprive Robin's father of his estates while Robin is away fighting a foreign war to free the Holy Land from the heathens). We are given a vision of the past where conventional benchmarks such as religion, morality, honesty, and humanity no longer seem to be operative guides for man. The people seem to have lost their way and need someone to help them find it.

Most film critics have compared Costner's work with that of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and found Costner at least somewhat deficient. In the 53 years since the Flynn film was released (1938), other versions (Cornel Wilde, 1946: John Derek, 1950: Richard Todd, 1952: Richard Greene, 1960: and a couple of TV series) have been attempted but none were able compete with Flynn. The Walt Disney animated version (1973) personified Robin as a crafty cunning fox, thus emphasizing his trickster identification With the somewhat unexpected success of Dances With Wolves, Kevin Costner had become a major star (an Errol Flynn for the nineties?) by the time his Robin Hood film was released. The film's major budget and tremendous advance publicity clearly showed that the producers were aiming for a major statement that would make a great deal of money. Thus, comparisons were inevitable, but, for most, Errol Flynn remains "the definitive screen Robin." (Fraser, 1988)
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a major revision of the medieval tales for the world of 1991, in the same way that the Errol Flynn version addressed the movie going public of 1938. Both films seek to communicate with the audiences of their time.
In 1938, England was being confronted by the rise of Nazism. The United States was still somewhat isolationist, and seemed uncommitted about the developing war in Europe. America was still recovering from the Depression. Unemployment was still high and most who had jobs were not well paid. Hoboes, the homeless of the 1930's, lived in cities or where they could and traveled the countrysides and rural areas trying to survive. Warner Brothers, the producer of Flynn's Robin Hood, was committed to a greater degree than the other major studios of the period to "social con-sciousness" films. (Bergman, 1972, pp.92-109) With such films as Captain Blood (1935) and The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936), Flynn had achieved a well deserved reputation as one of filmdom's great swashbuck-ling heroes. In The Prince and the Pauper (1937) he was a rake and adven-turer among the poor champion of orphaned boys in the streets of Tudor England, and dedicated to preserving the English throne for its rightful heir. A year later, as Robin Hood, he was again protecting the throne against usurpers, as well as robbing the rich to help the poor. With this film he became established as one of the most popular and enduring film heroes of his time, indeed of all times.

Although the Flynn version follows the traditional story line, it made its own adaptations which spoke to the audiences of that time. Robin Hood retained his noble Saxon identity, becoming an outlaw by necessity to fight the tyranny of Prince John (Claude Raines in a short black wig) and Sir Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) abetted by an inept Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper). Robin's decision to become an outlaw seems somewhat impulsive in the sense that there does not appear to have been any deep thought about what to do. He knows what is right and acts. But, clearly iris the act of a man totally comfortable in the leadership role (for Conner's Robin Rood the issues in making the decision did not seem nearly so clear cut). Prince John is not only an oppressor, but also is actively plotting to take over the throne due to Richard's captivity in Austria for a ransom of 50,000 marks. Some of the money Robin took from the rich was shared with the poor and homeless victimized by Prince john, the rest was put aside toward Richard's ransom. in this version, Maid Marian (Olivia de Haviland) had not been previously betrothed to Robin and was she a skillful archer, rather - she is every inch the aristocratic royal ward of Richard under his protection of Prince John. Guy or Gisborne still insinuates interest in marriage, but is much more interested In plotting with John to further raise taxes, confiscate more land, and capturing Robin Hood. The other stock characters of the story, Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck, and
Little John are all in Sherwood Forest (actually Sycamore Park, in Chico, California) but are given no real depth.

Robin first meets Lady Marian (though she is listed in the credits as "Maid Marian" she is addressed as "Lady Marian" throughout the film) when lie goes to Nottingham Castle to return a royal deer illegally killed by one of his men. Later on, he waylays her entourage as it travels through Sherwood Forest. At first Marian treats him with the scorn due a rogue and outlaw, but animosity quickly becomes friendship and eventually love when she realizes that Robin is not what he seems. He is really a good man, selflessly dedicated to the welfare of the people and the protection of the throne. The emphasis throughout the film is on fighting tyranny and oppression in the service of maintaining freedom for all the people not just the rich. When Richard finally arrives in disguise, he soon learns of his brother's corruption and Robin's loyalty. He exiles Prince John (in the film only), restores Robin's title and estates, and give him Lady Marian's hand in marriage. The film ends with the newlyweds leaving the castle for the forest. But, with Robin's title and estates restored, we take a certain satis-faction in knowing that she will not need to live in the forest and dress in Lincoln green.

We know that Robin never really left the aristocracy because he has sequins glittering in the trim of his green jerkin. More importantly, when he shows Lady Marian the poor who have joined him in the forest, they are in an area separate from where Robin and his men are feasting. The poor do not really come alive as individuals, nor is there any meaningful interaction between them and Robin. he is not one of them and never could be. Robin remains the gallant, charming, idealistic, dashing hero, sure of himself with the one lady or his heart, clever, and quick to know the correct action in any crisis. The audience is never in doubt about his eventual triumph and success. Order has won out over chaos, and the established order having learned the error of its ways and suitably grateful is allowed by Robin to reign supreme once more.

Kevin Costner is no Errol Flynn. His Robin Hood is a very different kind or hero. He is more human and fallible then Flynn, and his efforts are ultimately successful not so much because of his skills at leadership but because file people finally decide to stand up for themselves and throw off
the yoke of their oppression. This new Robin was a spoiled rich kid, tem-pered in the crucible of the Third Crusade and imprisonment by vicious Arabs. He is brave and resourceful, but rather world weary and sobered by long immersion in a "stupid" war. Considering when the film was released, this brief comment seems a definite criticism of the Persian Gulf War. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is not an anti-war film though; it says that man cannot and should not hesitate to fight for a cause that is right and proper. Yet it also says that such crusades have consequences in that people we love arid care about may die.

Of course, the story line differs quite in bit from its predecessor. The film opens with Robin a forgotten prisoner of war in Jerusalem for 6 years (the producers do not tell us that the Third Crusade lasted only four years from 1189 to 1193). He escapes with his friend Peter, who dies shortly after from wounds received during their breakout, and Azeem, a Moor (and an enemy) who, because Robin saved his life, stays with him out of obligation to return the service. They return to England and find a different world, appar-ently more menacing and dangerous than Robin knew. Maid Marian is the sister of his friend Peter. Robin promised, in accordance with his friend's dying wish, to protect her in any way he can, even though it becomes immediately clear that she is one tough lady and can hold her own with anyone. The real villain is Cedric, Sheriff of Nottingham (played with splendid outrageousness by Alan Ricknian who has all the best lines in the film). Guy of Gisbome is demoted to a minor henchman. Prince John never appears and Richard has one brief scene at the very end of the film. The parallels with this Robin, and the return of troops from Operation Desert Storm, middle eastern hostages, and missing POW's from Vietnam, seem too obvious to ignore even though it is not clear what, if anything, the pro-ducers were seeking to say about them.

Unlike his predecessors, this Robin has a past. His mother died when he was twelve, his father brought a peasant woman to the but sent her away when Robin showed resentment at someone seeming to take his mother's place (for the twelfth century, this is indeed a progressive father). Even so, Robin never forgave his father's lack of perfection and went off to the Crusades against his wishes, to spite him. Lord Locksley disagreed with the Crusades, believing that forced imposition of one religion on another was wrong (again, a quite modern sentiment). Despite being a devout Christian, be is falsely accused of Devil worship, hung, and his estates taken by the sheriff (the real Devil worshipper). Upon his return, Robin visits Maid Marian with a ring from her brother. She remembered him as a spoiled rich kid, but he has changed, war and prison seem to have made a man of him. After run-ins with the sheriff's men led by Guy of Gisbome, Robin and Azeem make their way to Sherwood Forest. Robin meets the other outlaws, who seem disorganized, becomes one of them and soon


assumes leadership. He gives them an oath of fealty, which is the lordly thing to do. All accept Robin, but Will Scarlet (inn previous versions a loyal follower), who distrusts him, puts him down as a rich man's son, arid is quite skeptical about his seriousness of purpose. Toward the end of the film, Robin learns that Will hates him because they are brothers (Will's mother was the peasant woman Lord Locknicy sent away to make peace with his son). Having always longed for a brother, Robin is overjoyed, they embrace and are reconciled.

The major new character inn the story is Azeem. He has a more important symbolic role than being the black sidekick of the white hero or a token black. He is a man of character wino observes his religion with a fidelity that the Christans in the film lack. He earns the respect of the English by patience, dignity, not sinking to their level of prejudice, and because he brings with him technology arid knowledge more advanced than that of these almost primitive people with which me finds himself. He saves the life
of Little John's wife, Fanny, who is on the verge of death because of a breech birth that the locals have no idea how to deal with. Azeem also has a telescope and knows how to make and use explosive powder from Cathay. As he explains to his surprised colleagues, "gunpowder" is something that his people have been working on for some time. it is quite striking that Azeem is not killed as a creature of the Devil because of his special skills (still another example of the modernist sensibilities hidden throughout this story). Azeem is an Arab. Contrary to line negative stereotypes of our time, he is depicted as a man of honor, humanity, and good sense. This film seems to question the identity of our real enemy in the Persian Gulf War, and suggests that perhaps he is not the Arab but someone closer to home.

In desperation, the Sheriff hires Celtic mercenaries to attack Robin's stronghold in Sherwood Forest. Robin, his men and their families barely escape and are seriously demoralized. At the graves of the dead, Robin despondently declares: "My pride lend us to this." Azeem reminds him: "No. You gave these people pride. You gave them a life worth fighting for." Again. when the people helplessly watch Robin and his men fighting the Sheriff's forces to prevent a mass hanging (Little John's son among them), Azeem stands on the parapets, and inspires them to action: "Englishman! l am not one of you, but I fought for you. I fight against the tyrant who holds your lives in his hand, and knows nothing of pity or jus-tice. If one such as I dares rise up against your lord arid master, will you not dare as much? Join us now. Join Robin hood and your names will live for-ever." He succeeds in rallying the people, they rise up and help the outlaws overcome the sheriff and his corrupt friends in an emotionally satisfying climax. it is almost as if Azeem is speaking to the poor and homeless of our own time as well. In this sense, Robin hood: Prince of Thieves seems to voice fantasies for and against the established order, and perhaps symbolizes a certain sense of confusion after a war that did not seem as fully and convincingly resolved as we would have liked.

That the Moors had the telescope, and were experimenting with gun powder from Cathay at the end of the 12th century. is historically reasonable. The Moors were well beyond Europeans in medicine, mathematics, and other sciences at this time. This is a revisionist message (Costner's Dances With Wolves was also a revisionist film about the American Indian) that reminds Afro-American audiences that their heritage was quite advanced at a time when white Anglo-Saxons were superstitious, ignorant barbarians believing and indulging in witchcraft and practicing blood letting as the best medical treatment available. Certainly a powerful message that might be viewed as subversive, if the poor and homeless could afford the price of a ticket to see it Since it seems unlikely that large numbers of poor will be inspired by this film, what we really have is a kind of pop, radical chic, pseudo-subversiveness.

Costner's Robin Hood encounters much more poverty and oppression than previous versions of the story. Robin's main pursuer in the film is Cedric's cousin, Guy of Gisborne, who goes around in good obedient Storm Trooper fashion killing peasants, burning their homes, terrorizing women and children. trying to find his quarry. Guy is such a failure that, in a fit of pique, the Sheriff finally murders him after assuring him he is not mad at him for his latest failure to capture Robin and his men. (This is an interesting reversal of the Flynn version, where Guy of Gisborne was the villain and the Sheriff the stooge. In this modern version the authority fig-ure is clearly the evil figure, where in the Flynn version the evil was the hidden power behind the throne.) Cedric, Sheriff of Nottingham, is cer-tainly the most outrageous character in this film. He is evil, totally depraved, but at times extremely funny. He cannot seem to do anything right but bravely plays out his hand until the bitter cud when he is killed by Robin. Cedric seems to reflect a dangerous comic opera quality not unlike another more recent enemy-Saddam Hussein. One reason why we applaud at the end of the film is because Robin does to Cedric what we would have liked to do to Saddam.

In this film, the Merry Men have families and stories of their own. Thus, we see a humanity and character given to the poor that has been lacking in earlier versions of Robin flood. Little John has a wife, Fanny, and a son, WuIf, whom we get to know and care about. That the presence of Robin and his people in Sherwood Forest is due to vicious guerrilla tactics by the sheriffs men was not emphasized in the Flynn film. Costner's film makes no effort to sanitize any of these practices. We see the ruins of Locksley castle, and Robin's horror at seeing the decomposed body of his father left hanging by Cedric for the buzzards. Maid Marian's castle is in decay, neglected because most of the available money has been taken for taxes insupport of the Crusade. The poor stand hopelessly about, feeling afraid and unable to resist the tyranny afflicting them. They beg for alms in Church, and the Barons toss them coins to watch them scramble for them. Only Maid Marian seems to have the humanity to dare touch the poor directly by actually pressing coins into the palms of their hands. Everyone is in rags except for the Sheriff, Guy of Gisbonie, arid the Bishop of Nottingham.

The film is strongly concerned with greed. The greed of die Sheriff is really for power, he wants the throne. in order to he King, Cedric needs to marry someone with a blood tie to the throne - what better choice is there than Maid Minriani, the ward of King Richard? She is a means to his ends, so lie desires her and will overcome any obstacle in his way without hesita-tion. Mortianina, the albino witch, wino guides the Sheriff's plots from behind the scenes, is revealed is his mother She had disposed of the real heir to the castle or Nottingham and replaced him with her son Cedric. She wants Cedric to have an heir so her grandson will he King. Dutiful son that he is, Cedric forces the Bishop to marry him to Maid Marian and is attempting to father an heir on the altar when Robin bursts in on him for their final battle. Robin stabs him with the dagger he gave Marion:, and Cedric asks with his last breath: "I wonder ... who was dad?" He never realizes that he was a victim of his own: pride and evil, but, more impor-tantly, he was a dupe, a pawn of the evil hidden forces (symbolized by his witch mother) that control the world and are beyond comprehension. it is also perhaps worthy of note that it is Azeem, the black Moor, who battles with and kills the (white) albino Mortianna, practitioner of black magic and witchcraft.

The Bishop who ignored the Sheriff's devil worship, while denouncing such practices everywhere else, tries to flee during the final battle but is undone by greed. He is grabbing money from the offerings and other bags of riches to escape with when Friar Tuck breaks in on him. The Friar, who had been depicted throughout the film as a happy alcoholic content to swill as much ale as possible, rises to the occasion: and throws the Bishop out the castle window to his death clutching his riches with him. Robin is also a thinking hero who plays to the greed of others. During the raid of the Celtic mercenaries on Robin's camp in Sherwood Forest, we see Robin taking money hidden up in the trees arid throw it down to the ground in the hopes it will distract the raiders arid give them time to recoup and get away. Since we do not see what the Celts do, it was probably a futile strategy. But this scene suggests that Robin is not ianterested in: accumulation of money for power; rather, he wants to use it for worthwhile purposes. On some level this film may be a fantasy that our society will use its riches for worthwhile things rather than "stupid" wars.

Where the 1938 version dealt more with political tyranny and threats to the established order (the throne), the 1991 version deals much more with

.

(REFERENCES below)

Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

REFERENCES

1. .

Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

To report errors in this electronic
transcription please contact:
[email protected]