![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Robin Hood (1922)
Feb. 9th, 2009 01:02 pmSo I decided to follow up the Douglas Fairbanks set by revisiting Robin Hood, which I first watched a few years ago. I can no longer remember why I picked it up back then, since it wasn't the type of silent movie I was interested in at the time. However, it certainly was interesting watching it again now after everything I've seen in the meantime, including these other Fairbanks films.
This is a much different version of the story than Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood, made sixteen years later. There is a long opening section, in fact perhaps half the movie, about King Richard's court. We begin with a tournament joust between the Earl of Huntingdon (Fairbanks) and Sir Guy of Gisbourne, in which King Richard and Prince John place a wager on their respective champions. We then move to a feast in Richard's castle, where we see John and Guy plot malfeasance while Richard pushes the girl-shy Huntingdon to chase the ladies. Huntingdon falls for Lady Marian, but it's time for all the knights to head off for a crusade in Palestine. Huntingdon accompanies Richard as his righthand man, and Sir Guy is part of the company as well. Soon John is torturing innocent villagers and threatening the meddling Marian, who sends a plea for help to Huntingdon. Huntingdon pleads with Richard to let him go back, then tries to leave against his orders. He is imprisoned. It is only after all of this that suddenly rumors of a mysterious brigand in Sherwood Forest emerge, and we move on to the territory where Flynn's version begins. There are still a lot of differences in the story even then, including the fact that Richard is not captured and held for ransom, which I believe actually happened to the historical Richard.
I'm still not sure what I think of this version story-wise. The Robin Hood section is rousing, but the Earl of Huntingdon section is less so. However, it probably doesn't matter because this is a visually gorgeous movie. The sets are utterly humongous, and that may well be what attracted me originally, because I love elaborate sets in movies. (Come to think of it, I think I was hoping for an elaborate forest set, because I love artificial forests in movies, such as the one in Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen (1924). Alas, the forest in this movie isn't all that impressive, although there is at least one huge tree set.) The set for Richard's castle supposedly dwarfed even the Babylon set from Griffith's Intolerance (1916). It really is incredible. The inside is a cavernous and towering space that dwarfs the people in it, with huge fireplaces and a winding stone staircase that would have fit right into one of the Frankenstein movies. Then, on top of all that, it's photographed by Arthur Edeson, whose praises I sang when I wrote about The Maltese Falcon (1941). Robin Hood is a visually much darker film than the other Fairbanks films I've seen. The lighting is subtle, and the indoor shots in particular are full of chiaroscuro effects. In the scenes with fires, you get a sense of flickering firelight. I'm not sure if he actually used ambient lighting, but it sure feels like it. There are lots of long shots to emphasize the size and grandeur of the sets, and when we finally get a close-up of Fairbanks at some point along the way, it feels like it's the first time we've really seen his face. It's very strange, almost as though the sets are the main character. Well, it's probably where most of the money went, most of it apparently from Fairbanks' own pocket.
Fairbanks plays a dual character again: the virtuous, girl-shy noble and the gay, elusive bandit. Neither character seems as interesting as those he plays in The Mark of Zorro (1920), but maybe that's because they get lost in the gargantuan surrounds. My memory is that he's more at home in the gigantic sets of The Thief of Bagdad (1924), but I seem to recall that the cinematography there (also by Edeson) is more nimble and intimate as well.
This is a much different version of the story than Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood, made sixteen years later. There is a long opening section, in fact perhaps half the movie, about King Richard's court. We begin with a tournament joust between the Earl of Huntingdon (Fairbanks) and Sir Guy of Gisbourne, in which King Richard and Prince John place a wager on their respective champions. We then move to a feast in Richard's castle, where we see John and Guy plot malfeasance while Richard pushes the girl-shy Huntingdon to chase the ladies. Huntingdon falls for Lady Marian, but it's time for all the knights to head off for a crusade in Palestine. Huntingdon accompanies Richard as his righthand man, and Sir Guy is part of the company as well. Soon John is torturing innocent villagers and threatening the meddling Marian, who sends a plea for help to Huntingdon. Huntingdon pleads with Richard to let him go back, then tries to leave against his orders. He is imprisoned. It is only after all of this that suddenly rumors of a mysterious brigand in Sherwood Forest emerge, and we move on to the territory where Flynn's version begins. There are still a lot of differences in the story even then, including the fact that Richard is not captured and held for ransom, which I believe actually happened to the historical Richard.
I'm still not sure what I think of this version story-wise. The Robin Hood section is rousing, but the Earl of Huntingdon section is less so. However, it probably doesn't matter because this is a visually gorgeous movie. The sets are utterly humongous, and that may well be what attracted me originally, because I love elaborate sets in movies. (Come to think of it, I think I was hoping for an elaborate forest set, because I love artificial forests in movies, such as the one in Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen (1924). Alas, the forest in this movie isn't all that impressive, although there is at least one huge tree set.) The set for Richard's castle supposedly dwarfed even the Babylon set from Griffith's Intolerance (1916). It really is incredible. The inside is a cavernous and towering space that dwarfs the people in it, with huge fireplaces and a winding stone staircase that would have fit right into one of the Frankenstein movies. Then, on top of all that, it's photographed by Arthur Edeson, whose praises I sang when I wrote about The Maltese Falcon (1941). Robin Hood is a visually much darker film than the other Fairbanks films I've seen. The lighting is subtle, and the indoor shots in particular are full of chiaroscuro effects. In the scenes with fires, you get a sense of flickering firelight. I'm not sure if he actually used ambient lighting, but it sure feels like it. There are lots of long shots to emphasize the size and grandeur of the sets, and when we finally get a close-up of Fairbanks at some point along the way, it feels like it's the first time we've really seen his face. It's very strange, almost as though the sets are the main character. Well, it's probably where most of the money went, most of it apparently from Fairbanks' own pocket.
Fairbanks plays a dual character again: the virtuous, girl-shy noble and the gay, elusive bandit. Neither character seems as interesting as those he plays in The Mark of Zorro (1920), but maybe that's because they get lost in the gargantuan surrounds. My memory is that he's more at home in the gigantic sets of The Thief of Bagdad (1924), but I seem to recall that the cinematography there (also by Edeson) is more nimble and intimate as well.
