For my first double feature paper, I compared the films: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993). Robin Hood: Men in Tights was released on July 23, 1993 and directed by Mel Brooks. The plot of the film is the same as in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) with a few different details: Robin Hood escapes the Khalil Prison in Jerusalem and returns to England to discover that King Richard’s brother, Price John, has taken over the throne when Richard is captured during the Crusades. Without Richard there to stop him, John abuses his power and causes corruption to the people of England. Robin Hood confronts John and tells him that he would do everything in his power to restore Richard to the throne, and he creates a small army of recruited men to take down John and his noblemen. During the film, Robin Hood and Maid Marian of Bagelle fall in love with each other and get married at the end, when Robin Hood takes down John.
For my critique of the film, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who is looking for an historic accurate film about Robin Hood. First off, the film is dubbed as a musical adventure comedy film, in which the film has a lot of cheesy, sexual, racial, and modern jokes in place that would never have been said by any medieval folk. Also, there are a lot of modern terms and curse words in the dialogue of the film, again, that would never have been said by medieval folk. For example, there are terms like, “I could get a promotion” and “check at table one, please” said in the film. Most of the props in the film seem accurate, but some of them are items that would never be found in the medieval times. Some of those props include: air pump shoes, a camera, and a magazine.
Besides the negatives I’ve mentioned, I still like the movie because it has funny humor and it is fun to watch. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a film that I would recommend to anyone who is looking for a fun, adventurous, and humorous film to watch. The film has some great actors and actresses like, Cary Elwes as Robin Hood, Richard Lewis as Prince John, Roger Rees as Sheriff of Rottingham, Amy Yasbeck as Marian, Mark Blankfield as Blinkin, Dave Chappelle as Ahchoo, and Patrick Stewart as King Richard. Even Mel Brooks stars in his own film as Rabbi Tuckman. Like I mentioned, the comedy in the film is cheesy, but to me, it was very funny and fun to watch.
Double Feature
Robin Hood (2010) “Double Feature”
Robin Hood (2010) is a wonderful twist to the storyboard from the folk tale stories we all know so well from The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). In Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood version, viewers get to see a prequel story of Robin Longstride before he’s in his prime form. Yet, in this film we still get to see the Saxton who fights for the poor to avoid tax from the king of England.
The director, Ridley Scott portrays his film in a much darker tone. He isn’t focused on bright colors or complex sets, but to tell the story of Robin before he was known as Robin, Hood of the Woods. The director executes this in a fashionable manner. Robin is just getting back from his third crusade and King Richard is already dead, so the audience receives a different perspective on the tales of Robin Hood. A major theme that represents this prequel is the writing on Robin’s sword he receives from Sir Robert Loxley. The writing states, “Rise and Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions.” Basically what this means is to never give up, which summarizes the film as a whole before Robin is well-known throughout England.
This film is still alike in the big picture of things to that of other Robin Hood movies. King John, brother of former King Richard is out to tax the poor because of their unfaithfulness to the King, or so he believes. This motivates Robin to defend the poor when he finds himself in Nottingham to find his place and where he comes from. A slight twist in this film is that the French are heading to England to overthrow the King and his people. King John and Robin actually work together to defeat their enemy, the French. During these action of events, the people see Robin as a loyal hero, the one that England deserves. King John becomes jealous and rules Robin as an outlaw to all of England at the end of the film, which sets it up perfect if the story were to continue on.
This prequel provides a different perspective to the audience, which allows viewers to see a visual and action interpretation of what Robin was like beforehand and how he built a name for himself.
Double Feature: A Darker Side to the Robin Hood Story
For one of my double feature papers, I watched the film Robin Hood (2010) directed by Ridley Scott starring Russel Crowe as Robin Hood. This film was being compared to The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) which was watched late last week in class. In the film Robin Hood (2010) director Ridley Scott portrays the Robin Hood story in a dark, war torn country of England which is going through many hardships at the time. The story also gives 
more of a background as to how King John came to power and removed King Richard the Lion Heart from the picture early on. With how the film ended, it seemed to me that the Ridley Scott film tells the story leading up to the start of The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) story. This is evident because one of the last scenes shows King John pronouncing to his kingdom that Robin Hood is now classified as an outlaw of England and anyone who tries to help him will face the consequences.
As is typical with Ridley Scott films, Robin Hood is a major theatrical production that takes place throughout much of England. There are thousands casted for the large battles during the Crusades portion of the film, and great detail can be found throughout the film in terms of scenery, clothing, and battle scenes. The clothing in this film is much darker and worn out as compared to the colorful costumes found in The Adventures of Robin Hood. There are a variety of closeup shots as well as distance shots that allow the viewer to dive into Nottingham. Nottingham was a much different town as compared to that shown in the 1938 film. In Robin Hood (2010) Nottingham is merely a church and 3-4 straw thatched huts. This really added to the way life was portrayed in this film. Overall both films were interesting to see how the Robin Hood story was told and I would be interested to see a third film and compare it to the other two.
Robin Hood: Meta in Tights
The Court Jester (1955) introduced our class to a new level of humor in films: farce. Being a spoof on older medieval films, it is one of the predecessors for self-referential humor. In fulfillment of a double feature paper, I decided to also watch Mel Brooks’ classic Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993).
I knew immediately after finishing The Court Jester, that I would enjoy the Mel Brooks film. I’m a sucker for meta humor. I quickly became enamored in high school at the same meta humor applied in Stephen Colbert’s The Colbert Report. Colbert would spend 22 minutes every night acting as a political pundit satirizing current events and the news programs that broadcast them. By criticizing the logic and reporting of major news programs, Colbert broadcast the humor I came to know and love.
Within minutes of beginning Robin Hood: Men in Tights, I knew that the meta humor would flourish. In the opening scene, the characters break the fourth wall and verbally acknowledge that these movies always feature a village burning down during the opening credits. In a subsequent scene, Robin of Loxley can be seen allegedly swimming from Jerusalem up to Great Britain only to wash up on shore to a Hollywood-like sign that reads “England.” This is clearly poking fun at other films where the immediate location in the film may not be easily clear to the viewers. Additionally, the conspicuous mole on Prince John’s face slyly travels across his face between scenes. Mel Brooks sprinkled innumerable meta jokes throughout the film, and it is much appreciated by audience members like myself.
Other attempts at meta humor occur by mocking authenticity through modernization. In one fight scene where Robin is wielding a drawn bow, an illuminated exit sign, clearly out-of-place in the Middle Ages, can be seen in the background. Building on the modernization theme, Brooks makes an assassin-hiring scene into a modern mobster movie scene, clearly referencing The Godfather (1972) or the 1983 remake of Scarface. Even a reference to Larry King in the beginning of the movie lends a hand to modernization.
While I could go on and on about the clever details in Brooks’ meta humor, I’ll spare my own audience that torture. I do want to note, however, that the humor in Brooks’ film would not be possible without a previous understanding of the Middle Ages. Predecessors like The Crusades, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Court Jester, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves lent American pop culture a platform to build self-referential humor, and I could not be more thankful.
Sources:
The Colbert Report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report
The Godfather: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
Scarface: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086250/
The Righteous Way, Not The Easy Way
I chose to write my first double feature paper on The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and Joan of Arc (1948). I liked how Joan of Arc (1948) followed Joan from her her receiving divine messages all the way to her execution. By telling Joan’s whole story instead of focusing on just one part of it, I think this film was able to do a great job of developing Joan’s character and portraying her as a strong, courageous young woman.
Viewers get to see Joan react to the criticism she received for being a woman who wanted to lead an army. Joan was called a harlot by one person and a witch by several others, but she still held on to her faith and her mission. Even though she was insulted and criticized, Joan was completely committed to her mission from its very beginning.
It’s one thing for someone to have a strong faith. Encouraging others to strengthen their faith is something completely different, and that’s exactly what Joan did. While in the army camp, Joan told her soldiers to stop engaging in behaviors God doesn’t approve of in order to become God’s army. When Joan’s army became God’s army and won a major victory, Joan was upset. Viewers got to see a completely different side of Joan that what is portrayed in the rest of the film. Joan hurt for both the French and the English men who died in that battle. Including this emotional expression showed that Joan is a good, selfless leader. She does not hate the opposing side even when many others do.
Throughout the film, it is obvious that Joan is a character who does not take the easy way out. In the beginning of the film, Joan listened to what her divine messengers told her, which led her on a life-changing (and life-ending) journey. Ignoring those messages would have much easier, but that isn’t what Joan did. During her trial, Joan ended up having someone help her sign a paper so she would live out her days in prison instead of being burned at the stake. After some self-reflection and immense guilt, Joan decided to accept her death sentence. Again, it would have been much easier for Joan to just live as a prisoner. But the easy way wasn’t Joan’s way. Joan of Arc (1928) develops Joan’s character well and shows her righteousness every step of the way.
FREEDOM!
For my 2nd double feature paper I looked at Braveheart (1995) and Henry V (1989). When first arriving to this class and looking at the syllabus Braveheart(1995) was the only film i recognized and was excited to watch it. Prior to learning about the film I knew it was based on a real life person and event. Although what I did not know was all the errors in Mel Gibson’s interpretations of the story. Even though there are many fallacies shown, I personally believe it does not effect the medieval authenticity of the film. We are still shown many of the basics we as a class have all put on our checklists. There are still knight riding on horses, men fighting with shields and swords, and cities surrounded by large stone walls. These aspects of the film are definitely true in their representation of the era. In contrary to the many things Gibson got right, there were also many things he had changed. Gibson made it to portray William Wallace as a hero who comes up from a humble background and rises to help set his country free eventually sacrificing himself for the cause. This is the same format we see in the numerous superhero movies released today. Although there is little documented on Wallace’s life most historians believe this is not true and rather Wallace was born into aristocracy and already a knight ( Braveheart – The 10 Historical Inaccuracies You Need to Know Before Watching the Movie, 2011). This site also goes on to list other historical issues including wardrobe issues and the Scottish signature blue face paint. I do not believe all these issues are necessarily negative, but just add to the overall entertainment value of the film. Those who are not historians or medieval enthusiast with also enjoy this hero tale with its unfortunately short side love interest story.
BraveHeart – The 10 historical inaccuracies you need to know before watching the movie. (2011). Retrieved May 17, 2016, from https://thehande.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/braveheart-the-10-historical-inaccuracies-you-need-to-know-before-watching-the-movie/
Double Feature Critique: The Sorceress
In The Sorceress, we come into contact with a Dominican friar by the name of Etienne de Bourbon and Elda, a forest dwelling apothecary-woman. Charged by the Inquisition to locate and destroy heretics, Etienne, or Stephen in English, comes to a tiny village to carry out the Church’s orders. While there he works with different villagers to ascertain information regarding the ‘lady of the woods’, in order to figure out if Elda is working with the devil to create healing potions. Elda in turn wants to learn how to read and write; which given the era, it would be difficult for a peasant woman to receive such an education. Elda is held with very high regard in the village, with her apothecary skills aiding and healing the masses and her ability to interpret the ‘wild spirits’ of the forest. Upon finding the tomb of Saint Guinefort the Greyhound, Stephen in a rage charges Elda with heresy from with the interrogation we learn her backstory. Elda, on her wedding night, was raped by a nobleman and then her husband was slain after assassinating that noblemen; Elda withdrew to the forest and learned her apothecary skills from the previous lady of the woods. This story makes Stephen reflect upon his own mistakes in life and dropping the charges he brought upon Elda, even deciding to erect a new chapel in the forest in dedication of Saint Guinefort.
I was not sure how I would interpret this movie. I mean like I did not have an opinion either way for watching this movie. However it was pretty good. The story flowed pretty well, and the town they created for the set was very authentic. I felt like the night scenes could have used a little better lighting, especially when Stephen was following Elda through the woods as she was trying to help a mother and her baby. Also, I feel like it would have been nice to see an image of the chapel dedicated to Saint Guinefort the Greyhound at the end of the film.
Double Feature: Is Dialogue Important?
A lot of diegetic sound with a small amount of dialogue: not what a typical film has, but was used well in Anchoress. This was the double feature film with The Return of Martin Guerre. The beginning of Anchoress displays this element right away as we see the main character Christine quietly in awe in the midst of a statue of the Virgin Mary. This film is about a young girl who decides to live in a small room next to the local church to be with the Virgin Mary, and remains in that area for a majority of the film. The use of facial expressions and gestures was utilized as dialogue in this film and at some points in the film, it can be hard to understand these non-verbal cues.
There is a big list of things films have: main characters, plot, setting, etc. Another important part of that list is dialogue, to help the viewer understand the film more. If you watch Anchoress, you’re going to have to depend on more than just dialogue to help understand what is going on. You need to watch the facial expressions of Christine and how she interacts with the local priest, how the priest interacts with the townspeople, because though there is dialogue between these characters, the facial expressions are going to tell the story of this film about as good as words. Through these expressions there is love, hate, anger, conflict, and many moods portrayed by these expressions. If you watch Anchoress, don’t look away for too long, there is just as much to see in this film as there is to hear.
The use of these expressions helps set the mood for this latter Middle Ages film, and helps create the love, hate, and anger that exists in this film.
Anchoress. Directed by Chris Newby. DVD. 1993. British Film Institute.
Photo taken from: https://distrify.com/videos/4Qy6kk-anchoress
Lion in Winter Critique
When I was watching Lion in Winter I was wondering to myself why does King Henry continues to let Eleanor push his buttons. One of the few reasons I could think of was the fact that he still had feelings for her and cared for her even if he would never admit it to his wife. Another reason was the fact that she may have been just as powerful as he was. He knew he needed her and couldn’t have her get an annulment and marry his enemy. I also couldn’t understand why King Henry wanted to have his son John be the next King of England. The way the director portrayed John made it seem as if John was not ready to be the next king. His behavior was very childish at times, he also did not have the necessary fighting skills to lead an army.
However, not everything about this film struck me as odd and had me wondering why or how that would happen. I thought the way that Peter O’Toole played King Henry was very good! After watching Becket, I was able to tell right away that there was a difference between the ways that King Henry was played. He was tired of a lot of the problems that he had in the kingdom, he didn’t want to fight the war against France anymore. He really seemed that he wanted to settle down in his life and get married to his mistress. Even though I was wondering why King Henry was letting Eleanor push his buttons, I thought that those scenes were very interesting. I thought that those scenes were interesting because they seemed to hate each other so much at times but were still trying to get along and get a deal done with France at times too.
Overall, I thought that it was a good film and I thought that the acting was some of the best we had seen up until now.
Critique of a Good Film
I have always found it tough to critique a movie that I liked watching. Specifically the movie that we were required to watch for the double feature for Alexander Nevsky, King Arthur (2004). I really enjoyed watching King Arthur because I felt like it was very easy for it to directly relate to my interests. I typically enjoy action movies and movies that tell a story (in this case one about a legend King Arthur). Although I thought that the filmmakers did a very good job making this movie, there were some parts that I was a little confused about after watching.
I know a lot of this movie somewhat focuses on the theme of whether or not King Arthur is more of a Briton than a Roman however, when there are times that Arthur is asked about why he is fighting or if he is ever explaining a reason as to why they have to fight, he usually refers to the fact that it is because of the brotherhood his knights have and it is not for Britain or Rome. I was a little confused with this aspect of the movie because I came into this movie expecting a lot more nationalism. At one point, I believe King Arthur says something close to, “I do not give a damn about Rome or Great Britain.” Even though there were a lot of emotions that were being thrown around at this point in the movie, I thought that this statement gave a good depiction of the level of nationalism that was portrayed.
For those of you who have not seen the movie I will not say any names, but although I figured that one of the knights was going to die at the end or sometime in the movie to add some drama, I was disappointed with the particular knight that they chose.
hollywoodhistorysite 