Douglas Fairbanks: Robin Hood or Peter Pan?
Fans of Robin Hood films often say the first half of Douglas Fairbanks' 1922 silent movie version is somewhat dull, because he isn't yet Robin. I disagree. What I fail to understand is how the noble knight pictured above wooing Marian, suddenly feels the need to skip and prance everywhere he goes once he has donned the Lincoln Green and become an outlaw. It is, as you can see below, absolutely hilarious. Although this "Robin Hood" was a box office smash I doubt anyone with a modicum of intelligence was impressed. And no, it's not true to say that all silent movies have dated in this way.
Above: Robin Hood or Peter Pan?Below: Many Guy of Gisborne fans thought the 2006 BBC version, in which Gisborne attempts to assassinate the King whilst in the Holy Lands, was a new idea. But no. Here is Gisborne (Paul Dickey) enacting that very same scene in 1922. 
Labels: Douglas Fairbanks, Guy of Gisborne, Guy of Gisbourne, Robin Hood, silent movie
posted by robin hood at 9:45 PM
2 Comments:
In 1922 when Douglas Fairbanks made Robin Hood, the film industry was on the brink of destruction. The Arbuckle rape/murder case and other Hollywood scandals had upset the right wing conservative PTA and church groups and the public was boycotting movies, the federal government was threatening censorship, banks were refusing financing and studios and theatres were shutting down. Because Douglas Fairbanks was the model of the American spirit, he took a stand against these threats by making Robin Hood. He was unable to secure bank financing and paid for the making of Robin Hood out of his own pocket ($1.5 million). He hired most everyone in Hollywood who wanted to work but couldn’t find work (including William Hart, the cowboy star) as extras. The set was the biggest set ever built for a movie, made $5 million and everyone was impressed. In a big way, the success of Robin Hood put Hollywood back on its feet.
The myth goes that Fairbanks was resistant to making Robin Hood because he didn’t want to be portrayed as a flat footed Englishman. Alan Dwan, the director Fairbanks chose to direct, told the stuntmen comprising Robin’s merry band to stay on their toes and that anyone caught flat footed would be fired immediately. Fairbanks also had a reputation to uphold – that of the happy, athletic acrobatic. (Actually, he wanted to be a serious Shakespeare actor but got stereotyped into this happy acrobatic role in his early films.)
Robin Hood may seem corny by today’s standards, but in 1922 it was the highest standard of art and dedication and it won the highest honor by Photoplay Magazine.
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for the input. It's always good to hear an opposite point of view.
I am aware that Robin Hood was financed by Fairbanks, and that is indeed at least a noble gesture, albeit one he gained from considerably. But I don't go along with the oft quoted "brink of destruction" theory. Does anyone seriously think the whole moving picture industry was just going to go away? The "boycotting public" numbered no more than those who burned Beatle albums in the sixties. And as for these right wing elements in American society, well, censorship WAS introduced wasn't it? I just don't buy into this "Heroic Hollywood" myth. It was (and is) a lucrative business that had to adopt itself to a changing marketplace.
Yes the set was huge and impressive. I think the Hollywood moguls confused size and spectacle with Art. But of course Photoplay Magazine would not be interested in such debates. Big spectacle = Big Bucks = sure fire praise from related magazine / media industries like Photoplay = more bucks for bigger spectacle = well.... you get my point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's simply entertainment for the masses. Today it would be Stallone or Arnie.
Robin Hood was a blockbuster. But I do have to totally disagree with the view that it was ever truly "the highest standard of art" in the industry. If one compares it to other 1920's works like "Pandora's Box", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Phantom of the Opera", etc., etc., all of which contain those stylistic devices and gestures which we acquaint with those times, it falls short of the mark.
Thanks again for the debate. Appreciated and enjoyed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home