Robin Hood 2010 for Centuries,

Robin Hood 2010

For centuries, the story of Robin Hood has been consistently retold. Where, he is a privileged baron, who returns to England, only to find his country in state of civil war. As a brutal king, has begun to impose his will upon the people through: his army / henchman and his brutal tax policy. Those who are opposed to such polices were often tortured and executed, as examples of what could happen to everyone else. Once Robin Hood began to question and attack the kings men (through the Sherriff of Nottingham), is when he would begin to become a local folk hero. At which point, the classic tale of Robin Hood, taking from the rich to give to the poor, would become just one many catch phrases that were constantly retold over the years. However, when you look at the historical facts surrounding Robin Hood, the various films and books have begun to twist this classic tale around.

One such example of this occurred with the film Robin Hood 2010, where director Ridley Scott would have Russell Crowe star as the main character. Yet, his interpretation of the film and its events are reflecting some of the common culture challenges vs. actual historical events.

This is because the story has been consistently retold over and over again. Where, each new version would take the life and times of Robin Hood in another direction. As a result, the actual historical events have become rather confusing, with the line between fact and fiction becoming blurry.

To determine the actual events vs. those that are fiction requires comparing the film Robin Hood 2010, with the historical record. This will be accomplished by: examining the film's portrayal of the events that historians believe occurred, what actually took place, the various moral / ethical challenges that are introduced in the film and what it is telling us about our own culture. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights, as to the overall accuracy of the Robin Hood 2010 in comparison with the actual events that occurred.

How faithful is the film's portrayal to what historians argue actually happened? What actually happened if not?

The film is loosely based on fact, as it is discussing the various class and equality struggles that were occurring at the time. The main character of the film is based off of a man named Robin Longstride. He was a bowman that was serving underneath King Richard in France. Where, the basic theme is the class struggle against an oppressive regime; that is seeking to limit the activities of the people. As everyone is longing for a king, that will understand the challenges of the common person and what they contribute to England. During the siege of a French Castle, Richard is killed and Robin Hood is given his crown. This is essentially Richard bequeathing his power to Robin on his death bed. Realizing what occurred Robin goes back to England and finds that John has ascended to the crown. Where, he has imposed an oppressive system of taxation and subjugation on the people. At which point, Robin will attempt to confront John about what happens and find himself as an outlaw. This is when a struggle will take shape between the two; with John hunting Robin down, in an effort to eliminate any opposition and consolidate power. It is at this point, that French invade the England and Robin is forced to fight both. After defeating the French, he is able to go on the offensive against John (which results in him being dethroned).

When you compare these events with what actually occurred, it is clear, that the facts of Robin Hood have been stretched during the film. Part of the reason for this, is because the story is over 900 years old and has been consistently retold to the point; that it is challenging, separating fact from fiction. That being said, the story of Robin Hood is believed to have evolved from a man named Robert Hode. What happened was: the first references, to this mystical character were originally from York Assizes in 1225. Where, he was considered to be a fugitive outlaw wanted by the Archbishop of York. There are a number of different theories as to why he would become an outlaw the most notable include: poaching the king's deer and fighting on the side of Sir Simon de Montefort. Poaching was common in many forests at the time, as the deer was often considered to be the meat that is saved for the elite. Anyone caught hunting and eating this deer, was a criminal, as their actions are showing no respect for the laws of the king. In many ways one could argue, that this is where the basic class struggle would come from in the film. Where, only the nobles were allowed to hunt and eat select foods, while everyone else was forced to suffer.

At the same time, Robin's association with Simon de Montefort would make him an outlaw. This is because he was in open revolt against King John for many years. As the two sides, would play a game of cat and mouse in trying to outmaneuver the other for control. This would force Robin Hood to go on the run, to avoid facing the common label of "criminal' by King John. Over the years, the two sides would continue to feud with one another, resulting in de Montefort overthrowing King John in 1264.

This event is significant, because the brief rise of de Montefort to power would help to establish the first Parliament. In this case, one could argue that Robin Hood 2010 is a loose depiction of England becoming democracy. Where, everyone is tired of authoritarian rule, leading to the desire for greater control in matters of government. As a result, one could draw a parallel between the events of the story and signing of the Magan Carta in 1215. As this was supposed to be, a first step towards equality, yet it was suspended. After years of brutal war, it was reinstated in the 13th century. In this aspect, one can clearly see how the events surrounding the Magna Carta are paralleling the struggles in the film Robin Hood 2010.

What ethical issues and moral challenges are introduced in the film?

There are a number of ethical / moral challenges that are introduced in the film to include: the morality of following an unjust policy / law and engaging in actions of civil disobedience to fight the injustice. One constant ethical issue that is wrestled with throughout the film is the morality in following an unjust policy. Where, Robin returns to England and finds that King John is abusing his power. As he uses unjust taxes, to extort some kind of tribute from: the average person. Those who cannot afford to pay the taxes are: subject to arrest and face to possibility of torture / death. At the same time, King John will use his army and law enforcement, to force everyone to follow these polices or faces the consequences. Where, the king's men have been known to utilize brutality, in an effort to break the free will of the people. Once Robin Hood becomes an outlaw, is when he shows how it is ethical to break these kinds of laws.

As they violate the basic rights of: self-determination and freewill. In this case, the ethical issue is breaking a law that is immoral, to help improve the lives of ordinary people. Where, Robin Hood is encouraging everyone to stand up for their rights, in an effort to create a government that is responsive to their needs vs. persecuting selecting individuals.

A second ethical issue that is wrestled with in the film is: engaging in actions of civil disobedience to fight the injustices that are occurring. This highlights how engaging in acts of violence against unjust policies, is moral. The reason why, is because the various policies / laws could violate the free will of the people. Anything that infringes upon this basic principal goes contrary to the fundamental human rights that everyone has. In this aspect, the film highlights how it is moral to engage in the same kind of actions as the enemy. Where, this is the only way that they will understand that these kinds of policies are unjust. At which point, resistance to them, will help to bring about positive changes (as the opposition will become so extreme, that the king no longer has popular support).

When you look at the different moral and ethical challenges that are presented in the film, it is clear that they highlight the basic principles of: free will as well as self-determination. Where, they are directly discussing what is just through the eyes of the average person. This instills a sense of values, with the audience being able to see the class struggle that exists. As ordinary people are seeking to have their basic rights respected and improve how the government responds to their needs. In many ways, one could argue that this film is about self-determination and equality.

Would you recommend this film to someone attempting to understand the culture or event under consideration? Why or why not?

Yes and no. The reason why both answers were selected is because the film can provide an accurate historical backdrop of events and issues that England was wrestling with in the 1200's. Where, many kings and aristocrats would exercise tremendous amounts of influence over the average person. This is significant, because the overall brutality that was faced and the oppression that they would feel (from these regimes), would create a desire in people wanting to control their own destiny. In this aspect, this film would provide a good background of the emotions and violence that was faced by the average person (as they were forced conform to the system or face persecution). This would help an individual to understand the culture and events that were taking place at the time (as it can allow the viewer to see what is happening, from the eyes of the ordinary person during the 1200's).

However, if you are using the film to establish historical accuracy, the various: events and places will not match the actual record. Part of the reason for this, is because the story has been consistently retold over 900 years. As a result, the names, events and places could be vastly different in comparison with what actually happened. A good example of this can be seen with signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. This document would eventually help establish the modern day democracy in Great Britain. Yet, the struggle was hard fought, as it would be another 100 years until it was implemented. At the same time, King John was overthrown in 1264 for similar kinds of reason.