Robin of Sherwood or Robin Hood?

v.

I would like to point out that there are simply too many versions of the Robin Hood story in TV/Film alone to even attempt to do a comparison of them all—at least, not in one blog. (Maybe someday, I’ll attempt some such thing, but this blog entry has already worn me out!) Anyway, over the last several (read: many) months, the two particular versions that have kept the bulk of my interest have been Robin Hood and Robin of Sherwood. Thus, this and the next (technically, the previous) post will be drawing comparisons between those two shows, giving my own personal analysis of what works and what doesn’t.

*Warning—the following analyses may contain spoilers.*

Robin of Sherwood (1984-1986):

Synopsis: Robin of Loxley (and later Robert of Huntingdon) is called by Herne the Hunter to protect the people against the unjust rule of the Normans, most especially the greedy and unscrupulous Sheriff of Nottingham and his lieutenant, Sir Guy of Gisburne.

On the plus side: I like that this series finds a clever way to incorporate the dual origins of Robin Hood (peasant v. nobleman). There is an interesting use of mysticism connected with Herne the Hunter, which helps add to the Saxon v. Norman issue; though magic isn’t exactly involved, there are definitely supernatural elements. As such, the storylines are pretty creative—it’s not always Robin v. the Sheriff/Gisburne. I like that there is a realism to the way people react to Robin—he’s not universally adored just because they hate the Sheriff. He is an outlaw, so sometimes the people are afraid to like him, they may doubt him because he is an outlaw, or sometimes even doubt his motives. I also find it interesting that, in keeping with the Saxon v. Norman vibe, King Richard is not a sympathetic character (straying from popular culture)—in fact, he and Robin have a bit of a clash in one episode.

The not so good side: First, considering how Robin’s skill with a bow was as legendary as the outlaw himself, there isn’t as much bow use as I expected—Robin (especially Loxley) seems to rely more frequently on the sword than the bow—and even when it is used, there’s not much to suggest anything extraordinary about his skill (aside from the competition in the first episode). Also, for someone whose name typically derives from his wearing of a hood, neither Robin wears a hood much. Some of the writing is weak—moments with potential emotional power/impact are sometimes left wanting. I’m not at all convinced with the Loxley/Marion “love at first sight”—nothing really makes their initial relationship believable. Considering the fact that it was made in the 1980s, the sound effects/special effects are sometimes a bit cheesy (e.g. the "Muppet of death")-though I’m sure some were pretty good for the time- and I’m not really a fan of the quasi-mullet/feathered hair look of both Robins. Gisburne seems too much the petulant, whiny, spoiled child than a good villain. The music does not always fit well with the action (which is probably because Clannad didn’t see the show before writing it—they just wrote music for the show that the directors/producers then incorporated as they saw fit). Finally, THE END of it—I don’t care what their reasons were, I still hate the way it ended and think it was stupid!

What makes it worth watching: Nasir is easily the coolest part of the gang (which is ironic considering that his character wasn’t supposed to live past the first episode)—as a mostly silent, double-saber-wielding Saracen, he is just awesome! Marion is also a fantastic force, able to be “one of the guys” when it comes to the fighting, but also still able to exude the right amount of femininity. The Sheriff of Nottingham is a fantastic villain, with just the right amount of crazy. Loxley’s death scene in “The Greatest Enemy” is actually very well done, very powerful (that whole episode, really, is a good one for many reasons). If nothing else, it is worth watching to see how much it has influenced nearly every Robin Hood re-telling in the years since (e.g. Robin having a Middle-Eastern companion originated here), and more (even Willow was influenced in part by this show).

Some favorite episodes: “Swords of Wayland” (Season 2), “The Greatest Enemy” (Season 2), “The Sheriff of Nottingham” (Season 3), “The Betrayal” (Season 3).

General conclusion: The show is campy (though no more so than most other 80s dramas of the time), but entertaining. I will admit that I prefer the Jason Connery episodes over the Michael Praed ones.

Robin Hood (2006-2009):

Synopsis: Robin, Earl of Huntingdon, returns from the Crusades with his trusty manservant, Much, only to find the old Sheriff of Nottingham, a friend and father of his ladylove, Marian, has been replaced by a much more dastardly villain who cares nothing for true justice. He gives up his inheritance to fight against the sheriff and his dark, brooding man-at-arms, Sir Guy of Gisborne and to protect the people any way he can.

On the plus side: I love that this show doesn’t take itself too seriously—there is a lot of cheeky humor, and they aren’t afraid to delve into the realm of “silly” every now and then. There is a lot of nice bow action—some impressive shots made by Robin that are much more in keeping with the Robin Hood legend. Robin himself is characterized nicely with his strong sense of justice and his willingness to sacrifice so much—his own life, if need be—for the people, even if they aren’t always grateful. I love Little John and his way with words. Marian adds some pretty cool action as the Night Watchman. In fact, most of the characters are people we come to care about. Despite being a more lighthearted show, it still takes time to deal with serious issues (e.g. Little John having to deal with his wife’s anger and hurt when she learns he’s been alive for all the years she thought he was dead, the gang talking through their issues with each other when it looks like death is inevitable, etc.). I’m okay with the fact that they draw parallels with current events so that they can make effective social commentaries. There are at least a couple of redemption stories (and let’s be honest, who doesn’t love a good redemption story?). And the ending is satisfying in its own way—Robin gets a hero’s ending, Guy is able to find redemption, and the villains get their just desserts.

The not so good side: As in Robin of Sherwood, this Robin does not wear a hood very often, either. When he does, it frequently looks more like he’s wearing a medieval-style hoodie. There are a good number of anachronisms in the show—and we’re not just talking mistakes that were overlooked. They are either big ones (such as an Anglo-African Tuck as a priest) or careless ones (a character wearing what are obviously modern-day army fatigues poorly hidden under a few medieval-esque accessories). While I like the idea of Marian acting as a spy in Nottingham Castle, she’s a little too convincing when she flirts with Gisborne to keep him away from Robin. Either she’s seriously got a soft spot for the bad boy (which would be a stupid way to go) or she’s seriously manipulative and duplicitous (which wouldn’t speak very well of her character in general). Whatever the case, I’m not a fan of her apparent flip-flopping. Speaking of Marian, while she ends up with a poignant death scene, I didn’t like that she dies (though they had to come up with something, since the actress wanted to leave the show, and I suppose they didn’t think a replacement Marian would be accepted by audiences…). I also don’t like that most of the threats—even those given by the villains—tend to be empty. True, it’s a family show, but it’s still a little ridiculous that all someone has to do is whine and pout a bit and they are given yet another chance, even after the dozen they’d already had (At least in RoS, most of the threats are carried out). And then there is Season 3. Sure, it has its moments (including the redemption of both Guy of Gisborne and Alan a Dale), but it stretches credulity a little too much, most likely for ratings (e.g. Robin has a romance with both Isabella and Kate, Guy and Robin find out they share a half-brother, and other such things…).

What makes it worth watching: Keith Allen’s Sheriff of Nottingham is delightfully over the top—he borders on the ridiculous, but I find it entertaining nonetheless. Robin himself is a fun character (and charmingly cute in a way). The gang as a whole adds a lot of fun, each character adding their own unique touch to the humor. The stories are generally engaging stories filled with sufficient action—I was easily sucked in, anyway. Despite Marian’s convincing flirtation with Guy, the romance between her and Robin is still pretty compelling. And then there are the redemption stories.

Some favorite episodes: “Sister Hood” (Season 2), “Get Carter” (Season 2), “A Good Day to Die” (Season 2),

General conclusion: As previously noted, the show can get a bit silly, but it is fun and appealing. You can pretty much ignore Season 3—or, if you need closure after the tragedy of Marian, just watch the first episode. You get plenty of good stuff in the first two seasons alone.

Overall series winner: Robin Hood. I just think that the overall combination of elements and chemistry in Robin Hood worked better than in Robin of Sherwood.

*I should note, however, that the more I’ve watched Robin Hood, the more I see the flaws (though I still find it very enjoyable), yet the more I’ve watched Robin of Sherwood, the more I can see why people are still drawn to it, despite its campy feel—I can better see the value and I’m better able to appreciate it.

"Old" v. "New"

First, I give you "The Merries":

Robin v. Robert v. Robin

Likes: Michael Praed makes a very nice-looking Robin (despite the 80s rock band/faux mullet style hair)- he is likeable as a rather reluctant hero, responding to a calling that had been given to his father and eventually passed to him. Jason Connery’s Robert of Huntingdon does a much better job of capturing the personality I’ve always associated with Robin Hood—cocky but good-natured, playful but knowing when to be serious, etc. Jonas Armstrong’s Robin is much the same (even the gap-toothed grin adds to the charm somehow), and I like how his Robin is much more impressive with the bow, something I think is fairly essential to the character of Robin. All three are good with the fighting/action.

Winner: Jason Connery—he does the best job capturing the essence of Robin’s character. (Jonas Armstrong is a close second, but loses on account of his relationships with both Isabella and Kate.)

Lady Marion v. Lady Marian

Likes: Both women are strong-willed and independent, avoiding any “damsel in distress” stereotypes. Judi Trott’s Marion is part of the gang of Merry Men, joining with them in their various escapades, while Lucy Griffiths’ Marian acts as a spy for Robin in Nottingham Castle whilst masquerading as her own vigilante, the Night Watchman.

Winner: This one is tough—I really do like both characterizations of Marion/an overall. However, though I still hate Marion’s decision to become a nun even after she discovers Robin (Robert) wasn’t killed after all, I hate Marian’s flip-flopping even more. Judi Trott wins this round.

Little John v. Little John

Likes: Clive Mantle’s gives Little John a very bearish look, reinforced by his shaggy hair and the furs he typically wears. Gordon Kennedy’s Little John is similar, minus the furs. Both are huge; both are formidable with the quarterstaff; at one point, both consider choosing marriage and family over life in Robin’s gang (though they both end up staying in the gang). I do like how Gordon Kennedy’s Little John, a man of few words, finds a way to make them memorable.

Winner: This one is also a hard choice. Since they are both very similar in the way they bring Little John to life, I declare this one to be a tie.

Friar Tuck v. Brother Tuck

Likes: Phil Rose’s Friar Tuck is very likeable—he goes with the typical jovial interpretation, and it works. What is interesting is he is still able to maintain his Christian faith whilst respecting the fact that Robin and crew revere Herne the Hunter as their spiritual guide. It is a curious blend of paganism and Christianity, but I rather like it. I also like that despite his experience as a friar, he still fights for truth and justice. David Harewood is more unconventional—to begin with, he’s of African descent. He is not the stereotypical “fat friar”—in fact, he is not a friar at all, but just a priest (which is actually historically accurate—friars did not exist at the time of King Richard I). He portrays Tuck as a very strong-willed, progressive-thinking leader who pushes Robin to keep fighting for the people because the idea of Robin Hood is what gives them hope. Although he respects Robin as the leader of the gang, he has his own ideas of how things should be done, which sometimes clashes with how Robin thinks they should go.

Winner: Though I appreciate the originality of David Harewood’s Tuck, it just doesn’t quite fit with the Robin Hood story. This one definitely goes to Phil Rose.

Will Scadlock/Scarlet v. Will Scarlet

Likes: Ray Winstone is fantastic as a fiery, hot-headed Will who would much rather take money for himself than do it for altruistic reasons. He sometimes challenges Robin, especially when Robert comes on the scene to take over the leadership of the “Merries.” He also has a personal vendetta against all Normans, since Norman soldiers had raped and murdered his wife in the not-too-distant past. Harry Lloyd’s Will is much more mellow. He’s more on the reticent side of things, but he has known Robin for years—even before the Crusades when Robin was still a nobleman—and is loyal to him. I like that he develops a romantic relationship with Djaq, even going so far as to stay with her in Acre.

Winner: This one is a tough call. They are on such opposite ends of the spectrum, but each does a fantastic job with their interpretation. I think I’ll go with Harry Lloyd, though, because his is the Will I picture for my story.

Much v. Much

Likes: Peter Llewellyn Williams does a great job as far as his character is concerned. (I’m just not sure I agree that Much should be a simple-minded person.) I do like that he brings a sort of innocence to the gang, and his unconditional loyalty to Robin (which quickly transfers to Robert when he takes over) is sweet. Sam Troughton’s Much is more the loyal, comic sidekick—Robin’s manservant who followed him to the Crusades and back again, who is always ready to see the gloomy, practical side of things and ends up creating much of the humor. He is appealing in his own way, and I was very disappointed that he didn’t end up with Kate as a love interest, as he should have.

Winner: Sam Troughton’s comedic, complex character wins out over the innocence of Peter Williams.

Nasir v. Djaq (a.k.a. The Saracens)

Likes: Since both series put Robin Hood at the time of the Crusades, I like how both characters, as Saracens, bring the Crusades back to England. Mark Ryan’s Nasir doesn’t say much with his mouth; instead, he says plenty with both his swords. From the get go, he was really just cool. Anjali Jay’s Djaq is skilled with bow and sword as well as with medicine, which helps the gang out of several tight pinches. She also contributes the much-touted superior knowledge of the Saracens (“black powder,” for example). What is also impressive is that for several episodes, she’s able to hide the fact that she’s a female from the rest of the gang.

Winner: Anjali Jay is pretty cool with fighting skills and medical know-how, but somehow, even with so few lines, Mark Ryan makes Nasir pretty much awesome! (Of course, I’m easily swayed by anyone fighting with two swords!)

Now, the Villains:

Sheriff Robert de Rainault v. Sheriff Vaisey

Likes: Nickolas Grace plays a greedy, ruthless, corrupt Sheriff. Keith Allen plays a greedy, ruthless, corrupt Sheriff who is also quite ambitious. The difference? Keith Allen is a little more flamboyantly over the top, while Nickolas Grace is only slightly more subtle, very reminiscent of many Tim Curry villains (I am, of course, not counting The Rocky Horror Picture Show). I like that Nick Grace may be unscrupulous, but somewhere in his unstable mind, he thinks he really is upholding the law. He hates Robin not only because Robin steals money that is rightfully his, even if it is oppressive for the people, but also because Robin operates outside the law that he is responsible for upholding. Keith Allen goes with the Alan Rickman-type Sheriff who is willing to go so far as to depose the rightful King in order to further his own ambitions. He is conniving, manipulative, merciless, and mostly hates Robin because Robin keeps disrupting his carefully laid plans of treachery.

Winner: Nick Grace—as entertaining as Keith Allen is, I like Nickolas Grace’s Tim Curry-esque Sheriff better—over-the-top without pushing too far into ridiculous, so his crazy element is a bit more believable.

Sir Guy of Gisburne v. Sir Guy of Gisborne

Likes: Though Robert Addie’s acting is solid, I just didn’t like how the writer/directors interpreted the character—far too whiny a bully to be a good villain. Still, he has moments where he is appropriately (villainous), and I like that he is still human and not entirely ruthless like the Sheriff. On the other hand, Richard Armitage’s Gisborne is a darker, brooding villain whose primary weakness is his genuine attraction to Marian. Unfortunately, he seems to think the “bad boy” persona is more likely to win her, even though she repeatedly tells him otherwise. However, despite some terrible deeds he commits in the course of the series, he is at last able to find redemption when he realizes just how dastardly and duplicitous the Sheriff really is and decides to actually help Robin.

Winner: Richard Armitage, hands down!

So, there you have it--my lengthy analysis of two enjoyable Robin Hood series. Now, it is up to you to decide if you want to make it worth your while to check them out...

Winter, come and gone...

I know, I know. I haven't been blogging lately. Sorry. I guess I just haven't felt that much in my recent life was blog-worthy (except perhaps Christmas, but I was too busy enjoying my family to do it then, and then it just got forgotten in the daily/weekly shuffle in the time that followed). Mostly, my life has been a lot of work and chilling at home when I'm not working. Nothing spectacular.

Still, I've been feeling the blogging bug again--at least a little bit. First, to share the one big piece of news that will significantly impact my life in the near future: I've been accepted into the MLIS program at Syracuse University! This is a big thing for me, especially considering the fact that SU was one of the main reasons for my relocation. Sure, I figured if I didn't get in, I could always re-apply next year, or apply to an online program at a different school. But I am so grateful I don't have to consider those options, now that I have been accepted for the fall semester. That is a HUGE load off my shoulders. (Now, of course, I have to find a way to pay for it. One thing at a time, though...)

The other thing I felt semi-inspired to blog about was winter/snow. Like pretty much the rest of the country, this has apparently been a bizarre winter for the Syracuse area. Bizarre as in mild. Despite all the rumors I'd heard about the "lake effect" and how the Syracuse region typically gets more snow than any other part of New York, I wasn't seeing much of it at ALL. I don't think we even got any snow until January. And even when we did get any accumulation, it was usually gone within 48 hours, due to fluctuating temperatures. Thus, it has been hard for me to even get pictures of my neighborhood blanketed in white.

Sure, most of you are thinking, "Isn't this a GOOD thing?" I will only say "Maybe" because I didn't have money for snow tires. But generally, I say "NO!" because I like snow in the wintertime, and because the pessimist in me believes that the less snow we get in the winter, the MORE it will wreak vengeance/havoc in the spring/summer months, when I want all snow to be GONE!

All that being said, we did get a nice, fluffy, cotton-candy-esque snowfall Sunday night/Monday morning. Since I didn't have to be to work until later Monday morning, I grabbed my camera so I could try to snag a few shots on my morning walk.

Thus, I present you with "A Snowy Syracuse Morning" (or "Walking Through the Park on a Snowy Morning"):

Our apartment, winter-style.


Frankie, dressed in white.

And here are a few shots of Barry Park and the waterway just down the street from the apartment:

Not surprisingly, despite the depth of the snow in the morning, it was about half-gone by the afternoon, and will probably be completely gone within the next day or two. Still, while I am keeping my fingers crossed that Spring arrives on time, it was a lovely walk--calm, peaceful, serene- with that nice hushed, subdued quality that only snow can bring.