Why This Film is Not Gladiator: Robin Hood, Part 2

Posted by Jennine Lanouette on Monday, May 24th, 2010

Despite the producer’s efforts to spin it so, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is not Gladiator In Tights. I know this because, it so happens, last week, I analyzed Gladiator in my class. Not a film I might choose on my own. But, a year ago, I was asked to cover an action film and, from a short list I was given, I chose this one on an instinct that it had more going on than the average actioner. By now, having lectured on it three times, I have developed a great fondness for it, despite all the blood spurting and body slicing. In fact, I would put it at the pinnacle of a subgenre I like to think of as: The thinking person’s action film. Sadly, Robin Hood does not come close to meeting this standard, which begs the question – What exactly is it that makes Gladiator a thinking person’s action film whereas Robin Hood is not?

Here’s the first thing that sets Gladiator apart: The conflict of the plot is grounded in a conflict in political philosophy. Marcus Aurelius wants to transition Rome from an empire to a republic. He has chosen Maximus as the person to entrust with that task. His son Commodus, meanwhile, wants to keep Rome as an empire to secure his place in power. Maximus is caught between the two.  No shortage of tension in this situation.

The plot conflict in Robin Hood, on the other hand, is just the warring interests of three self-serving kings. No philosophy or other sort of larger ideas behind it. No wonder Robin Hood washes his hands of the whole thing when he leaves London for Nottingham. And, indeed, he is free to do so. Not a lot of tension there.

Here’s the second thing: Maximus’ internal conflict is that he wants to go home to rejoin his wife and son. But his emperor/mentor/father figure has asked him to do one more thing for him. One more tiny favor. Just go to Rome and steward this humongous, creaky, groaning ship of state as it makes a slow delicate left turn away from the volatility of monarchic empire to come to rest in the security of democratic republic. Can you do that one thing? Please?

Remember, Maximus has made it clear from the start that as soon as this damn war is done, he’s out of here. He says repeatedly that he plans to go home. Now, if Marcus Aurelius had not asked him for this one last favor, in the process expressing his will for Rome to become a republic, Maximus would have been free to go home, regardless of Commodus’ power plays. Whether Rome remained an empire or became a republic would not have been his problem. He’s going home to Spain, far removed from all the political machinations. So his internal conflict of whether to go home to his wife and son or to serve Rome in one more capacity is created by his bond with Marcus Aurelius. That makes the empire vs. republic debate personal to him. This is quite an internal bind.

As for Robin Hood’s internal bind? I’ve only seen the film once, but I can’t think of anything quite so compelling as what Maximus is faced with. Can you?

So it’s also Marcus Aurelius’ request, drawing as it does upon Maximus’ bond with him,  that drives Maximus to reject Commodus’ demand for allegiance and lands him in front of the execution squad. He wriggles out of that one and races home, but it is too late. His wife and son have been killed.  Now his desire to go home has turned metaphoric. Now he wants to go (((Home))), as in Heaven, to join his wife and son.

There’s just one itty bitty problem with going (((Home))). In ancient Roman culture, dying is not a simple matter. There are Good Deaths and Bad Deaths. The best kind of death is in the glory of battle, as we learn from Maximus when he addresses the cavalry. Later, we learn what makes a bad death from Juba, the African slave. “Don’t die,” he says to the caged, delirious Maximus. “They will feed you to the lions.”

So what’s at stake in this story? Maximus is not negotiating the usual action hero tension between life and death. He has lost everything – wife, son, home, position, community – such that he wants to die. What’s at stake for him, instead, is if he will still manage to achieve a Good Death, despite having given up on life. This is a problem that is highly individual to Maximus. Thus, we have a nicely complex character.

Don’t recall any such complexity in Robin Hood. Do you?

Now, here’s the third thing that sets Gladiator apart: the thematic conflict between satisfying personal wishes and serving the common good. Let me lay out the thematic progression for you:

Your emperor/mentor/father figure asks you to defer your personal desire in favor of serving the greater good. You say no at first, but you know you will have to say yes. This is your mentor and he is speaking on behalf of the greater good. Then, you are all ready to defend your mentor’s wishes when you are told your family is about to be killed. Well, that trumps the greater good, for sure. Now you have to go save your family. This is an unquestionably justifiable reason for putting your personal needs first.

But you fail. Your family is dead, your home burned. Further, you’ve lost your exalted position in society and have been taken into slavery. Okay, no call to serve the greater good now. Surely, such unimaginable loss justifies living in service to personal desires. The Fates have been cruel to you. How much can one be expected to suffer and still prioritize the greater good? You are sure now that life is just every man for himself and you are completely in the right to simply serve your own impulses. “I’m going to get my revenge,” you decide. “To hell with Rome, the Republic, democracy, the people. To hell with Marcus Aurelius!” You resolve to kill your adversary.

And you are justified in killing Commodus. He deserves to die. It’s the right thing to do. But the Fates have another idea. Doing the right thing is important. But by itself, it’s not enough to get you a Good Death. You have to do the right thing for the right reason. And vengeance is the wrong reason.

What we have here is Maximus being pulled in two directions by the secondary characters surrounding him. On the one hand, Commodus pulls him towards base-impulse reptilian revenge. On the other, the memory of Marcus Aurelius, and his current advocate in Lucilla, pulls Maximus towards saving Rome. That’s where his soul hangs in the balance. Will he succeed in moving beyond his lower impulses so he can do the right thing for the higher purpose of saving Rome? Ultimately, that’s what he does. And that’s when he can, finally, go Home.

On the plot level, Maximus has gone from seeing Rome lost to a self-serving emperor, to being the one who ensures Rome’s future as a republic. On the character level, he has gone from wanting to die at any cost, to having the Good Death that will free his soul. And on the theme level, he has gone from wanting to only satisfy his personal desires to joining Lucilla in serving the common good.

Do I have to bring this discussion back to Robin Hood? Or can I just leave it here.

Think I’ll just leave it here.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

You can watch Robin Hood on the following Video On Demand websites:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………