In a nutshell, Robin Hood is more Mannerism from Disney.
"Mannerism" is a term that art historians use to describe periods in which artists are concerned less with interpreting reality than with working within the interpretations of reality created by a previous generation. The result is often visibly artificial, contrived, and distorted, although some Mannerist artists (such as El Greco) are nevertheless able to scale great emotional heights within the limits of the Mannerist paradigm.
For the generation that grew up between Sleeping Beauty (1959) and The Little Mermaid (1986), Disney offered a series of essentially Mannerist films. This is not to damn the entire product as worthless. Mary Poppins is as good a fantasy film as any before or since and the Winnie the Pooh extended shorts are whimsical and endearing. But again and again, there is a repeated reliance on standardised character design, cliched story twists, overly sentimental songwriting, and the use of strong character voices as a crutch for insincere personality animation. At its worst (Sword and the Stone and Pete's Dragon), Disney came close to forever tarnishing the magic of the Magic Kingdom.
There are some who would place Robin Hood in the latter category. I disagree. Sure, Robin Hood has a dated, static directing style that compares unfavorably to live-action fims of the same era. The visuals are depressingly predictable after Yellow Submarine and The Point, both released around the same time. There isn't a song in the soundtrack that you are likely to recall after the film is over. The lead characters of Robin Hood and Maid Marion are exceptionally bland (even by Disney standards), and there's a heavy reliance on cute, secondary animal characters to provide comic relief.
(This last quality is bizarre for two reasons. Firstly, the *entire* cast of characters are animals! Secondly, these supporting characters are neither cute nor funny, just annoying).
However, Robin Hood retains a sparkle that, say The Black Cauldron does not. Much of this is due to the fantastic voice acting of Peter Ustinov as Prince John. I have no idea why such a bombastic personality as Ustinov is under-rated and underappreciated, but his distinct timbre and timing are pleasures to the ear. He lends the lion Prince John a comic depth the character does not truly possess. Phil Harris and Terry-Thomas deserve praise to a lesser degree than Ustinov. A secondary reason for the film's worth are the character designs. True, these are essentially slightly modified Jungle Book designs (Little John is almost identical to Baloo in both design and voice). Nevertheless, they are appealing and it is a treat to once again see creatures who would have been right at home in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Animation fans will note that the Rooster which acts as a wandering minstrel bears a strong similarity to the later Don Bluth rooster in Rock-A-Doodle; Bluth was one of the key animators on this film.
The decision to cast all the lead characters as forest animals is truly an odd one, and one I am not entirely comfortable with. Aside from the name "Richard the Lionhearted" and the medieval legends of Reynard the Fox, there is no real justification for this bizarre decision. It certainly doesn't add anything to the retelling of Robin Hood. However, from a historical perspective, the decision is an interesting one. Robin Hood is one of the few feature-length animated films that features what modern fandom terms "furries." Furries are anthropomorphic animals, and while much of furry art and fiction is decidedly adult in nature, precious little of furry art appears in feature films. For this reason, Robin Hood becomes more interesting to animation scholars, as it sheds light on a very select subgroup of fantasy fans.
I'm not going to stretch my credibility by claiming that Robin Hood is a lost classic on the level of Cinderella or Snow White. Robin Hood is a mediocre animated film by almost any standard. Mediocre doesn't mean worthless, however. For the reasons listed above, I think that animation fans who haven't seen Robin Hood yet will be able to get something out of it. Robin Hood isn't really worthy of a full-price purchase either, but if you can find a bargain copy, it might make good viewing for the kids. It certainly looks better than many of the direct-to-video sequels that Disney and others have recently released.
 |
Other NonAnime Reviews Who Framed Roger Rabbit Review* World's Finest Review Yellow Submarine Review Mulan Review* Point Review |
Get your ownFree Home Page