Men in Tights

In 1993, some two years after Prince of Thieves, Mel Brooks directed Robin Hood: Men in Tights(1). Brooks is known for his spoofs on various film genres. The horror movie, the western, the musical, to name a few, have all had the Brooks treatment, so it should not come as any great surprise that he should comment on the Hood legend, but when we consider his film we are looking, not at a sideways swipe at the legend of Robin Hood itself, but a comment, knowingly or unknowingly, on the treatment of the legend in film. That this film is a direct result and reaction to the Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves version is in no doubt. The grammatical construction of the title being an obvious connection. In this we have characters such as the Sheriff of Rottingham, Will Scarlet O'Hara, Latrine, Ahchoo and Asneeze. The character Asneeze being a direct tongue in cheek reference to the Morgan Freeman character Azeem in Prince of Thieves, who has his origin in Nazir, played by Mark Ryan in Robin of Sherwood. So what we are looking at is a spoof of a film which is itself historically incorrect and bears little relationship to the original Robin Hood legend. We are drifting into secondary territory, less to do with the authentic image of Robin Hood being portrayed in television and film and more to do with commenting on how the image of Robin Hood is portrayed within film convention and construct. This begins to take us down a somewhat incestuous route; film being born of film. However, it is only through the fact that the character is portrayed in the manner Costner portrays him, that allows a director like Mel Brooks to push the audience that bit further. The audience is taken in by the romance and, supposed, seriousness of the Reynolds film, whereas Brooks presents them with a film which blatantly states, this is not meant to be historical, mythological or serious. This is played for laughs. From the point of view of finding an authentic Robin within film, however, these two films have more in common than they would wish to admit, hence the ease in which Brooks could create a spoof version. The fact that Alan Rickman played the part of the Sheriff of Nottingham with a marvellous sense of the ridiculous in the Reynolds film, he would not have been out of place in the Brooks parody, lends weight to the argument that both are equally ridiculous versions of the true Robin Hood mythology. In Sight and Sound(2) Mel Brooks' film was reviewed by Geoffrey Macnab. He makes the point that it, slavishly, followed the Costner movie plot right up to the appearance of the king at the end, this time played by Patrick Stewart, and the attempt of the actor Roger Rees to mimic Rickman's portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham, here called the Sheriff of Rottingham. MacNab continues to state that Prince of Thieves is, actually, in most respects funnier than the film which was meant to parody it. All in all most critics were scathing of the Brooks film. In the same review, MacNab makes the comment that Prince of Thieves was a parody anyway. In other words it was meant to be played for laughs. It is easy to see this in Alan Rickman's performance and, perhaps, in the impossible stunts, but this film does try to take itself seriously to some degree. This is a problem with contemporary American cinema. whether the blurring of the edges around particular genres is an intentional move on the part of directors and producers is open to debate, but is Robin Hood; Prince of Thieves a parody, a romantic comedy, an action adventure or a combination of all of these in attempt to attract a large audience appeal. The negative side of this approach is confusion, or worse still, blandness. Unfortunately, it is the opinion of the author, that both Prince of Thieves and Men in Tights suffer as a result of this. A quick survey of viewers comments listed on the International Movie Database web site demonstrates quite clearly that both proved to be popular films with the general audience despite the critics' opinions. This is an unfortunate indictment of the general audience going to watch film. This is hardly challenging material, blandness is popular it would seem. It is the long standing debate of education or entertainment. Hollywood is, primarily, an entertainment industry. Anything approaching a detailed exploration of the mythic concepts of the authentic Robin Hood would seem to turn an audience away, they would much rather sit back passively and be entertained. This may sound like an elitist opinion, but surely, if you are going to tell the story, then tell it truthfully, or not at all. You can not form a considered opinion of the Roman Empire by watching Up Pompeii. The real Robin Hood is lost in the forest somewhere, a modern audience only familiar with these imposters who seek to ruin his reputation.

The Robin Hood character played by Cary Elwes in Men in Tights is based on the Errol Flynn portrayal, the men in tights of the title and, indeed, he bears a resemblance to Flynn. This is the only departure Brooks makes. He had to, he would not have his film title otherwise, but he is also aware of the humorous implications of men in tights. Apart from the Carry on style innuendo inherent in any situation where men are wearing female clothing, there is also the fact that it really is a ridiculous idea. Hardened rebels running around a forest, getting involved in sword fights, and wearing thin leg hugging tights. Where does this image derive from.

It, certainly, does not come down from the clothing common in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, the era the ballads emerged. The style of dress during the Elizabethan period of the sixteenth century, when England was becoming a world power, is closer to this image of skin tight leggings, but the other common factor with this image of Robin Hood is the colour green. The merry men dressed in Lincoln green is an enduring facet of the popular conception of this mythology. Here we have the real clue to the origins of this dress style.

Obviously, the first comment anyone would make is that green is a intelligent choice when it comes to hiding in a green wood, but there is a deeper symbolism which stretches back into pre-history and which sheds light on one of the real origins of Robin Hood. Traditionally, in the wealth of folk lore within the British Isles green is known as the colour of Faery, the inhabitants of the Otherworld. If we examine Robin Hood in this context it does not take long to find his alter-ego in the folk lore character of Robin Goodfellow. Here we have a playful, mischievous character who delights in fun and games, and who is linked to the May Day celebrations that welcomed the return of summer. We have returned once more to this mythical origin, Robin Hood as the Summer King. This is why, the concept of Robin Hood dying and returning is such a fundamental one. He represents summer and summer grows and dies, being overcome by winter, only to return fresh once again in the next spring. This is one of the reasonsthat Robin of Sherwood remains such an influential series; it is the only television or film production that recognises this important aspect of the mythology. It also, incidentally, broke the mould concerning men in Lincoln green tights, a trend which continued in to the succeeding film versions. The costume Costner wears bears more resemblance to Michael Praed's than it does to that worn by Errol Flynn, for example.

Before we draw to a close with this exploration and examination of Robin Hood in film and television, one last film should be included: Robin and Marian(3), directed by Richard Lester, released in 1976, and starring Sean Connery in the lead role. This film has, recently, received reappraisal. It deals with an older Robin. It was, in fact, one of the first films that showed Sean Connery maturing in years, leaving behind his glamorous Bond image. Once again humour was woven into the story, but a gentler humour than the later films of the 1990's. The merry men are getting on in years and can not do the things they could in their younger days, run as fast or jump as high, but what is in their hearts has not altered. Their sense of justice, their honour, their personal code of conduct has not changed. This is the important thing, the enduring message which makes a mythology, an archetypal teaching that survives the centuries and is assimilated into each generation.

Sean Connery plays Robin Hood, the archetypal Summer King, at the end of his span, when his powers wain. Robin Goodfellow in the winter of his years. That some fifteen years later he should return as King Richard to pass his blessing on to the new Robin Hood in the shape of Kevin Costner is a fitting and poetic irony. Whether Connery or anyone involved with the making of Prince of Thieves, were aware of this remains unknown. One could also make a similar comment about the coincidence of Sean Connery's son, Jason, playing the role in the final series of Robin of Sherwood. Some aspects of the mythology seem to insist that they are included whether the actual makers of the piece are aware of them or not, it would seem.

1- reference no longer available.

2- Sight & Sound magazine. Volume 4. Issue 1. 1993. Page 51.

3- reference no longer available.