Ridley Scott

"ROBIN HOOD" MOVIE:
Anglo-Saxon debate about the "author’s rights" for liberty and democracy

Group of documents, which – at a stretch – may be referred to the principal laws of Great Britain, originates from the very Magna Carta. It has nothing revolutionary in it, though. From the legal point of view, the much-talked-about "Yaroslav’s Justice"¹, which was in use in Russia for a long time then, was more "advanced" document of its period. English Magna Carta, however, became the sacred myth and the "foundation stone of liberty", whatever that word may mean. "Robin Hood" directed by Ridley Scott is the first – may it be the probing one – attempt to work with that myth.

Guest from the present

There’s a rather small group of directors, capable of making historical movies. And it is Ridley Scott, – who created "Gladiator", "Kingdom, of Heaven" and "Robin Hood" – who leads this group. It is exactly the "Gladiator" that is considered to be the movie that brought the sympathies of the mass audience to the historical movie genre – the one that lost it since the times of "Ben-Hur" and "Cleopatra". Not the least of the factors is that in the 80s Ridley Scott with his "Blade-Runner" and "Alien" quadrilogy also headed the group of directors who were the best at shooting the films about the future. There’s no contradiction here. In order to understand humanity we have to look where we are going to at first, and then – where have we come from.

Such leaps from one epoch to another cannot go without a trace for an honest artist. Future is getting to be known with our mind, while the past – with our emotions. Ridley Scott managed to succeed at both fields. It happened due to a rather simple artistic trick he used to apply in all the cases. In fact, main hero of all of his films is the contemporary of ours – who, in an unknown way, fetched himself in the other period of time and discovers the events that take place around him. He shows the typical reactions of the white Anglo-Saxon man from the 90s. His position is strictly democratic and anti-clerical. He doesn’t understand the matters of nobility and sanctity, having preferred to cast them away in disgust.

At the "Kingdom of Heaven" he spends a night at Golgotha Hill and in the morning he throws his cross away. In "Robin Hood" he refuses to accept the accidentally obtained title and becomes Robin Longstride again, having – we need to add this – terribly crossed up those surrounding him. Final scenes of these movies are quite symptomatic. Having succeeded at their deeds and having, without doubt, influenced the history, heroes suddenly vanish in the fog of an absolute resignation. Gladiator may have tried to become a Roman emperor. Baron of Ibelin, last protector of Jerusalem could have become a living legend of the Crusades era. Sir Robert Loxley, having rebuffed the French invasion of England, could have acquired the marshal’s baton. Instead of that we see the escape from the history, constraining the field of activity with the village smithery or the clearing in the woods.

To wait until the "Mayflower" leaves

What can we do at these locations, lying in the great distance from the historical deeds? I will put forth a cautious suggestion – to wait until the "Mayflower" leaves, having driven the first group of truly free people, willing to build an actually independent society (quotation marks are implied) away. Any Christian historian, speaking of the holy history before Christ wouldn’t fail to add that the real morality became possible only after the embodiment of the Son of God. Even the pious Job, who pleased God the most, exclaimed "In grief will I go down to Abaddon". Every moral deed of a man was colored with an indelible seal of the original sin. That’s why the "Ecclesiastes"’ eternal grief was considered to be the most sober attitude: "everything passes and there’s nothing new under the sun", "the more knowledge, the more grief".

Well, the Christian historians have the right for that, as long as they’re talking about the history of holiness rather than about history in general, but who granted Ridley Scott the right to bring on the thought that true political deed became possible only after the "Mayflower"? This is a rhetorical issue, and I’m pretty sure that for Ridley Scott himself and for the common Americans this issue is out of question. All the world history is a rather protracted prologue for the history of America. Just when Greece and Rome have prepared the world for acceptance of the progressive democracy, there you go – emperors ascended the throne and everything was to be started all over from the very beginning. Just when the world was ready for the mutual enrichment of the religions and cultures, brute and greedy Crusaders started the Crusades.

Magna Carta

Main theme of the "Robin Hood" movie is concentrated around the event of no small importance for the English history – signing of the Great Charter or Magna Carta by the King John. This document limited the king’s power over his vassals. In order to understand its significance we should know that the British Empire, state with the ancient democratic traditions, has no constitution at all. That’s why recent words of a certain Russian liberal functionary, stating that in England the elections take place according to the constitution, were met with a sincere good-natured laughter. Indeed, what does the man who invented the automobile might need the instruction for? Leave these manuals to those who are willing to use this car.

Americans, being very proud of their constitution, at the same time sub-consciously feel the slightest nuance like this one. It may not be perceivable by the common citizens, but for the "uncommon ones" its significance is clear to its full extent. That’s why any attempts to write a new contemporary constitution are blocked in the USA – having confined the society with the amendments. There is its own reasoning here. The time makes the text sacral and transfers it into the completely different category. It turned out, though, that the contemporary USA is deprived of this very time.

Group of documents, which – at a stretch – may be referred to the principal laws of Great Britain, originates from the very Magna Carta. It has nothing revolutionary in it, though. From the legal point of view, the much-talked-about "Yaroslav’s Justice" which was in use in Russia for a long time then, was more "advanced" document of its period. English Magna Carta, however, became the sacred myth and the "foundation stone of liberty", whatever that word may mean. "Robin Hood" directed by Ridley Scott is the first – may it be the probing one – attempt to work with that myth. As we’ve mentioned – the time presses.

In Ridley Scott’s vision, Magna Carta is a document, the text, first of all. It is not a half-verbal agreement, based on traditions and representing the result of the years-long negotiations and mutual give-and-takes by the nobility and king himself. This is rather a text, written without any participation of these persons – by a simple mason, father of Robin Hood and a leader of the common folk. All the barons and the king have to do is to sign this text and go home. History turns into the theory of conspiracy.

Here we can see nothing more but an analogy with the Bible which – according to the opinion of Protestants – came down from the sky so we can either accept or deny it. It wouldn’t take much effort to notice that such conception gives a too large field for various speculations. If Bible is a Book of God rather than Book of Church then we don’t have to pay attention to the Church at all. Quite naturally, Protestants claim that Church was mistaken – since about the time of apostles and until the appearance of Luther. The unchanged text of the Holy Writ plays the role of the connecting link here – it may be interpreted by absolutely everyone. And why wouldn’t you do that yourself?

While in the past he, who persuaded everyone that it he interpreted the Bible correctly, ruled the world, today it’s the one, capable of convincing everyone that he interprets the democracy and liberty in the utmost right way. Techniques are identical in both cases. Magna Carta text turns into the ashes in the hands of King John and that means that England denied the democracy. All the free men had to move to the forests and stop participating in the unrighteous political system. They were to hide in the woods until the group of free men wouldn’t sail away seeking for the free continent, and the truly words of the previously hidden Great Charter wouldn’t sound for the first time.

Protestant theology has worked out several apologetic receipts for interpreting the general history of the Church – getting to know them wouldn’t be out of place. Holy Writ is the source of the Truth, and the common folk are the keepers of the truth – they haven’t left any written evidences of faith and thus, could have confessed the Protestant faith as well. Priests, bishops, and fathers of the Church are proclaimed to be the persecutors of Truth. There are some gradations here. Some of them erred sincerely, few have enlightened the truth but kept silence, having feared of the suppressions, while the majority of people were carrying these very suppressions out. And, finally, heretics like Catarrhs and Waldensians were proclaimed to be the true bearers of the truth who were, naturally, persecuted. Any actions of the Medieval Church administration were subjects to the strict analysis from the position of fighting for democracy and, of course, turned out to be monstrous, ridiculous and clearly anti-Christian.

It won’t be hard to recognize the unique style of late Ridley Scott, as well as the reasons why did the master of the films about future turn into the master of the films about the past. Lie about future is much more probable to be revealed. Truth about future says too much about the present. If Martin Luther has got acquainted with Margot Käßmann, head of German Lutheran Church in 2010, and heard her fierce debates concerning the rights of homosexuals and the contraceptives as the Gift of God, 95 theses would have hardly been nailed to the church gates in Wittenberg. So just the same, the man who thoroughly watched the "Blade-runner" should have few illusions considering the direction the American democracy is moving in. Nowadays, however, Ridley Scott is remaking the "Blade-runner". I guess, quite a number curios inventions are waiting for us.

By Vadim Bulatov

¹ Also known as "Russkaya Pravda" (Rus.) i. e. the "Russian Truth".