Today I'm trying to watch Robin Hood with Russell Crowe, yet I'm finding myself only able to watch it in short increments. Why? Because of the historical inacuracies which are driving me up the wall. It's little things really, but they throw me out of the rhythm of the film when they happen. The first was when grain was stolen from Marian's home. She called it "seed-corn". Why are they referencing corn when it's the 12th century? Corn wasn't discovered by Europe until the America's were discovered in the 15th century. The word corn is new so they wouldn't have called wheat "seed-corn".
Another one was when King John said his mother kissed the "picture" of her son every day. "Picture" is a new word. They would have used "portrait" or "painting" at this time.
Or the king using the word "palsy" around a horse training to have a knight on it's back. That is a late 13 century word. Besides, the king would know what would go into training a knight's horse. Those creatures had to be able to strike out on command with their hooves to smash in the helmet of a foot solder. The king would not ask that the horse stop with the training the way he did.
Then comes the references that the clergy do not drink alcohol or condone the drinking of alcohol. I'm sorry but that is a 19th century idea. In the 12th century the only safe thing to drink would be alcohol. Everyone drank wine, mead, or beer (mead was even mentioned prominently in Beowulf). Water would make you sick more often than not because of the lack of sanitation. It wasn't until the 19th century that sanitation was really taken into account and found to be a healthy thing for all concerned. Plus, the clergy in the 12th century were Catholic. The priests and other clergy would be consuming wine on a daily basis because of their duty to giving daily mass to the people.
One thing that annoyed me highly was when Maid Marian was refusing to go to mass on Sundays. At this time in history, the people went to mass daily. You also didn't have the right to refuse to attend services. If you did not attend services there were ways of imposing public penance. I went to Rottenburg in Germany and visited a museum of torture devices. They had a wooden rosary that people would wear around their neck while standing up for all to see during services if they fell asleep during mass. Each bead weighed 10 lbs. It was huge. The very wealthy could have chapel services at their home but this was rare and reserved for the nobility. It would be slim to none chance that Marian would have been able to avoid Sunday mass let alone mass any other day of the week. The producers or writers of the film must be confusing Protestant ideas and ideals with religion in the Middle Ages. So far they are getting everything wrong.
Then of course there are the large discrepancies with history, such as the French landing on English soil in 1199A.D. Sorry, they didn't do that for another 16 years until after the Magna Carta was signed. That was called the First Barons' War.
What would be interesting is if they showed the real age of Isabella of Angouleme. She married King John when she was 12 years old. In the film she looks to be in her early 20s. But if they did that people would be shouting pedophilia since the king was supposed to be 33 at the time.
4 comments:
Very well considered and written analysis of the film. Now I don't want to see it.
Hey there -- so actually your "corn" comment isn't entirely accurate. The word "corn" originated in Old English (5th - 12th c) and meant any "grain with the seed still in." So, they would have used the term "seed corn" to represent any cereal crop. When the British came to America, they specifically distinguished it as "Indian Corn," correctly placing it in the cereal category.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=corn
I really didn't like the movie either, though but mostly because the romance of the legend was lost. I'll take "Prince of Thieves" any day -- even though Richard was already dead, and Prince John is never mentioned -- because, after all, Robin Hood is a legend.
I was looking everywhere for the etymology of the word corn and could only find it in reference to the american indians.
It would be nice if they could make a film that was balanced. I guess they lost that skill.
1. It's a legend. Why be peculiar about the details of something that never really happened at all?
2. As a matter of fact, English language itself was rather different those days. If they really kept it "accurate" to the period, you wouldn't understand a blind word they're saying.
3. I appreciate the effort that went into this, but you're an amateur historian and it shows. A lot of what you're saying is generalizing, misunderstood and/or incorrect.
Post a Comment