The Bandit of Sherwood Forest

Columbia Pictures’ “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” (1946) is a pretty entertaining addition to the Sherwood Forest canon. It’s not as good as the Flynn or Fairbanks films, but better than the Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe entries. Fans of the “The Adventures of Robin Hood” are likely to be especially entertained, thanks to its numerous ties to that 1938 classic.

Cornel Wilde brought his real life fencing skills to the role of Robert of Nottingham, the son of the famous Robin Hood (Russell Hicks, who looks to be having a ball). Robert joins his father’s gang, including such favorites as Edgar Buchanan as Friar Tuck, John Abbott as Will Scarlett and Ray Teal as Little John, to save of the life of the Queen (Jill Esmond), and her young son the King (Maurice Tauzin) from the evil machinations of the Regent (Henry Daniell, a useful substitute when Basil Rathbone is not around).

Among other dastardly deeds, The Regent plans to negate the Magna Carta, a key story line in the Russell Crowe version.

Robert falls in love with Catherine (Anita Louise), lady-in-waiting to the Queen. It’s very interesting to see Anita Louise here, as at one time she was scheduled to play Maid Marian opposite Errol Flynn, before wiser heads cast Olivia deHavilland in what would be one of her signature roles.

There are other comparisons to the Flynn version. “Bandit” composer Hugo Friedhofer was one of the orchestrators for Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s Academy Award-winning score for the “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” Several of the cues do sound like they could have been included in the Flynn film. Indeed, his score is an exuberant one and is more than adequate to support the more modest scope of this version. (1946 was also the year Friedhofer won the Academy Award for Best Score for “The Best Years of Our Lives.”)

Lloyd Corrigan plays the Sheriff of Nottingham in the same buffoon fashion as Melville Cooper did. (Did the Sheriff being played for laughs begin with the Errol Flynn version?)

The biggest similarity is the final scene. I don’t think I’m giving anything away here when I say both films enjoy a happy ending, though I was surprised at how similar the endings were. Both films end with a grateful king knighting the hero and with Robin/Robert and Marian/Catherine standing before the king, who asks if the two love each other and would take each other in marriage.

Though eight years separated the films, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” was one of the most popular films in the Warner Bros. library, and was constantly being re-issued. Mindful of this, it’s no wonder Columbia Pictures saw a new Robin Hood film as a perfect vehicle for Cornel Wilde, its new contract player. Wilde was in real-life a champion fencer who was a member of the U.S. Olympics fencing team. He would have participated in the 1936 Olympics had not he left the team to pursue acting. Wilde makes a dashing hero, and his final duel with Daniell is a good one.

As masterful a villain as he could be, Daniell was no fencer and had to be extensively doubled in his dueling scenes. On “The Sea Hawk” (1940), Daniell was so ineffective that director Michael Curtiz said it took forever to film close-ups where it would appear he was dueling.

Columbia had a big hit with “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest”, which earned more than $3 million at the box office. 1946 was one of Hollywood’s biggest years ever. The war was over, and GIs were returning home to start families and carve out new lives for themselves. Going to the movies was an even bigger past time than ever, and 1946 saw attendance hit record peaks. Pretty much everything made money that year, but $3 million for a modestly budgeted swashbuckler is pretty impressive. Wilde had a huge hit the year before playing Chopin in “A Song to Remember” and was the new heart throb. In addition to the action and romance, however, I think another big factor in the film’s success was the Technicolor.

I’m not an expert on color photography, but it seems to me that Columbia and 20th Century Fox were the experts when it came to Technicolor films. Even today their color films from this period have an added vitality to them that were lacking at other studios. I can’t put my finger on it, but their colors are exceptionally vivid. (Too vivid some may say, but not me. I love my three-strip Technicolor).

The film’s credits list two directors, George Sherman and Henry Levin. I would be curious to find out what happened, as two credited directors on a film was unusual for the time. (Actually it still is today). Sherman directed a lot of B westerns at Republic, so I assume that the opening scenes of the Merry Men riding throughout the forest gathering forces as they go were directed by him.

No earth shaker but an enjoyable film, “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” will likely retain its place in the upper echelon of Robin Hood movies.

Mr. Soft Touch, The Desperadoes, Avatar

This is one of those blogs where one thought leads to another. I’ll start with a recent viewing of “Mr. Soft Touch” and end with a discussion of “Avatar.” With a big budget Technicolor western in the middle.

By sheer coincidence I happened to recently catch two movies starring Glenn Ford and Evelyn Keyes: “The Desperadoes” (1943) and “Mr. Soft Touch” (1949). Doing a little research, I was surprised to see they had co-starred together in three additional films, “Adventures of Martin Eden” (1942), “Flight Lieutenant” (1942) and “The Mating of Millie” (1948).

Not one of the great screen teams, but there must have been something in box office returns that Columbia Pictures kept pairing them. Ford has always struck me as a likeable enough actor, but sometimes so low key he’s almost catatonic. However, he does exhibit strong signs of life when playing opposite Rita Hayworth, and can you blame him?

TCM ran “Mr. Soft Touch” this month, and I wondered why they didn’t run it in December as so much of it is set during the Christmas season. In the film, Ford robs a casino and hides from the law in a downtown settlement house, run by Keyes. Of course you know Ford is going to reform thanks to Keyes and the poor but honest kindness of the house’s residents. Also, since his character’s name is Joe Miracle, it’s a foregone conclusion he’ll change his ways.

It’s pleasant enough, though hardly memorable. The huge Christmas tree that decorates the house’s gym is a real beauty however, and there’s an amusing scene where Ford escapes from the law by masquerading in a Santa Claus suit. All that’s missing is a giant stogie, like Edward G. Robinson had sticking out of his mouth while wearing his Santa Claus suit in the very funny Warner Bros. crime comedy “Larceny, Inc.” (1942).

For such a light hearted effort, the film does open with a bang – a pretty good car chase with Ford, in a desperate attempt to escape from a pursuing cop car, driving through a crossing gate and over a bridge just as its going up to make way for a passing boat below. Promise of a crime thriller is offset by the more gentle activities that follow.

“The Desperadoes” was Columbia’s first Technicolor film and it’s a real beauty to watch. There was a special quality to Technicolor photography under the Columbia banner that other studios could not match (though 20th Century Fox, I feel, rules as the pre-eminent studio with their Technicolor offerings. Some of that photography practically melts the eye balls, it’s so vivid).

Based on a novel by Max Brand, “The Desperadoes” is standard though enjoyable fare about two friends, one a sheriff (Randolph Scott) and his outlaw friend (Ford) who reunite to tame a wild frontier town. Keyes is the woman they’re both in love with. Good support from pros like the always welcome Claire Trevor, Guinn Williams, Edgar Buchanan and Porter Hall, as a seemingly respectable banker. Gee, didn’t any one in that town ever see “The Plainsman” (1936)? I wouldn’t trust Hall with the milk money, but that’s the fun of old movies.

Scott is one of my favorite actors, and it’s a pleasure to be witness to his quiet confidence. Sitting back on a cold winter’s evening watching a Randolph Scott western means all is right with the world.

I was thinking about “The Desperaodes” while watching “Avatar” Sunday afternoon. It was pretty spectacular, and the world director James Cameron was very impressive. Many are talking about the visual splendor of “Avatar” and rightfully so, but I feel that a three-strip Technicolor production from Hollywood’s Golden Age is every bit the visual wonder.

Look at what “The Desperadoes” gives us. Vivid blue skies, beautiful horses at full gallop (is there anything more thrilling to watch than racing horses in front of some of the more gorgeous scenery in the world), elaborate costumes – for me, westerns like “The Desperadoes” offer just as much visual pleasure as “Avatar” and its Technicolor photography is just as eye popping as the computer-generated imagery of “Avatar.”

Something else that occurred to me while watching “Avatar.” So much of the visuals are reminiscent of the John Carter of Mars novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Cameron has admitted in interviews that Burroughs was a huge inspiration in “Avatar’s” creation. (I’m assuming he means Edgar Rice and not William).

The first John Carter novel, “A Princess of Mars”, is about to begin production as the first live action offering from Pixar Studios. Release date is 2012. When it comes out, I’m sure there will be lots of complaints that it’s a rip off of “Avatar.” I’m hoping Pixar rolls out the publicity machine early on this, and let all the fanboys out there know that Burroughs was there first, all the way back in the 1912.

Which leads to another thought and that is watching 3D movies. It’s likely middle age (I’m 47), but halfway through “Avatar” during a lengthy dialogue sequence I had to take those glasses off and give my eyes a rest.

For me, 3D doesn’t add a whole lot to the experience. It could be my irritation at paying an extra $3 for a pair of glasses that likely cost all of 50 cents to produce. No wonder the studios are jumping on the 3D bandwagon. Good writing and characters can draw us into the story every bit as much as 3D images. The trailers for Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” (or the new Christopher Lee movie, as I like to think of it) look extremely promising and I can’t wait to see it, but I think I’ll forego the $3 extortion and just see it flat.

But…but…but…that beggars the question if seeing it flat is really what the director intended and shouldn’t I support the film in the process the director filmed it? I refuse to watch full-screen versions of widescreen films because I feel I’m missing too much of the visual information the director wishes to impart. So using the same standards, if a director films a movie in 3D shouldn’t I see it in that format?

On the other hand, I’m still seeing all the information as the director intended, just not in 3D. I don’t need to see the floating head of the Cheshire Cat in the foreground when I can still see it floating in the flat version.

So I’ll likely see “Alice in Wonderland” flat and see if I feel cheated. If I do, I’ll just have to pop a couple of aspirin before I don those glasses again.