Robert Shaw did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin and Marian.
Robin and Marian is an intriguing film about an aged Robin Hood (Sean Connery) attempting one last fight against King John and his men while attempting to win over Lady Marian (Audrey Hepburn) once again.
Robert Shaw once again plays the adversary of Sean Connery. Last time was in From Russia With Love as two spies both at the top of their game. Once again they're adversaries but this time as two men who are well past their primes. Shaw plays the former rival of Robin Hood The Sheriff of Nottingham, but like so many things after Robin's long return home from the crusades things are not quite how they use to be. Shaw seems perfect for the role of the villain for the film at least in how you might expect things if this were a more traditional Robin Hood film. After all Shaw may exude menace more effortlessly than any other actor. It is just an innate part of him, and Shaw utilizes this well. The Sheriff has a general menace about himself though Shaw does not make this an active part of him by any means. Shaw instead suggests the fierce some qualities of the man in part as something very much of the past. There is no question that he was once truly a menacing villain worthy to be the opponent of the Robin Hood of the songs, but the Robin Hood he faces now is not that man of songs, fortunately for Robin is that the Sheriff is not the same man either.
Shaw nicely does differentiates his work from Connery who depicts Robin as a man who is trying to gain back the glory of the past. Shaw portrays the Sheriff as a man who is far more understanding of his own reality. His opening scene is a marvelous moment for Shaw as we see the Sheriff at his castle where some men are training. Shaw depicts such a quiet though malaise as he he just looks upon the sight with the eyes of a man who has seen it again and again. The Sheriff though takes a moment to take on two of the men himself before he defeats them quite easily. In this brief instance there is just a glint off a more vibrant life in the Sheriff. Shaw manages to make all quite a somber moment though because he so naturally returns to his normal state once the brief fight is over, since it is obvious the Sheriff has no real purpose since even that fight had no real purpose. The Sheriff goes out to fulfill his duty which is to round up Marian, now the head of an Abbey, by King John's orders. Shaw shows the Sheriff proceed with this task as simple unremarkable business. Shaw depicts it with not even an hint of evil, or desire for harm, rather he presents a man just being the Sheriff since he will never be anything else.
When the Sheriff and his men come to arrest her he finds Robin there ready to save the day, even though Marian does not even desire to show any resistance in particular. Shaw's nuanced reaction in the moment where the Sheriff sees Robin is just perfect. It's not that of a man seeing an old enemy, but rather there's just a tad of nostalgic joy in the moment as though its an old acquaintance that was associated with some positive moments of the past. Shaw does not even leave this at this though as he quickly shifts it away from that as though in the moment the Sheriff realizes that it is likely Robin is going to make things difficult. Naturally this is what Robin does as he basically launches a war against King John and his men something the Sheriff unfortunately happens to be technically speaking. Shaw's terrific in the later action scenes of Robin attacking as he brings just that slight smile of remembrance to the old days, but Shaw always keeps it that Sheriff has no delusions about the past. Instead he's well aware of the mistakes of the past, and Shaw is rather hilarious in his dead pan reactions to Robin's various success as well as the failures of his own men, since he's seen it all before.
I particularly love his interactions with the unknowing and eager Sir Ranulf, as Shaw conveys such an intelligence of experience as he disregards Ranulf's confidence, as well as his incredible knowing reaction when he hears King John's ultimatum in regards to the Sheriff and Robin. This eventually leads to Robin and Sheriff finally having a showdown. Instead of having their armies go at the two settle on that the battle will be decided by champions, the champions being naturally being Robin and the Sheriff. The duel is not quite what you'd expect from a Robin Hood legend, and that's what makes it so good. It is absolutely brilliantly played by both Shaw and Connery. They wear the age wholly in their physical performances as both men clearly just do not have the grace or the ease in their sword fighting manner any more. Rather than being some sort of beautiful display of swordsmanship it illustrates the desperation in the men at this point of their lives, and you see the effort put into every swing. In addition the pain from every injury is especially vibrant due to the two actors. They each take it further though in that each man approaches it differently. Connery, though his body is fighting against him the whole way, portrays Robin Hood as still looking to the glory, and failing to see what he's fallen into. Shaw though is surprisingly moving by showing that the Sheriff has now just had enough the fantasy. He can't even call back to the past any more as Shaw depicts him as knowing the truth of the matter. Near the end of the fight when Sheriff is telling Robin to yield, it does not feel like that of a man trying to get his foe to surrender, but almost that of a friend asking his friend to finally give up his delusion. When the Sheriff falls in the battle it is rather heartbreaking since Shaw showed that the Sheriff was the one trying to bring some sense to the situation. What's outstanding about this work is that Shaw's screen time is limited yet he makes such an impact with every glimpse of his character. There is not a wasted moment as Shaw realizes such depth in the role through his great performance.
39 comments:
YESSSSSSSSSS!.
Thoughts and ratings on the rest of the cast? Shaw is great here.
Louis: had Robert Shaw not passed away at such an early stage in his career, what sort of path would he have taken?
Louis: Ratings & Thoughts on the rest of the cast.
I'm glad your saving Dano, as well as Cusack. I like the former a bit more on re-watch and have upgraded the latter to a 4.
Yes! Shaw has five fives now!
Anonymous: Shaw has the highest amount of fives in the supporting category with five and is one ahead of Gary Oldman.
By far my favourite Robin Hood film.
On a separate note, everyone's ratings for all the Robin Hood films they've seen?
The 1930s Flynn-Havilland One
Flynn: 3.5
Havilland: 4
Rains: 4
Rathbone: 3
Robin and Marian
Connery: 4.5
Hepburn: 4.5
Shaw: 5
Harris: 3.5
Williamson: 4/4.5
Prince of Thieves
Costner: 2
Slater: 1.5
Freeman: 3
Rickman: 3.5
The Ridley Scott version
Crowe: 3
Blanchett: 3.5
Isaac: 3
Macfayden: 3 (wish he'd had more to do)
Very happy that Dano and Cusack are potential reviews.
1938
Flynn - 4.5
Havilland - 4
Rains - 4
Rathbone - 4
1976
Connery - 4.5
Hepburn - 4.5
Shaw - 5
Harris - 4 (really good limited appearance)
Williamson - 4
1991
Costner - 1
Slater - 1.5
Mastrantonio - 1.5
Freeman - 3
Rickman - 4.5 (Love this performance)
2010
Crowe - 2.5
Blanchett - 3.5
Strong - 3.5
Isaac - 3 (Didn't like this performance at first, but has somewhat grown on me)
Macfayden - 2.5 (Don't remember much from him)
Calvin: When Louis said, 'don't worry it'll be a joint review', I'm absolutely convinced now that he's doing 10 reviews.
Calvin:
Connery - 4.5(Connery is a great fit for the part as you could very easily have seen him as Robin Hood in the 60's. Connery captures so well that undeniable spirit in the character, that is reminiscent of Flynn, though altered in a way in that it no longer feels completely honest in that he seems to be trying to live a dream when doing it. With that though Connery suggests this as a way of covering up the very real horrors which haunt him from the crusades.)
Hepburn - 4.5(Once again Hepburn has such strong chemistry with her co-star. You completely believe the two are in deeply in love. What's special though is the way it feels like a long earned love as in their interactions you see the hardships and the tenderness in the way they look at one another. They simply are wonderful together. Most of Hepburn's work with in the film is with Connery, but on her own Hepburn does not falter. She's quite good in having just the slightest humorous bent to her Marian, but also feels very honest in the way she shows her feelings of betrayal associated with Robin)
Williamson - 4(Williamson does not get to do much, but he still carries a presence in the film as he just carries a nice warmth in his interactions with Robin. He offers some fine support in the purest sense really. I kind of love his one major scene with Hepburn where he reveals that such a stoic man does have feelings of his own)
Harris - 4(I really enjoyed his two scene performance as he realizes Richard's derangement as the right form of peculiarity about it as he is aware of it, as though it is part of his "heroic" grandeur or something. I would not have minded more of his Richard, and speaking of Kings who could have had more screen time.)
Holm - 3(How could they only give one scene to Ian Holm! It's made worse in that in his only scene is very brief as I quite liked his John as he realizes the petulance and spoiled qualities, within a proper Kingly manner. I only wished Holm had gotten a few more scenes.)
I think Shaw might have had a similair career to Connery (imagine him as Malone in The Untouchables and everything seems right), although I don't think he would have become as self-indulgent. I do think he would have continued with some pay check films, but with better films thrown into the mix as well.
Luke: same. I think could be (assuming the expected performances are nominated for Oscars)
Hardy
McKellen
Cheadle
Dano/Cusack
Courtenay
Fassbender (Macbeth)
Segel
Foster
Cranston
Damon/Hanks
Agree about Shaw, although I've always thought if he really wanted to, he would be a great leading man, as The Hireling showed. So happy you love Hepburn too.
Calvin: If Lead, I'd put Elba into the mix as well.
Luke: Definitely, although isn't he being campaigned as Supporting, and at this point a likely contender for an Oscar nom?
Calvin: In case, he doesn't make the cut, I would add him to the field, The same could be said for Keaton.
Calvin:
How have I not heard about The Hireling until now? Must....watch....soon.
Anyway he was kind of a pseudo star before he died anyways a la Guy Pearce maybe? Although I'd say he was probably a bit bigger than Pearce.
Yep definitely bigger than Pearce since he had Jaws, From Russia With Love, The Sting, and The Taking of Pelham 123, all very popular films, and was also respected for his Shakesperean/Stage work. I think, despite their careers starting in very different ways, he could've gone down the Gary Oldman route.
Whereas Pearce is mostly known for his leading role in Memento and some of his supporting villanous turns eugh, he is so often neglected in discussions about LA Confidential, The Proposition, etc.
Calvin: About the Robin Hood movies, I have only seen The Adventures of Robin Hood and Disney's Robin Hood.
Flynn: 4.5 or 5.
De Havilland 4.5
Rains: 4
Rathbone: 4
Disney (using only the four cast members already posted
Brian Bedford: 2.5 or 3?
Monica Evans: 3?
Peter Ustinov: 5
Pat Buttram: 3 or 3.5
Phil Harris, Andy Devine, Terry-Thomas, Carole Shelley, Barbara Luddy, and Roger Miller were also memorable.
Ruthiehenshallfan99: I used to love the Disney version, when I was a child and Ustinov was for me, the best aspect of it.
Love Ustinov's voice work.
Louis: The Hireling is a very unique sort of British flick, you should definitely watch some of the LP Hartley adaptations like that, and The Go-Between.
Louis: Don't forget to watch Battle of the Bulge. So, what kind of roles do you think would have suited Laird Cregar and Raul Julia.
*?
I'll do ratings for the live-action Robin Hood films.
1938 film
Flynn: 4,5
De Havilland: 4
Rains: 4,5
Rathbone: 4
1976 film´
Connery: 4,5
Hepburn: 4,5
Shaw: 5
Harris: 4
Williamson: 4
1991 film
Costner: 1,5
Slater: 1,5
Mastrantonio: 1,5
Freeman: 3
Rickman: 4
2010 film
Crowe: 3
Strong: 3,5
Blanchett: 3,5
Isaac: 3
Macfayden: 2,5 to a 3
Anonymous:
In regards to Julia, Old Zorro in The Mask of Zorro without a doubt. Past that it is hard to say as some of his contemporaries of the 80's William Hurt, James Woods, and Jeff Goldblum did not find an over abundance of roles after the 90's were over. Then again maybe he would have found his way into more leading roles as I feel his popularity was growing just as he died.
As for Cregar, I think the sky would have been the limit in terms of juicy supporting roles.
Just a few roles I'm sure he would have been great in.
Hank Quinlan or Pete Menzies in Touch of Evil
Nero in Quo Vadis?
Rupert Cadell in Rope
"Clarence Darrow" in Inherit The Wind or Compulsion
Addison DeWitt in All About Eve
Fred Clark's role in Ride the Pink Horse
Louis: In what roles could you see Shaw in had he lived? I think he could have been an amazing Hannibal Lecter and an excellent Cassius.
Luke: one of my mates told me his thoughts on Legend, which he saw yesterday evening (and which I'm dying to see once I get back to the UK). In summary:
Weakest aspect of the film apparently is the structure, which is a bit scattershot and jumps around from comedy to brutal drama.
Weak links of the cast were Browning whose voiceover grates after a while, and whose performance is limited to a series of sad looks and naïve glances, and Palimenteri, Morgan and Thewlis don't nearly get enough material to shine.
Apparently Taron Egerton is by far the MVP of the supporting cast, he doesn't have much screentime but is very funny and in some scenes, quite moving.
The production values were all top-notch, the script was largely fine and the action scenes are particularly well done, with some very striking setpieces.
As for Hardy, he said he needed a bit of time to give exact thoughts, but assured me that it was in his opinion, career-best work from Hardy, particularly Reggie who he said was absolutely amazing and could've itself made for a brilliant character, but that Ron was also very well done, not as much of a lumbering caricature as the trailers made him out to be, and actually quite menacing. He even said he saw hints of Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers.
I also told him to rate each member of the cast out of 5, so
Hardy: 5
Browning: 2.5
Thewlis: 3
Palimentari: 2.5
Morgan: 2.5
Bettany: 3
Egerton: 4
Hey. I know this is sorta unorthodox but im an actor...thinking of starting my own blog of vids and monologs and characters etc. As all it takes is one set of important eyes in the acting bizz...
Anyway. Check out my instagram of acting @screen_time_
Thanks??
Calvin: Thamk You. :)
Louis: For 1981 Supporting, I highly recommend Nicol Williamson in Excalibur.
Louis: Another request, Gary Cooper in The Hanging Tree (1959). Gosh, there are so many performances to request. James Stewart in The Far Country (1954), the fourth Mann-Stewart Western. There are so many Cooper and Tracy performances for you to review...
Anonymous: You do know, that you have to win a prediction, to make anyone of those requests happen, because if not, there's gonna have to be a lot of support from others, to convince him to review those performances, as he isn't much of a fan of those two.
Luke: All right, got it. :)
This for me is the finale for Robert Shaw, a perfect end I think, this is for me is by far the greatest Robin Hood film, easily easily easily EASILY, the Disney version is quite fun, the Flynn version is very grand and entertaining but this version is like, on another level.
Louis: What's your rating for Sean Connery in Thunderball.
John Smith: Would you mind reviewing these 2 for bonus reviews?
Tommy Bergren/Raven's End
Erland Josephson/Scenes From A Marriage
John Smith: Josephson is not eligible, as Scenes From A Marriage was first shown on Swedish Television.
Louis: So what are your thoughts on High Noon as a whole? And what rating would you give the film?
Anonymous: Not at all.
Luke:
3
Anonymous:
Well I suppose I'd give it a 2.5.
As a whole I've never cared that much for High Noon as a film as a I feel the writing tries to hard to force upon its, all alone, concept in that a few of those moments feel frankly forced. The church scene in particular doesn't resolve itself well enough, Will does leave a bit too easily. The message overpowers the film as the tail wags the dog in the end, since it does not bother to come with an interesting characters since, except for the two women, they either cowards or jerks, and very simplistic in that sense. In addition I absolutely hate the subplot involving Katy Jurado's character as it is so poorly developed, and relies too much on exposition to get what it's all about. I do think Fred Zinnemann brings some nice touches to the film, and I like the song, though its perhaps overused, but the weaknesses in the writing always keep it an underwhelming film.
Post a Comment