I am tempted to blame the American market, apparently uninterested in finer points of tax law (or land reform), for the failures of this film. But Sir Walter fully in his Romantic vein of history must bear some responsibility, as well as Tim Roth, whose wickedly foppish villain steals the show, as opposed to the Brits in Braveheart who are mere strawmen. This later film's success with its even more overblown rape, pillage, and escewing of subtlety I do lay wetly on the door step of the market.
One sympathizes with the dramatic necessity to ground a film in the very personal story of its titular characters. No one is suggesting a filmis dissertation on the Jacobite movement. But to reduce the redress of systematic injustices to mere ad hominum revenge is to make of a hero a mere knee-jerk. And that is the problem: whether Rob Roy, or Robin Hood, or Ned Kelly for that matter are heroes, or mere brigands. I would argue that deciding for either side too clearly distorts not just history, but humanity, and is certainly less dramatic. To paint characters into such tight corners robs them, and us, of more interesting choices. We must still wait for a nuanced treatment of this fascinating, and timely, subject of robber/heroism.
One sympathizes with the dramatic necessity to ground a film in the very personal story of its titular characters. No one is suggesting a filmis dissertation on the Jacobite movement. But to reduce the redress of systematic injustices to mere ad hominum revenge is to make of a hero a mere knee-jerk. And that is the problem: whether Rob Roy, or Robin Hood, or Ned Kelly for that matter are heroes, or mere brigands. I would argue that deciding for either side too clearly distorts not just history, but humanity, and is certainly less dramatic. To paint characters into such tight corners robs them, and us, of more interesting choices. We must still wait for a nuanced treatment of this fascinating, and timely, subject of robber/heroism.
No comments:
Post a Comment