For the 1950s, the attitudes to women, to Jews, to Arabs and to poor peasants portrayed in this series must have been viewed as either child-like fantasy or pure fiction. Maid Marion was an excellent archer, ran about freely in boy's garb and showed herself confidently before men of any station. Robin's respectful treatment of lord and serf, of English and Scottish, of Christian and Muslim alike would, even today, still be viewed as "utopic", if not as exceptional as it must have been in the 1950s.
So, from a moral and didactic viewpoint for children, this ground-breaking TV series was a pioneer.
However, since I binged, I couldn't help but also come to an opinion on the production values, casting, narrative arc, character development, anachronisms and plot holes. In short, for a modern viewer, it was OK, a good first generation TV production with competent acting.
However, the episodes have no character development or even progressive narrative. One could almost shuffle the episodes and not be lost. The characters are two dimensional, showing no revealing quirks over the life of the series, and the half hour episodes were predictably formulaic with a dénouement to the satisfaction of the pro-Robin viewer. There was no progression in either storyline, characters or plot.
The casting was a bit off for Robin and Marion. Both actors were older or, more euphemistically, more ¨mature" than the characters portrayed. That is the opposite of today's production values where actors are usually 10 years younger than the characters protrayed. The so-called musculature of the actor portraying Little John would be the subject of ridicule today; the actor was completely lacking in any developed musculature.
Implausibility. Flights that lead to no bloodshed, arrows that instantly kill, clothing that looks clean and pressed even among rural fold and forest dwellers. Despite the lack of running water, roads in good shape, weeks of inter-urban travel....the series show none of the harsh reality of Medieval life.
Historical discordance. It's perhaps due to the false propaganda in England, but I find it the height of irony that "Saxon nobles" (where were a tiny minority of descendants of invading marauders across the North Sea; the correct term would be "Ingvaeons" aka Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Danes) would chafe at "foreign" "Normans" running things.
Truth of the matter, as shown by 21st Century DNA surveys, is that most Britons, French, Spaniards and Western European in general, are primarily Celtic in ascendance. No one spoke what is misnamed "Old English" (more accurately, Ingvaonic vernaculars) except the cross North Sea Germanics who came to rule over a large part of Britain. The misnoer is a glaring anachronism since England was only created in 930AD, while English historians illogically state that "Old English" was spoken as of the 6th Century in "England".
No, the Ingvaeonic ruling class (reductively called "Saxons") were as much foreign invaders as any Norman. In fact, the reality is that the ascendance of both the Normans and of the Saxons were very similar, northerners of Germanic type who invaded and plunder Celtic Britain and Gaul. The last "Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Dane" king of England was Edward the Confessor, a childless monarch who officially designated his first cousin, William of Normandy, as his rightful successor. Both Edward and William were descended from King Cnut who ruled over lands on both sides of the North Sea at the turn of the 11th Century. William did not :"invade" and "conquer" England as much as forcibly remove unprincipled usurper Harold Godwinson, a previously exiled amoral brother in law of Edward, who simply seized the throne immediately after Edward died in early 1066.
Most English people in 1066 were Celtic (Brythonnic) speakers. Despite 4 centuries of progressive dominance by Germanic invaders, few "commoners" would have spoken anything but a Brythonnic vernacular. If 4 centuries of close rule by a unified Roman colonial government didn't make Britannia Latin-speakers, it beggars believe that 4 centuiries of much less organized and fractious Germanics would somehow get vastly greater numbers of Britons to speak their tongue.
The other anachronism is that very few people were able to read and write, and, in fact, most humans were illiterate until the early 20th Century, when broadcast technology, national education systems, affordable and fast surface travel and book printing became available. So, it is highly unlikely that any group of illierate rural folk would be able to speak anything like either "Old English" until well into the Modern era.
Other than that, the series was an exceptional first generation dramatization.
So, from a moral and didactic viewpoint for children, this ground-breaking TV series was a pioneer.
However, since I binged, I couldn't help but also come to an opinion on the production values, casting, narrative arc, character development, anachronisms and plot holes. In short, for a modern viewer, it was OK, a good first generation TV production with competent acting.
However, the episodes have no character development or even progressive narrative. One could almost shuffle the episodes and not be lost. The characters are two dimensional, showing no revealing quirks over the life of the series, and the half hour episodes were predictably formulaic with a dénouement to the satisfaction of the pro-Robin viewer. There was no progression in either storyline, characters or plot.
The casting was a bit off for Robin and Marion. Both actors were older or, more euphemistically, more ¨mature" than the characters portrayed. That is the opposite of today's production values where actors are usually 10 years younger than the characters protrayed. The so-called musculature of the actor portraying Little John would be the subject of ridicule today; the actor was completely lacking in any developed musculature.
Implausibility. Flights that lead to no bloodshed, arrows that instantly kill, clothing that looks clean and pressed even among rural fold and forest dwellers. Despite the lack of running water, roads in good shape, weeks of inter-urban travel....the series show none of the harsh reality of Medieval life.
Historical discordance. It's perhaps due to the false propaganda in England, but I find it the height of irony that "Saxon nobles" (where were a tiny minority of descendants of invading marauders across the North Sea; the correct term would be "Ingvaeons" aka Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Danes) would chafe at "foreign" "Normans" running things.
Truth of the matter, as shown by 21st Century DNA surveys, is that most Britons, French, Spaniards and Western European in general, are primarily Celtic in ascendance. No one spoke what is misnamed "Old English" (more accurately, Ingvaonic vernaculars) except the cross North Sea Germanics who came to rule over a large part of Britain. The misnoer is a glaring anachronism since England was only created in 930AD, while English historians illogically state that "Old English" was spoken as of the 6th Century in "England".
No, the Ingvaeonic ruling class (reductively called "Saxons") were as much foreign invaders as any Norman. In fact, the reality is that the ascendance of both the Normans and of the Saxons were very similar, northerners of Germanic type who invaded and plunder Celtic Britain and Gaul. The last "Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Dane" king of England was Edward the Confessor, a childless monarch who officially designated his first cousin, William of Normandy, as his rightful successor. Both Edward and William were descended from King Cnut who ruled over lands on both sides of the North Sea at the turn of the 11th Century. William did not :"invade" and "conquer" England as much as forcibly remove unprincipled usurper Harold Godwinson, a previously exiled amoral brother in law of Edward, who simply seized the throne immediately after Edward died in early 1066.
Most English people in 1066 were Celtic (Brythonnic) speakers. Despite 4 centuries of progressive dominance by Germanic invaders, few "commoners" would have spoken anything but a Brythonnic vernacular. If 4 centuries of close rule by a unified Roman colonial government didn't make Britannia Latin-speakers, it beggars believe that 4 centuiries of much less organized and fractious Germanics would somehow get vastly greater numbers of Britons to speak their tongue.
The other anachronism is that very few people were able to read and write, and, in fact, most humans were illiterate until the early 20th Century, when broadcast technology, national education systems, affordable and fast surface travel and book printing became available. So, it is highly unlikely that any group of illierate rural folk would be able to speak anything like either "Old English" until well into the Modern era.
Other than that, the series was an exceptional first generation dramatization.
