The American Spectator : Robin Hood

Text Size

Robin Hood

By James Bowman on 5.28.10 @ 6:02AM

There isn't a single interesting character in this 140-minute long piece of Movieland fakery.

There's a funny moment in Ridley Scott's new version of Robin Hood -- almost the only one among these no-longer very merry men -- when Robin (Russell Crowe) and Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett) are getting to know one another, and Marion has just told him of her brief marriage to Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), the son of Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) of Pepper Harrow, Nottingham. After only a week of married life, her husband had gone off to the Holy Land with King Richard for a decade of crusading, where he, like the King, had met his death. Now, at Sir Walter's instance, Robin has agreed to impersonate his now-dead son, Marion's husband, so that the estate of Pepper Harrow will not be confiscated by the crown on his death. Robin, a lowly yeoman and archer, had known Sir Robert in the King's army and says of him to his widow, "A good knight."

"It was short but sweet," replies Marion.

"No, I meant: he was a good knight," explains Robin. "A knight at arms."

"Oh, yes, to be sure. Knight at arms."

It's all part of a classic Hollywood "meet-cute" setup which starts from the moment that, seeing her from behind, Robin addresses her as "girl" and receives a blushing rebuke for failing to see that she is, as she insists, far past her girlhood. The moment of her coyness and embarrassment is so movieish, as is the moment when Robin, come to deliver the news of her husband's death, is invited to dinner by her father in law, and requires her to help him off with his chain mail first. As his magnificent physique stands revealed before her, we are invited to speculate on what this long unhusbanded woman must be thinking. Or, when they must share a bed-chamber to persuade the servants that this is really Sir Robert come home to his wife and Marion warns: "I sleep with a dagger. If you ever move as to touch me, I will sever your manhood." Ha ha. We know from the movies that all this classic movie-courtship means that they will soon be together.

As is usually the case these days, this breaking of the frame and fracturing of the illusion that this is about 12th century England rather than present-day Hollywood, is deliberate. The real 12th century or anything approximating to it, so Mr. Scott and his screenwriter, Brian Helgeland, presumably imagine, would have been deadly boring to the pimply teenagers who are their hopeful audience. For the same reason, Mr. Scott tarted up the Middle Ages in Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and Mr. Helgeland did the same in A Knight's Tale (2001). Children these days expect the past to be made "relevant" to their lives, not their lives to be put in touch with the past as it really was.

It is in some ways amusing to read the film as an allegory of the tea-party movement and recent American politics. King Richard (Danny Huston) thus becomes George W. Bush, a warrior king but one who foolishly squandered his resources on an ill-advised Middle Eastern war that turned out to be the ruin of him, bankrupting the country and leaving it to the tender mercies of a young and inexperienced successor, his brother John (Oscar Isaac), who, like President Obama, is determined not to allow the profligacy of his predecessor hinder his own plans for taxing the people until the pips squeak and spending the money on his own pet projects -- meanwhile leaving the country defenseless against a foreign enemy drawn to make surreptitious war by the perception of his weakness and domestic distractions. The foreign enemy in this case is France, which mounts an invasion across the channel unrecorded by history in Normandy-style landing craft. Obvious allusions to Saving Private Ryan -- with arrows taking the place of bullets -- are both an homage to Steven Spielberg and a further reminder of the deliberate movie-fakery. So is poor Miss Blanchett in a full suit of armor laying about her with a broadsword on the beach.

There isn't one interesting character in this movie. All are recognizable stock figures from a thousand similar and similarly pseudo-heroic sagas. But I don't think this is by inadvertence or incompetence either. To make anyone interesting, or even recognizably human rather than a movie type, you would break the spell and remind the audience of what is missing, which is the link to reality that even the most jaded postmoderns among us still sort-of expect from movies. We imagine, at least if we're not thinking about it too closely, that the movie will resemble real life in certain important respects, and Mr. Scott is here to tell us that that ain't happening with his movie -- and to scold us for continuing to expect it to happen. Like the remarkable closing credits, the whole film is absurdly over-produced. But there is a reason for this, I think. It is that Ridley Scott needs constantly to remind us that this is not only fantasy but a particular kind of fantasy, a movie fantasy set in a movie utopia and peopled by movie archetypes -- not to say stereotypes.

For the tea-party stuff is just a tease. By the time you get to the end of the movie's 140 minutes, you realize it is just another progressive fable. Robin turns out to be the son of the guy, a stonemason, who wrote the Magna Carta -- here represented as a 19th century rationalist's design for a perfect political system -- a generation before the barons, with the indispensable help of Robin, sought to impose it on King John. Robin adopts as his own Sir Walter's meaningless but curiously utopian-sounding motto: "Rise and rise again until lambs become lions" and the defeat of the French is followed by a retreat to the Greenwood where, on Marion's account of it, there is "no rich no poor, but fair shares for all at nature's table." There is also an allusion to Peter Pan and the lost boys with Marion in the role of Wendy and Robin that of Peter. We're home once again, folks, back in Movieland. I'm not quite sure how that's happened, but somehow, that's the only place today's audiences ever want to be.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 7:27AM

Mr. Bowman wrote:

"For the same reason, Mr. Scott tarted up the Middle Ages in Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and Mr. Helgeland did the same in A Knight's Tale (2001). "

Does Mr. Bowman suppose for an instant that the Middle Ages were anything like the world portrayed in Errol Flynn's "Robin Hood"? Or Robert Taylor's "Ivanhoe"? Or perhaps Tony Curtis' "Black Knight of Falworth"?

Get a grip, guy. It's a friggin' movie. But suppose it was a documentary? Suppose it did portray Angevin England as it truly was? How would Mr. Bowman deal with all the blood, guts, gore, filth, squalor, disease, casual cruelty and, of course, everybody from serfs to kings rutting like stoats?

I'd tell Bowman to stick to fairy tales, but I know how much he loathes fantasy, too. Unfortunately, the kind of movies Bowman likes are only found in fantasy universes, themselves.

So, again, I have to ask: Why is Bowman a movie critic, when he so obviously hates movies and is incapable of accepting the medium for what it is?

Rodney T Walton| 5.31.10 @ 10:38PM

I saw the film yesterday and found it very entertaining. I heard it was Gladiator Goes To Sherwood and so it was. I was just glad to forget about Obama-World for a while & see Russell Crowe kick ass on the bad guys. Yes, I noticed the French landing craft looked a bit too much D-day
but I wasn't in the theater for a history lesson!

Richard Baker| 5.28.10 @ 7:35AM

The difference between Flynn's Robin Hood and Scott's version is entertainment without endless moralizing. Yes, there was some moralizing in the '30s movies but not one political cliche after another. Flynn's movies were enjoyable to watch unlike the fare of the present.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 7:43AM

And, while I am at it: all that utopian claptrap that Bowman decries--it has good and authentic medieval antecedents. Does he think that "Robbing from the rich to give to the poor" is an accurate reflection of medieval reality? No, it's a product of the Robin Hood ballads--fairy stories, if you like--that spoke to the aspirations of the peasants and yeomanry.

Maid Marion's speech, which Bowman cites in his review, anticipates only by a 150 years the words of the poem "Piers Plowman" by English poet William Langland (ca. 1360). It featured prominently in the Peasant's Rebellion of 1381. It's no coincidence that this is about the same time that the Robin Hood ballads were composed and became popular--they were an expression of popular longing for a more equitable society.

By no means did the Robin Hood ballads reflect the reality of early 13th century England. Even less so did the Victorian Robin Hood stories (which Bowman seems to take as normative, and which inspired the Errol Flynn moview). Both, instead, used Robin Hood as a medium by which explore issues and attitudes important to those who wrote, and those who heard or read, the stories.

So, why should not a motion picture do exactly the same thing?

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:24AM

"Yes, there was some moralizing in the '30s movies but not one political cliche after another. "

Yes, we would have to wait for the war movies of the '40s for that.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:35AM

"The foreign enemy in this case is France, which mounts an invasion across the channel unrecorded by history in Normandy-style landing craft. Obvious allusions to Saving Private Ryan -- with arrows taking the place of bullets . . . "

The French did, in fact, invade England during the reign of King John, originally in support of the English barons against the King. Though drop-ramp landing ships were unknown, moving large armies by sea, including their horses, was a common practice (else how would the Normans have conquered the Saxons?), and the Bayeux Tapestry shows how that was done in the eleventh century. By the time of the Third Crusade, the ships were much more elaborate, and included side hatches and ramps for loading and off-loading horses. The ships were rather small by our standard, and flat-bottomed. The usual way to both load and unload them was to ground them on a mud flat and wait for the tide to go out. Then cargo could simply be walked to and from the ship.

As for what medieval war was like (other than a trip to the abattoir), by the 14th century, when the longbow became the English weapon par excellence, the term "arrow storm" was invented. This referred to mass volleys of arrows released in a parabolic trajectory to fall among massed enemy troops; the result was devastating, as the French could attest at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and dozens of other fields.

Of course, Robin Hood takes place in the early 13th century, and the longbow was mainly limited to Welsh and Cheshire archers. Robin's men would have used a much weaker self-bow, as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry, a hunting bow, and not the mighty war bow known to Edward III and Henry V. But as I noted above, the Robin Hood ballads were composed in the late 14th century, at which time every English yeoman was an archer, and the only bow worth noting was the mighty longbow.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:51AM

"It is in some ways amusing to read the film as an allegory of the tea-party movement and recent American politics. King Richard (Danny Huston) thus becomes George W. Bush, a warrior king but one who foolishly squandered his resources on an ill-advised Middle Eastern war that turned out to be the ruin of him, bankrupting the country and leaving it to the tender mercies of a young and inexperienced successor"

One doesn't have to read that as an allegory. It's simply an historical truth: Richard was a horrible king who spent most of his time warring in France and the Holy Land, mortgaging the kingdom and confiscating Jewish property to finance his crusade, then further bankrupting the kingdom by getting his sorry butt captured by an Austrian princeling who demanded a huge ransom (if I were the English, I would have said good-bye and good riddance to him).

John was an equally awful king, with the added shortcoming of military incompetence (of which nobody could accuse Richard). It was his combination of high taxes and foreign policy ineptitude that alienated the barons, leading to their revolt and the issuance of Magna Carta.

Now, the real hooey is found in the Victorian Robin Hood stories and the movies derived from them from the 1930s to the 1950s. You know, the "Good Saxons vs. evil Normans", "Good King Richard vs. Bad King John", "Rob from the rich to give to the poor" stuff. Pure fantasy. Bowman should hate it.

See, here's a lesson for James Bowman: if you want to criticize a movie for historical inaccuracies, it helps to know your history, particularly if the movies you hold up as paradigms are more wildly inaccurate (what about Flynn's tights, Bowman?) than the films he is criticizing.

Now, if Bowman wanted to dump on a movie, Costner's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" would have been a much better target, what with its rampant political correctness (Morgan Freeman, a noble Moor? The man played God, for crying out loud!) and historical inaccuracies. But his mordant dyspepsia with current films (other than a handful of "serious" films that most people would rather have a nail shoved into their eyeballs than see) means he just can resist the urge to let loose with both barrels, even though he's shooting blanks.

Lawrence Kohn| 5.29.10 @ 10:07PM

so Stuart , if I like history and if I liked Master and Commander do you recommend I see it?

Stuart Koehl| 5.30.10 @ 8:34AM

Indeed, I do. Be aware, though, that this is really a character study masquerading as an action flick. It's not so much about a sea fight (though the battle scenes are meticulously accurate and exciting) as it is about one hundred and fifty men crammed up for months in a wooden box barely 120 x 40 feet. Unlike most historical movies, where the characters look and sound as though they were pulled off the streets of LA or New York, everybody here rings true.

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 9:12AM

All too true... since Robin Hood seems to be a centuries long chain fiction of social dreams woven with a tad bit of whimsy, I don't see the grave harm here.

Ok... so the characters are stock... Russell Crowe plays himself, Cate Blanchett plays a PC Marion who is physically paired with a blade she could, in real life, barely heft. Swinging it might be a comedy worthy of Lucille Ball. So, she is a construct to keep the women interested enough in the movie to add to the ticket sales. (Failure to have a feminist Maid Marion would leave the next interpretation of the Nottingham Crew to the all male-fanboy club.)

Just a personal observation here. If you want a most excellent, biting, and romantic portrayal of the end of the Robin Hood saga, check out Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, and Nicole Williamson in "Robin and Marion". I found that "rest of the story" (h/t to he great Paul Harvey) to be the best.

Hey... it is Hollywood... perspective in all things, after all.

Regards,

The Mighty Fahvaag

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 9:29AM

Sorry... bad brain to finger connections... "Robin and Marian"...

Always loved Audrey...

--TMF

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 10:15AM

I can't help wondering if Hollywood doesn't misunderstand the female demographic. As I noted, there are no women in Master and Commander, yet both my daughters adore that film. Of course, I brought them up on a diet of Horatio Hornblower novels (never really liked Patrick O'Brien, truth be told), so salt water and rum flows in their veins.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 9:27AM

On "Robin and Marian"--my favorite Robin Hood movie, too--I recommended it back when we were at it hammer-and-tongs over Liza Fabrizio's recent "Nobody Makes Good Movies Anymore" screed.

On feminist Marian, maybe Blanchett was channeling her Elf-Queen persona from Lord of the Rings, but otherwise, you're pretty much correct. A real broadsword weighs about six pounds, and even though it's balanced, swinging one around can get exhausting even for a beefy bow like Russell Crowe after just a few minutes. That's why battles were short, and why the Romans fought in relays (you'd think Crowe would remember that from "Gladiator"). There's a reason why war is a man's game.

Now, this stands in stark contrast to my favorite Crowe film, "Master and Commander", which has absolutely no women in it at all (except for a few ship-side whores at a South American port call). Brilliant film, but not a box office smash.

Film is an art form, but it's also a business, and you have to give the customer what he wants. Film, therefore, is always a trailing, rather than a leading indicator of public attitudes--except in places where they subsidize film making, but who wants to watch that crap?

NavyBrat| 5.28.10 @ 9:35AM

Mr. Koehl. How could I have forgotten "Master & Commander?!" I agree, a great movie & a good portrayal of the age of "Iron Men & Wooden Ships." Thanks for the reminder!

W Krebs| 5.28.10 @ 10:36AM

To amplify your comments on broadswords:
1. The Romans used a short sword, not a broad sword.
2. Roman sword fighting technique was to stab with the sword, not to swing it.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 12:50PM

Well, if you want to get technical, the legionary infantry of the Principate used the gladius hispaniensis, a short stabbing sword with a double edge for slashing, too. But the auxiliaries, and the small legionary cavalry unit used the spatha, a longer slashing sword.

Already by the time of Marcus Aurelius, the spatha seems to have been gaining ground on the gladius, and by the third century it had largely displaced the stabbing sword within the legions.

Finally, the classic Roman attack involved disrupting the enemy line with two volleys of pila (heavy javelins) from about 30 yards, followed by a charge, sword in hand. The sword was used for stabbing, but mainly in conjunction with the scutum (the large oval or rectangular body shield): the legionary would first punch or push his opponent with the scutum, which would create an opening through which an upward stab with the gladius would provide the coup de grace.

The Romans knew that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.

W Krebs| 5.28.10 @ 3:06PM

Since you're obviously well informed about military history, can you answer a question for me. I was generally aware that barbarian auxiliaries used national weapons, including the broadsword. Was this also true of Italian auxiliaries in the Republican period?

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 4:52PM

We're very foggy on details of the Roman army until the Second Punic War, because that's when Polybius begins writing things down. We believe that the manipular organization was copied from the Samnites in the 4th or 3rd centuries BC, prior to which the Romans fought as hoplites.

We believe that the gladius was adopted some time in the First Punic War by the legions. Before then, we know the Romans used a short sword, but it may have been more like the Greek xiphos, which was a cutting weapon.

The Consular army consisted of two consular legions and two allied legions (called alae) made up of contingents from the allied Italian states. We believe that, eventually, they were armed like the legions; by the time of the Social War, they certainly were equipped and fought like the legions, and afterwards, when citizenship was extended to all Italians, all differences disappeared.

Auxiliaries were organized into cohorts of 500 or 1000 men from non-Allied sources. There were a few city-states in Italy that were neither Socii or Colonii, and if the Romans recruited from them, they would have come armed "as is".

Most auxiliaries were recruited off the Peninsula, as specialist troops, mainly light, cavalry and missile units (slingers, archers, javalineers, etc.). When Marius reformed the legion, abolishing the maniples and the distinction between hastati, principes, triarii and velites, the legion became an homogeneous heavy infantry force organized in ten cohorts and a 120-man cavalry ala. From that time on, the Romans relied on auxiliaries for all their light troops.

jason taylor| 5.28.10 @ 11:45AM

"Film is an art form, but it's also a business..."

All art forms are also businesses.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 12:53PM

Alas, were this true! Used to be true, when artists had to please their patrons and give them what they wanted. While this is still true of "commercial" art, today's "serious" artists have been liberated from such philistine considerations by government grants and academic fellowships. This allows them to make art intended mainly to impress their fellow artists. Unfortunately, this makes it absolutely impenetrable to ordinary people. Art has become an inside joke, which is why only commercial art--visual or performing--is the only decent stuff around.

NavyBrat| 5.28.10 @ 9:32AM

I saw the movie. It was pretty entertaining as far as summer blockbusters go. I DID enjoy assigning the character of King John the modern day personage of Obama. The last line in the movie, with Marion talking that social justice tripe bothered me, but only slightly. I just wanted to be entertained, & I was. For the record though, Ridley Scott & Russell Crowe did better in "Gladiator."

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 9:56AM

Yeah. I couldn't make up my mind whether this was going to be "Gladiator of Sherwood Forest" or "Outlaw and Commander". I guess they settled on the former.

On the subject of old vs. new movies, Gladiator was essentially a remake of the 1964 sand-and-sandal epic "Fall of the Roman Empire", with Alec Guiness as Marcus Aurelius, Christopher Plummer as Commodus, Stephen Boyd (last seen being dragged to death by a chariot in Ben Hur) as the hero Livius, and the ever-pneumatic Sophia Loren as, well, the ever-pneumatic girl.

Despite the high-powered cast and a Dmitri Tiomkin score, I don't think anyone could say that this film was superior in any way to Gladiator.

So, not all remakes suck.

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 11:53AM

Nope... "Rio Bravo", "El Dorado", and "Rio Lobo" perhaps?

Or maybe we could indulge in slight variations on the theme... my father's absolute favorites:

"Fort Apache", "Rio Grande", and "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" which although a tad different each time where very similar on purpose as Ford explored the concepts of honor and duty.

But.... those are different genre for a different Hollywood, aren't they?

One wonders how SWYR would end up now... [insert wincing shudder here]...

;-)

-TMF

tdiinva| 5.28.10 @ 10:27AM

Mr. Bowman:

I have a bone to pick on your about "A Knight's Tale." Of course the movie is about today. There are many forms of literature, and by translation movies, where tales of today are told through stories that take place in other time settings, i.e., science fiction. A Knight's Tale isn't about fame and fortune in the medieval world. It is about say Tiger Woods or Babe Ruth or any other modern sports hero. It is a legitimate literary technique.

I also see that a few commenter’s are as equally in the dark and as literal as you are. Particularly Mr. Koehl who I believe I had the misfortune once knowing out here in the physical universe. Heah Stuart do you still see IC?

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:48PM

"I also see that a few commenter’s are as equally in the dark and as literal as you are. "

I have no idea who you are, but I see your reading comprehension skills aren't up to the usual standards of people I call my friends. Go back again and look at what I wrote, not what you wish I had written.

tdiinva| 5.28.10 @ 2:22PM

Stuey:

I wasn't refering to your Bush-Obama-Tea Party allegory post. You have managed to turn a movie review into a discussion of warfare in the age of edged weapons. That is as pretentious and full of puffery as Mr. Bowman's overly serious review.

Your response further demonstrates how in the dark you are.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:03PM

Inscrutability is the last refuge of the vacuous.

tdiinva| 5.28.10 @ 9:13PM

Projecting are we?

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 9:14PM

Just observing.

millard fillmore| 5.28.10 @ 9:40PM

Then you must be inscrutable to the point of unemployability.Take a breath,and give the others a chance to play.

Stan Redmond| 5.28.10 @ 10:44AM

My favorite is the disney cartoon version. Total fantasy.

I really enjoy movies but won't go until the bash Bush fad is over.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:46PM

Highly influential in the circle of my kids. One of my daughters' friends decided to become "Mate Marian", while my niece decided to become Robin Hood, and is now angling for a spot on the 2012 U.S. Olympic archery team.

Roughcoat| 5.28.10 @ 11:44AM

Stuart Koehl's remarks on medieval warfare are for the most part breathtakingly inaccurate, or just plain wrong. "That's why battles were short"? Where did you come by this piece of information? Battles in the medieval period, and in antiquity as well, tended to be quite lengthy in duration. Hastings, e.g., went on for about 10 hours. The Battle of Hattin lasted for the better part of an entire day. The Battle of Cannae--3 to 4 hours (more, if you include the deployment to the battlefield and the cavalry engagement). Phalanx battles in the Hellenistic period were long, drawn-out affairs, grinding matches of attrition, with much pushing and shoving. As for the arrow storms at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt: the efficacy of arrow fire, even mass plunging arrow fire, is misunderstood. Most hits were not kill shots and most did not even inflict wounds--plunging arrow fire could not penetrate the shields, and the mixture of plate and mail armor worn by knights and their horses and, to a lesser extent, men-at-arms. At the siege of Rhodes Christian knights clad in plate armor with a sub-layer of mail stood outside the walls and swung away at the Turks with long two-handed swords and did not use shields; arrows shot from Turk bows (more powerful than the English long bows) stuck in their plate armor like pins in a pin-cushion but did not penetrate nor incapacitate. Each of these knights was customarily accompanied by two or more men-at-arms providing flank protection and bashi-bazouks and other lightly armed armored infantrymen. The primar value of arrow fire by the English in the 100 Years' War was in disrupting the cohesion of enemy formations. Most of the killing in the three great battles mentioned above was done by the men-at-arms positioned with the archers, and by the archers themselves who, upon discarding their bows after exhausting their supply of arrows, swarmed out on the battlefield to hack apart their adversaries.

Where did you get the notion that "everybody from serfs to kings" were " in the Middle Ages were "rutting like stoats"? Oh, I know: you got it from James Clavell's "Shogun."

I could go on and on. Mr. Koehl, you need to study up on your military history.

BTW, Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" was boring.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:32PM

""That's why battles were short"? Where did you come by this piece of information? Battles in the medieval period, and in antiquity as well, tended to be quite lengthy in duration. Hastings, e.g., went on for about 10 hours. The Battle of Hattin lasted for the better part of an entire day. "

Some battles were lengthy, and for that reason were noteworthy. Where battles did last for most of a day, or even for more than a day, they tended to break down into distinct phases separated by extended lulls. No man in armor, wielding a sword, axe or spear, can do so for more than perhaps 15-20 minutes continuously. Battles thus consisted of "spasms" in which the two sides came to blows, fought for a while, then spontaneously fell back to catch their breath, before repeating the process.

At Hattin, the surrounded and cut-off Crusaders were pinned and contained by skirmishing Saracens. Every now and again, they would try to break out of the encirclement, resulting in intense close combat. But, their impetus spent, they would retreat back up the hill until rallied for another effort. Eventually, lack of water caused them to surrender.

Hastings was similar: the Saxons, on their hilltop, received a number of distinct French and Norman attacks, most of short duration. In between, they were subjected to archery attack, which prevented them from breaking ranks, inflicted casualties, increased fatigue, and wore down morale. Eventually, the wounding of Harold and the thinning of the ranks (aided by two mock retreats that incited sections of the Saxon force to come down from the ridge and be destroyed in detail) allowed the Norman and French cavalry to break the shield wall.

It's not quite clear how long Cannae went on, but the decisive action probably took no more than half an hour, during which time the Carthaginians absorbed the initial Roman charge by pulling back their center, allowing their African infantry to flank the Romans on each side. Meanwhile, the Carthaginian cavalry scattered their Roman counterparts, then wheeled inward and attacked the Romans from the rear. The rest of the day was not spent so much in fighting as in butchering, since the Romans, now encircled, were so tightly packed as to be unable to use their weapons effectively.

"Phalanx battles in the Hellenistic period were long, drawn-out affairs, grinding matches of attrition, with much pushing and shoving. "

Hanson, Goldsworthy and Connolly would disagree. Classic Greek phalanx battles were over very quickly--most of the time, one side would break at, or even before making contact, and the rest of the time, it would break after a few minutes (usually from the rear). Hellenistic battles of the successor states tended to last longer because both sides were professionals and neither wanted to suffer heavy casualties. Therefore, there was much bristling and skirmishing before the opposing phalanxes made contact, and thereafter the battle was either over in a few minutes, or both sides would fall back to try again. The Romans's advantage in the Macedonian wars lay not only in the flexibility of their formations (which allowed them to penetrate the phalanx on rough terrain), but in the ability of the centuries within the maniples to relieve one another; the Romans thus always had fresh troops moving forward, like some sort of giant threshing machine, while the Macedonians always had the same men in the front ranks, rapidly becoming exhausted.

"As for the arrow storms at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt: the efficacy of arrow fire, even mass plunging arrow fire, is misunderstood. Most hits were not kill shots and most did not even inflict wounds--plunging arrow fire could not penetrate the shields, and the mixture of plate and mail armor worn by knights and their horses and, to a lesser extent, men-at-arms."

Recent demonstrations with reproduction bows and arrowheads against accurate plate, mail and scale armor reproductions (see Hardy, Soar and Strickland, among others) shows the bodkin point could penetrate mail at greater than 100 meters, and even good plate at 50-75 meters. Fired indirectly, the main purpose of the arrow storm was to wound horses--but it could also cause injury to lightly armored foot, and even to men-at-arms in the face and less well protected joints. Even if such shots did not kill a horse, a pain-maddened steed can disrupt a charge, while a dead horse in front of the lines will prevent subsequent ranks from charging home.

At Crecy, the archers on the flanks of each battle channelized the French into the dismounted men at arms--both man and horse flinched away from the arrows. At Poitiers, there were relatively few archers, who quickly ran out of arrows and then fought hand-to-hand, fortunately protected by a hedge; an English mounted attack on the French rear sealed the deal. At Agincourt, the initial volleys from the archers instigated the French cavalry charge, which was repulsed by a combination of arrows and sharpened stakes. Subsequent dismounted attacks were again channeld towards the center by archers on the flanks, which then allowed the English men at arms to defeat each French division in detail. Note, though, that there were several sequential French attacks, and none of these lasted very long.

In the Wars of the Roses, where both sides were armed and equipped in the same manner, the arrow storm was directed at the opposing archers, in the hope of either suppressing their shooting or even causing them to run away (see, e.g., the Battle of Loosecoat Field). If neither side broke, the lightly armored archers, unwilling to absorb an arrow barrage from their fellows, would almost immediately charge home, while dismounted men-at-arms would advance against each other. Such battles were also over very quickly.

"Where did you get the notion that "everybody from serfs to kings" were " in the Middle Ages were "rutting like stoats"? Oh, I know: you got it from James Clavell's "Shogun.""

As Shogun takes place in the 17th century, I don't think so. You might want to try "A History of Private Life, Vol. II: Revelations of the Medieval World" by Aries, Duby and Goldhammer--very enlightening and based almost exclusively on first-hand sources.

Roughcoat| 5.28.10 @ 11:57AM

W. Krebs' correctly observes that the gladius was not a broadsword and not used for slashing. It was first and foremost a stabbing weapon. The characterization of that weapon as a broadsword is reminiscent of Robert O'Connell's awful "Of Arms and Men," in which the author rather stupidly describes the gladius as a "vicious little meat cleaver."

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 12:25PM

Hum... I figure Stuart can take care of himself. But I have to disagree. You seem to be combining the staging and execution with the actual combat action of those battles.

1. Crecy and Agincourt were both determined by the power, range and utility of the Welsh Longbow... this is very settled history, militarily. The major error that you are dealing with is in WHY the showers of arrows were so effective. A) They were in fact deadly, enough to cause disruptions in ranks. B) The showers of arrows were also debilitating to both the walking men at arms (unhorsed knights that made up the bulk of the French forces) and also the mounted knights. The horses bore the brunt of the showers of arrows, their armor was not as complete, and a horse is not a man when it comes to dealing with showers of sharp painful projectiles being rained down upon them.... they panic... C) the choice of battle ground was also critical, the heavily armored knights were funneled into a muddy slog peppered by arrows, into a narrow field where the change in angle and shortening of distance for the yeomen archers resulted in direct fire at that reduced range, and it has been proven time and time again that chain and plate armor are very vulnerable to direct long bow fire.

The end of Agincourt was a slaughter of fast moving bands of archers with mallets, knives and hatchets swarming knights with limited mobility.

Please see John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" for a most excellent summary of the battle.

Also your assertion that the battle (actual melee) was long is mistaken. Individual battle with in a melee was fairly quick, and brutal. Slicing and hacking with a sword, even with a fair amount of alcohol and adrenaline pumping is a short affair. Add to it the general effects of fatigue, and various dietary er um issues... and you have a long preparatory match that ends in fairly short order, if it goes on, it goes on in waves as reserves are committed if they are available.

It is a treat to read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece" for an excellent exploration of Greek City State Phalanx warfare. It was very stylized, very formal, and the actual battles short. The upshot is that the first phalanx to break and turn lost. His description of what he realized was the initial charge, and collision of hoplons of the front ranks in the respective phalanxes is interesting.

So, I suspect that the difference in opinion is that battle and fighting are interdependent, but slightly different concepts. The actual melee still remains brutal, bloody, and short for one on one combat.

BTW - The gladius was short and light so that it could be handled in battle longer. It was a stabbing sword, but was perfectly capable of being used for slashing/hacking.... both edges were completely sharpened.

r/TMF

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 1:28PM

An other little context BTW... this relates to Mr. Bowman's review in the fact that Riddley Scott seems to have a passion for over expansive, slow motion battle scenes that might have been a tad alien... cough cough... to the actual participants.

r-TMF

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:45PM

For those in the melee, things actually do seem to slow down--all that adrenaline, you know. It's only when its all over does it seem to be one big blur.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:40PM

One of the most important things to remember is much of the time neither side came to blows. Shock warfare is a lot like a game of chicken: two sides advance on each other, bearing shiny, pointy death in their hands. As they approach, each begins to think, "this is going to be nasty if we actually start going at it", and--usually within the last 30 yards or so--one side or the other (and on rare occasions, both) decide the game isn't worth the candle, and run. Usually, this starts from the back of the formation, because the front ranks are "locked in" by the ranks behind them. That's why the best men are in the front rank, and the second best men are in the rear rank, and everyone else is sandwiched between them. But if the rear ranks break, the pressure holding the front ranks is reduced, and soon someone in the front rank decides to go home, and that, in turn, will cause everybody to run--because a man alone, outside a formation, is just dead meat. Once one side broke, the slaughter began--though if no cavalry was present, the loser could often get away by ditching his shield, spear, armor and whatever, allowing him to outrun his still-armored opponent. But in the presence of cavalry, the pursuit could turn into a slaughter, and that's why you see the huge disparity in losses between winners and losers in ancient and medieval battles.

The mechanics of shock combat remained true, by the way, down to the American Civil War. There were very few bayonet fights, but there were a lot of bayonet charges, the purpose of which was not to kill, but to scare, and cause the enemy to run away.

Seek| 5.28.10 @ 5:37PM

In a way, it's a lot like animals in combat. Anyone who has seen the territorial dynamics of hostile cats staring at each other knows why fights, should they occur, tend to be as brief as they are vicious. (Oh, the furry little darlings!).

Flight-or-flight and its consequences are far more serious for humans. That's why desertion on the battlefield is so punished: Panic begets panic which begets slaughter.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 6:38PM

A good observation. Patton once said that battles are determined not by how many are killed but by how many get scared. Hanson observed in "The Western Way of War" that the crowning achievement of the West was both the suppression of cowardice and the warrior impulse: not merely to keep people from running away (I forget who said "A rational army would run away"), but also the urge to break ranks and demonstrate extraordinary martial prowess. To stand in ranks and obey orders, whether one wants to run or to fight, distinguished the armies of Greece and Rome from those of the barbarians.

Mark| 5.28.10 @ 1:37PM

I think most people unfortunately will miss the point of this film, especially left leaning individuals as they probably will have no clue as to what the piece of paper that was referred to in the picture, that this is the story of the Magna Carta. If there was any political message, it was pointed at the current political establishments in Europe, who have completely forgotten what they fought for. Any reference to the current situation in this country, was by happenstance, as this country has also started down that same path.

The Magna Carta is debatably the most single important document in all the world as it gave birth to all the "free" nations including what latter manifested itself into the American Revolution. It began the idea that government existed at the consent of the govern. I suspect there will be a sequel to the movie "Robin Hood", to further bring the story of the Magna Carta to the fore front.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 1:44PM

"that this is the story of the Magna Carta"

It's sort of the story of Magna Carta. It's the popular story of Magna Carta as the foundation of English liberties (and thus our own), but in reality the common people had very little direct stake or interest in the Great Charter, which really just laid out the relationship between the king and the barons. It had beneficial long-term effects on the commonality because of its guarantees of due process, which eventually allowed the emergence of independent smallholders, townsmen, artisans and merchants--but that's a couple of centuries down the road.

Also, it's doubtful a stonemason wrote the Charter--more likely some monastic clerk. Stonemasons and barons had this much in common: most of them could not even sign their own names.

Mark| 5.28.10 @ 2:05PM

I agree the Magna Carta did little for the common people, but it took absolute power away from the king, and made him falible and thus a human who could be challenged.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 2:28PM

True enough. Most people have a "1066 and All That" understanding of it, though.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 5.28.10 @ 2:26PM

If this is the sort of discussion James Bowman generates when he writes a movie review, he should write more of them.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 2:28PM

Yeah, I feel terrible, because generating this much traffic is only going to encourage him.

SoCon| 5.28.10 @ 3:16PM

You're funny, Stuart. Your pithy posts remind me of some my favorite Santa Clara Univ. professors' lectures.

They were Jesuits, and they were strikingly intelligent and funny, too. Thanks for the history lesson.

Such an exceptional thread--so many smart men!

Mark| 5.28.10 @ 4:21PM

I would suggest that the labels of "smart" and "men" are irrelevant to the debate and would be considered nothing more then a "red herring" and considered an insult to most conservatives despite what is believed in the MSM. I would recommend using your terms more carefully next time or you maybe considered a typical "troll".

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 4:54PM

Don't be so touchy.

SoCon| 5.28.10 @ 5:31PM

Mark, what a lovely man you are. Thin-skinned and boorish, you must be such a pleasure for those who are "lucky" enough to know you. I'm so sorry I don't have the privilege of knowing a supercilious little prig like you.

I assure you I am no troll and my kind words were certainly not meant for you.

Truth to Power| 5.28.10 @ 5:44PM

SoCon is so cool! What do we know about Mark? Well he can recite back some high school history. That is good. On the other hand he is a rude twit or crazy. I am leaning towards crazy since he insists that terms like smart and men should be chosen more carefully. Both words seemed right on when reading today's discussion. Maybe there is some other explanation of why one would over react to a compliment. Next time just say thanks Mark.

SoCon| 5.28.10 @ 10:35PM

Thanks, Truth--you're very kind.

I'd be shocked if Mark is a Conservative Alpha male, he has the distinctive prissy whine of most Liberal Beta boys!

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 4:53PM

I guess those four years at Georgetown were good for something.

SoCon| 5.28.10 @ 5:36PM

Well, Stuart, at the very least, you learned to be gracious; unlike Mark the knuckle dragger.

Rob in da 'Hood| 5.28.10 @ 5:36PM

Stuart Koehl exhorts Mr. Bowman to "...Get a grip, guy. It's a friggin' movie...", yet by a quick count Mr. Koehl has thus far issued 21 responses to this article.

Mr. Bowman, I love your reviews.

Mr. Koehl, get a grip, guy. It's a friggin' movie review.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 7:59PM

But I hate friggin' reviewers who don't know their stuff. Not to mention anal retentives who count the number of my posts.

Kathleen| 5.28.10 @ 8:08PM

Seems to me there are a lot of anal retentives around here.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:36PM

Indeed there are.

Truth to Power| 5.28.10 @ 9:21PM

Are you counting them Kathleen?

millard fillmore| 5.28.10 @ 9:42PM

2,I count 2.

Kathleen| 5.28.10 @ 9:45PM

Stuart's posts or anal retentives?

Truth to Power| 5.28.10 @ 10:37PM

I was trying to decide if you were anal retentive. The counting of anal retentives might be a sure sign.

Kathleen| 5.28.10 @ 11:20PM

I wasn't counting anything. I was talking about Type A personalities, and there are a lot of them on this thread.

Why so sensitive? Anal retentive much?

Truth to Power| 5.29.10 @ 9:41AM

I was just funning. Sorry if any offense was taken.

Kathleen| 5.29.10 @ 12:10PM

None taken. I wasn't sure if you thought I was a troll; I'm not.

Truth to Power| 5.29.10 @ 2:12PM

Never thought you were a troll. I detected a sense of humor. I was ready to swear off all counting if necessary. Fortunately it didn't come to that.

Kathleen| 5.29.10 @ 2:25PM

Well, you detected right. ;)

saberZedge| 5.28.10 @ 7:15PM

"We're home once again, folks, back in Movieland. I'm not quite sure how that's happened, but somehow, that's the only place today's audiences ever want to be."

I love this final quote from Bowman's article. My wife and I made a decision when our kids were young to never go to Disney World or Land. Instead we went to places like Boston, DC and other historical places that were fun but had historical significance. We did not want to waste our hard earned vacation money on "Movieland" since “that's the only place today's culture wants to be…

And, BTW, "Mr. Koehl, get a grip, guy. It's a friggin' movie review."

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:00PM

Not for nothing is DC called Disneyland on the Potomac. By the way, people spent a lot more time in Movieland back in the '30s and '40s than they do today. The American people were no more enamored of reality then than they are today. Probably less.

SoCon| 5.31.10 @ 1:32PM

They had nothing else to do then, Stuart. Movies cost a nickel in the '30s and people could escape the miseries of the Great Depression for a little while.
Oftentimes, youngsters would spend the day watching the same movie over and over for that one nickel.

Minnie| 5.28.10 @ 7:33PM

Disneyland is a blast, too; sometimes, fantasy is just what the doctor ordered.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:02PM

Absolutely right (not that Disney represents high fantasy). Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle fantasy. The ability to fantasize, to become "secondary creators" as Tolkien put it, is one of the things that separates us from the animals.

Minnie| 5.28.10 @ 8:35PM

For young children, Stuart, not adults. I loved going to Disneyland when I was a little girl. I can remember holding my father's hand and laughing at the antics of my six brothers and sisters as we waited in line to ride the Matterhorn and the Pirates of the Caribbean. Snow White was another favorite.
My poor parents! We were a handful.

It's a memory I'll always cherish.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 8:38PM

Unfortunately, my parents took us to Disneyworld in Orlando right after the park opened. Mostly I remember a sea of mud, as the place wasn't really finished yet. Later they took some of my nieces and nephews there, and they enjoyed it.

As I noted, I live in Fantasyland for Adults, and believe that the denizens of the Magic Kingdom have perhaps a better grip on reality, or at least, more administrative expertise.

Minnie| 5.28.10 @ 9:12PM

Disneyland's denizens would have "plugged the damn hole" a lot sooner than Obama's corruptocrats!
What a nightmare.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.10 @ 9:16PM

Definitely an "E" ticket ride, though.

Minnie| 5.28.10 @ 9:51PM

Kind of like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride that never ends, but worse.

John - TMF| 5.28.10 @ 11:31PM

We went in 1975 the summer after my father passed... I was 16. My Aunt, Uncle, and Mother thought they were doing us all a great favor...

Disney World wasn't a sea of mud, but it was BORING... Except Space Mountain, my only prior rollercoaster experience being the "Rebel Yell" at Kings Dominion. That was a fun ride for the time (tame now...).

Of course those two very lovely teenage girls. in what were for the day very tiny bikinis, that I spent the whole next day cavorting with at the hotel pool... well that made up for the fight that I got in for not wanting to go back to the park the second day. It was like a scene from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

Of course that was my second favorite Robin Hood version... after "Robin and Marian". Roger Miller as Will Scarlett... sweet.

;-) - [he says slipping into the a hazy memories of 35 years past... I think the red head in the yellow string thingy was cuter... but just a tad...]

Minnie| 5.29.10 @ 1:15AM

Must be the "high fantasy" Stuart was talking about.

Stuart Koehl| 5.29.10 @ 5:52AM

"Roger Miller as Will Scarlett... sweet."

That song. . . it was months before they stopped humming it.

And then they found "The Hamster Dance".

pixelman| 5.28.10 @ 10:06PM

Federico| 5.28.10 @ 10:23PM

The Leftist morons would just use it for toilet paper like the Constitution.

Stuart Koehl| 5.29.10 @ 8:15AM

A good film is open to multiple interpretations, often unforeseen by the screenwriter and director, and sometimes contrary to their intended message.

The classic example is "High Noon: Screenwriter Carl Foreman and director Fred Zinneman thought they were making a movie about McCarthyism, with Gary Cooper representing those brave souls who stood up to the evil Wisconsin senator and the ravening anti-Communists on the hill (represented by Frank Miller and his gang coming in on the noon train), while the cowardly townspeople are those who "collaborated" with the anti-communists.

Fortunately, they (and a handful of film school professors) are the only ones who see it that way. To most people, Will Kane represents the United States (it is Gary Cooper, after all), standing up against the looming menace of Soviet domination (Miller and the gang). Deputy Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges), who runs from the fight, represents the Better Red Than Dead crowd. And the cowardly townspeople can be any number of groups that looked the other way when the United States needed help--but I think they accurately represent a wide body of public opinion in Europe and elsewhere.

So, what started out as an anti-anti-Communist film was received as an anti-Communist film, and it is as such that it became a classic example of the Western Genre.

Stuart Koehl| 5.29.10 @ 10:22AM

Because it will be playing no fewer than five times on different channels this weekend, Patton comes to mind that subverts the intentions of its writer and director. According to various accounts, they set out to make an anti-war movie. Didn't quite work out that way, did it? In this case, I believe its due to a fundamental disconnect between Hollywood and the Real World: the writer and director despised the values held by George Patton, and believed simply by putting those on display, they would inspire similar loathing in the audience. But it turns out the audience deeply admired both Patton and his values, and the movie became a celebration of both.

Amadeus is an interesting case of the director confounding the intentions of the writer. Peter Schaffer wrote the play as a paen to mediocrity; Salieri, not Mozart, is the true hero. But in adapting it for the screen, Czech director Milos Foreman--who apparently knew quite a bit about the tyranny of mediocrity--stood the story on its head, to make the point that true genius is a gift from God, and as such can never be destroyed or subverted by the acts of man. Most people I know who saw both preferred the film.

JmsA| 5.29.10 @ 1:18AM

Haven't seen the movie so I won't comment on the Mr. Bowman's review. The only point of reference I have is a cable interview of Russell Crowe and the director, Ridley Scott, wherein the former seems to particularly conflate the theme of the movie with the need for present day social justice. I've enjoyed reading many of the posts herein, particularly those dealing with ancient military history. As such, Mr. Koehl, I would appreciate it if you would offer any comments regarding either the siege at Numantium or the conquest of Gaellecia by the Romans? Many thanks.

Stuart Koehl| 5.29.10 @ 5:57AM

All of the Robin Hood stories, from the early ballads down to the Victorian tales and every last movie version (except for "Men in Tights") was about social justice. I suppose you could make a Robin Hood that wasn't, that portrayed Robin as he must have been (assuming he was a real person)--a thief, murderer and outlaw living a hand-to-mouth existence in the forest, preying upon innocent travelers (mainly peasants and merchants) and definitely leaving heavily armed noble retinues alone. But who would watch it?

Regarding Numantia and Gallicia, what specific aspects are of interest?

wahyu hidayat| 5.29.10 @ 6:07AM

nice info gan

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.29.10 @ 12:11PM

A fascinating discussion, folks. I really enjoyed it.

The last movie I paid to see was "Over The Hedge".
Heh, it was well worth the money.

I'm having difficulty with my favorites list, though Forrest Gump gets in there right close to the top with "Saving Private Ryan", Patton, and a recent Alamo film ( complete on youtube).

Mike Giles| 5.30.10 @ 5:26PM

"Saving Private Ryan" always gets on my last nerve. What kind of officer would risk his mens lives on such a ridiculous mission. Only the last ditch defense of that bridge makes their sacrifice worthwhile.

Stuart Koehl| 5.30.10 @ 7:55PM

It was based on a true story, but they elaborated a bit. And a lot of missions in wartime are stupid. Look at "Task Force Baum", which was sort of like Saving Private Ryan using a reinforced armored infantry battalion, instead of a squad of rangers.

atics| 5.29.10 @ 12:23PM

french and english is always related to one another in a state of war, good analysis

Mark Shepler| 5.29.10 @ 12:33PM

Mr. Koehl,
Have read your comments with interest. I think you go a bit hard on Mr. Bowman initially but I do see your point. I have read his reviews for years but still can't quite figure out what moves him. I always appreciate his calling out Hollywood's liberal pieties and phony-baloney but am mystified by his occasional tantrums about movie "realism". About his review of the 2007 The Last Sin Eater I wrote this in the AS letters section (see "Reality Up for Grabs"): http://spectator.org/archives/.....ding/print

I stand by it still. Why anyone expects Hollywood to hew to an accurate historical, or even "realistic" line, especially an obviously erudite movie reviewer of all people, is beyond me. His temper strikes me as one of a crusty, curmudgeonly fellow who simply must find a nit to pick. Still, if it's any consolation to him, last night my 18yr son chose a different movie to go to than Robin Hood. When I asked him why, for I am anxious to see a great and favorite actor in a classic tale of derring-do, said "it's Crowe and Ridley Scott...it's Gladiator in tights running around in the woods". And that almost sums up Bowman's complaints, no?

david ducey| 5.30.10 @ 12:06PM

The reason I will not see it is because they think Marion is a woman's name. It is, and always has been, Marian.

Truthyness| 5.30.10 @ 3:50PM

I do think bringing up the old Errol Flynn film and its fellows is a legitimate point, because Bowman is on his usual hobby about how audiences today can't handle realism. Well, what is it audiences yesterday were handling? Was Errol Flynn realism?

The comments on warfare in the replies are much more interesting than anything in bowman's review.

Stuart Koehl| 5.30.10 @ 8:35PM

"Was Errol Flynn realism?"

You mean guys didn't wear green pantyhose and pointy shoes in the 12th century? I'm shocked.

Ma2| 5.31.10 @ 10:03AM

Hello Stuart! I too have enjoyed reading your comments and some of the more mature responses. Just before this film hit the theatres I started researching the period between the fall of the Roman empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages and the subsequent 1066 pivot point in Western Civilization. It is hard not to compare what is happening in the our country today to the mortification of the Romans and the erosion of their accomplishments. As for green pantyhose and pointy shoes, I took it as dead-on accurate.....when I was eight years old. Dang!