Swashbuckle and Roll over in the Grave

I went to the video store the other day. I was in the mood for a real swashbuckler--perhaps a pirate flying on a rope from the bird's nest to the deck to fight the evil captain of another pirate ship. Maybe, I thought to myself, I'll find Tyrone Power as the world's best Zorro, or some incarnation of Errol Flynn wearing tights and dashing about with a sword.

About five minutes into my sojourn, I realized that I was in for a disappointment. Not one Errol Flynn movie was in that store. Not one classic entitled "The Adventures of..." anything sat on the shelves, unless you count "Adventures in Babysitting"... which I don't.


I looked in adventure, in classics, in comedy, even in suspense. Nothing. I found, as I looked, the "Zorro" starring Antonio Bandaras. Now, that was a good movie, but it was also a different kind of movie. It looked more for realism than stylish Hollywood fun. It was fun, but it was also about a different Zorro. If nothing else, it was a well-made sequel (I'm afraid I can't say the same for its sequel), but I wanted the original. Tyrone Power is a careful, watchful Zorro, with a glint in his eye and a talent for playing a daft dandy who is too bored to possibly be the masked hero. The lines are snappish and witty, the fighting is good and classic, and Power plays Zorro with a wink and a nod (he is quoted as saying "The secret of charm is bullshit" and I think he must have been absolutely full of it). He could just as easily become serious, and he was a talented actor who always looked like he was on the verge of laughing, but it would be a short, sardonic burst.

As I gave up hope on finding my classic Zorro adventure, I came upon something that made my heart sink and my stomach do one of those flips that books are always talking about: "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". Yech.

Now, I could go on and on about how much I dislike Kevin Costner, but I'll let this movie do most of the talking. Suffice to say that I feel this film bastardizes the idea of Robin Hood the way that "Men in Tights" never could. The story telling is half-assed, the cast just isn't that great, and the worst part of the whole movie is Costner himself. He didn't even try an accent, and he didn't appear to try acting. It's just all so wrong, I'm a little upset thinking about it.

At any rate, what I'd been looking for instead was, of course, Errol Flynn as Robin Hood. The classic, smug, too-sure-of-himself king of all golden age swashbucklers. For every wink that Power implies, Flynn actually follows through. The laughs that look like they're about to appear with Power burst out of Flynn, and the charm that is so quiet and determined in Zorro is thrashing and gleeful coming from Robin Hood. It's good, messy fun, with neat lines and techicolor.

Why, I asked myself, why do they only have to newer versions of the great classics? Why, I asked the cashier, why is there no Errol Flynn, but an abundance of Kevin Costner? How has it come to this?

I don't know, but I'm going to make it my mission to trick my friends (or if nothing else, convince them) to watch the real Robin Hood and Zorro. They deserve it-- "they" being both my friends, and the brilliant stars who made the heroes come to life.