Religion and the Prince of Thieves

An exploration of how religion is portrayed in Robin Hood the Prince of Thieves (1991).

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, directed by Kevin Reynolds) is not a universally acclaimed film but it remains popular thirty years after it came out as an exciting adventure story. It retells the familiar folk tale of Robin Hood and his merry men as they steal from the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham and help those who suffer under his rule. Alan Rickman as the Sheriff and Morgan Freeman as Azeem are two of the stand out performances and certainly for myself it's a beloved film. Unlike other versions of the Robin Hood tale Prince of Thieves includes many religious elements and does appear to dictate some morals regarding religion. So let's dive in and have a look at what it seems to say. Brief History To set the scene I briefly want to lay out a history of the Robin Hood stories before looking at the associated religious elements which Prince of Thieves inherited. This is by no means a complete account of the history but a brief introduction. Feel free to skip to the next sub-heading if you want to get straight into the action

Robin Hood likely began in spoken tales and stories with references to his heroism in Piers Plowman (1370s), Friar Daw's Reply (1400s) and Dives and Pauper (1400s). He began as commoner turned outlaw who may show some restraint in his thieving but was largely focused on stealing for his own gain and striking against the cruel local rich. Overtime, the stories expanded becoming popular in songs and plays with the introduction of familiar elements such as Robin's skill of archery, his merry men and Maid Marian. Robin became a more conventional hero when resolving to steal from the rich to give to the poor (1590s) and being recast as a noble (1840s). This taming of the character into contemporary ideas of heroics may have helped to make Robin more likeable and less of a challenge to the hierarchical social order of the day. Religion has never been a central element of Robin Hood stories, unlike for example the Arthurian legends. Instead religion is often present as part of the rest of the English medieval world, part of the background setting. As the stories often challenged the rich and powerful of the day, there are often individuals guilty of corruption who claim to support Christian ideals. For example, in one version of the medieval tale it is an a prioress, a type of monastic woman like an abbess, who kills Robin. As Robin became a more traditional hero he becomes to a good Christian, fulfilling contemporary ideals of what a good person should be. For example, he shows due respect to the King as a God-appointed leader and goes out of his way to attend religious services.

Connecting Robin Hood and the Crusades is a very modern development. There are countless versions of the Robin Hood tale, but from my research it appears that the first story to include the Crusades or at least popularise this element was ITV's television series Robin of Sherwood (1984-6). This was subsequently included in other iterations such as Prince of Thieves and BBC's Robin Hood (2006-9), which was my first introduction to the story. In Robin of Sherwood, a close ally of Robin and Merry Man is Nasir, a quiet and stern man who is an important ally. The character was quite popular and Nasir appears to be the template for Azeem. Thus, the insertion and focus on the Crusades and Islamic Christian interactions in Prince of Thieves was not a given and instead suggests that the film wanted to say something specifically about religion and these topics. That being said, let's jump in and see what they said. Corruption It is ironic that although the Robin Hood stories began as celebrating stealing and outlaw-hood they have come to stand for justice and anti-corruption, of which Prince of Thieves is no expectation. The moral, as it were, is pretty simple - corruption bad. Robin may be the Prince of Thieves but he is a thief with morals, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Robin's morality on this topic isn't elaborated on with religious language but his cross necklace becomes an important symbol for him. It is on this cross that he swears on his father's grave to avenge him and right the wrongs of the Sheriff - the cross becomes a symbol of determination and rejection of the status quo. This fits quite well as crucifixion was a means of capital punishment for those who have broken Roman imperial law. Therefore, it is quite in keeping with the original meaning of the cross, a symbol of horrific execution first and not a religion. The cross also becomes a symbol of love, as Marian wears it when she believes Robin dead as a sign of her ongoing dedication to him and so rejection of Sheriff. Again this is in keeping with Christian ideas of the cross as a means through which God's love is demonstrated for all people as God offers everyone new life. Therefore, Prince of Thieves having the cross as a radical symbol of love and challenge to corruption is quite apt.

Though Christianity has many teachings about justice, rejecting corruption and living a simple life (check out James 5:1-6) this hasn't always translated into practice. Christians and the Church have been guilty of great hoarding of material wealth and corruption on grand scales which has caused great harm; for that God have mercy. Prince of Thieves acknowledges this through the character of the Bishop of Hereford. Undoubtedly drawn from the various corrupt church officials in the original folk tales, the Bishop allies himself with the Sheriff for his own material gain. The Bishop's evil-ness is particularly seen when he refuses to aid Marian's escape and instead aids in the Sheriff's plans to forcibly marry her If the Bishop of Hereford represents the danger of Christianity and perhaps organised religion in general supporting corruption, then the opposing argument is championed by Friar Tuck. The jovial Friar does spend the majority of his screen time as a comedic character, being bullied by Robin and co and being pretty much constantly drunk. However, his sole interaction with the Bishop of Hereford, which is in the climatic battle, shows a more serious side of the Friar and his utter disgust with the Bishop's behaviour. Friar Tuck interrupts the Bishop gathering gold and jewels before making a run for it and here is the scene, Friar Tuck: So, you sold your soul to Satan, your grace. You accused an innocent man of witchcraft and let them die. Bishop: But brother friar, you would not strike a fellow man of the cloth. Friar Tuck: No, I wouldn't. In fact, I'll help you pack for your journey! You have to take a lot of gold to help you on your way. (He piles some bags of gold into the Bishop's arms.) You are a very rich man. And that, and that. (Holds up a smaller bag.) Now here's thirty pieces of silver to pay the devil on your way to hell! The reference to the thirty pieces of silver is particularly striking as this is an illusion to how Jesus' friend Judas' betrayed Jesus to the religious authorities and was awarded thirty pieces of silver for his information. This betrayal led to Jesus' arrest and subsequent execution by religious and Roman authorities. Whether Judas himself was motivated mainly by money for his betrayal is debated but Tuck is clearly suggesting that the Bishop's corrupt service to the Sheriff is like condemning Jesus Himself to death. It is a really striking line and highlights how despicably the Bishop has acted in Tuck's eyes.

Casting the Bishop, an important Church leader who really should know better, as corrupt is a warning to how anyone can be corrupted and make personal material gain a god to which they serve. It is also an undoubtable comment on the Church's corruption and how preaching and actions can be so contrasting. Tuck provides the counterpoint to this more pessimistic view though, demonstrating the hypocrisy in the Bishop and a spirit of Christian generosity and justice. Tuck still shows that religious leaders are fallible (I can't say being permanently tipsy is a good leadership quality) whilst capturing a hope for a better system. A slightly minor point which I still want to address is how after rebutting the Bishop of Hereford's moral decisions Tuck then pushes him out of the window and declares that he will go to hell. The Friar seems to have missed the Bible's teachings forbidding murder and Jesus' championing of justice and peaceful conduct ... However, this is an action film and all of this is happening in the middle of a battle so I don't think that the film is trying to make a serious comment on vigilante executions. Instead its a dramatic and action-packed way to defeat a villain. It is also unavoidably satisfying to see the Bishop meet the same end as the rest of the key bad guys and the irony of his own wealth dragging him down is easy to see. To sum up how the film treats corruption then generally it argues that our interactions with corruption are complex and whilst Christianity and organised religion can be a source of great good it can also excuse or even aid greater harm. Religion alone is not portrayed as the source of generosity or greediness but it is how people interpret and use beliefs which is where accountability lies. Religious Conflict It was the portrayal of Islam in the film which made me want to write this post. I had seen the film plenty of times before but until recent viewings I hadn't realised how much time the film spends on religion and belief and calls for religious harmony and co-existence. Practicing Christians and Muslims, people from the Middle East and England, are portrayed as imperfect and capable of great good and evil. Neither religion is particularly extoled over the other and instead the similarities between the faiths are celebrated and religious harmony shown as positive and realistic. This message of respect of other people's beliefs and the potential for religious harmony is undoubtedly positive and a good message to see put out by a major film

(Camp - Night) (Azeem sits outside a hut working on something. A little girl walks up to him and looks at him curiously.) Azeem: Salaam, little one. Girl: Did God paint you? Azeem: Did God paint me? (Laughs) For certain. Girl: Why? Azeem: Because Allah loves wondrous variety. This is a very sweet little scene. It has a great message but is undoubtedly a bit simplistic. The exploration of religion throughout the film is somewhat simplistic and limited by only really having one character, Azeem, portraying Islamic beliefs.

On the face of it Azeem's above identification of the Christian and Islamic conceptions of God as the same is correct. By definition all monotheistic religions (religions which believe in just one God) believe in the same, one God. Furthermore, Christianity and Islam, being Abrahamic faiths alongside Judaism, share the same ancient conceptions of the divine as their origins. However, conceptions of Who exactly this God is vary greatly between Christianity and Islam and indeed within them. Therefore, it would perhaps be an over-simplification to say that the faiths believe in the same God. For example, an important belief in Christianity is that God is love a name which is not given to God in Islam. Conversely, in Islam the Prophet Muhammed's identification as the Prophet of God is vital to who God is whereas Christians ascribe to the Prophet Muhammed no such qualities. It could be explained that God is just a job title, who is thought to hold that job can vary widely. Nevertheless, theology is a secondary concern for the Prince of Thieves for which telling a compelling narrative with daring sword fights and passionate romance being more important. Therefore, I am generally happy with the portrayal although a bit more nuance could be helpful. In the background of the film looms the Crusades, a topic clearly linked with religious conflict. Only recently have the crusades served as part of the story for Robin Hood tales. It provides a legitimate reason for the 'good' King Richard to be away and somewhere for Robin and sometimes also some of his allies to have been before returning to England to find the Sheriff in control of Nottingham. The crusades and the Middle East are not a key component of the story and so it is perhaps unavoidable that there isn't detailed exploration of them. Generally it is portrayed as a pointless religious conflict. Both Robin and Marian's comments suggest that the main motivation for the Crusades was misguided religious motivations and young nobles wanting fame from military success, Robin: He [Robin's late father] called the crusades a foolish quest, he said it was vanity to force other men to our religion. Historically speaking, these were motivations but part of the many reasons why the crusades happened. Why individuals also went on crusade varied greatly among different people and in different times. Prince of Thieves seems to simplify it is just being caused by religion. This is a partially true and certainly a predominate sentiment in popular history but like most things it is more complicated.

The film may generally promote inter-cultural co-operation and peace but there is still an issue in how it is the Christian crusaders who are portrayed more positively. There are limitations in how the film is necessarily focused on the English characters and settings, it isn't the best media to be able to offer a good, fictional exploration of the crusades. However, when you compare the Saracen prison with its squalid conditions and excessive punishment of criminals to the jolly King Richard the Lionheart there is a clear bias. Whether and how we should judge historical figures, especially within military context, is a complicated and ponderous question. However, it is hard to see King Richard's return at the end of the film as a kind and smiling Sean Connery when King Richard himself is infamous for the 1191 Massacre of Acre when he had 2700 Muslim prisoners killed. In any case, Richard died aged 41 in 1199, and so his appearance here as a grey haired man is definitely ahistorical. I certainly don't expect Prince of Thieves or other films in the adventure and legendary genre to be historically accurate. But I do think that they should be responsible in their use of genuine historical events and figures. Prince of Thieves does largely support co-operation and peace but its simplification of matters and pro-Western bias leaves a sour taste. What Would Be the Messaging Today? What really interested me about Prince of Thieves was how it positively portrayed both Islam and inter-faith co-operation. I was genuinely surprised to see this in an Western and indeed American film which doesn't focus too much time on justifying it claims. It was when I looked at the date when the film came out that it all made sense. Prince of Thieves came out ten years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the war on terror, the events which drastically changed public sentiment about religion and particularly Islam. I wonder if this film would have been different if it came out after 9/11. What do you think? The optimist in me wants to say that the portrayal of religion and co-operation would have remained and have been an important celebration of what is possible and the peaceful mentality of most believers. I may be wrong though. Maybe the film wouldn't want to get involved in this hot topic and avoid it altogether or worse show the white, Western, Christians as the clear heroes. Would comments on Crusades have been different? Would the film still have portrayed it as a morally bankrupt military decision? Or would have modern language supporting the War on Terror as a new crusade and the idea that God wills conflict have changed that? Perhaps the film might have supported the crusades or maybe reflected on ideas about the dreary inevitability of war and conflict between different groups. I wasn't around when Prince of Thieves first came out and I was too young to remember the events of 9/11 and the early War on Terror and how that changed things. My comments on this topic have to be thus caveated. However, I am writing a few months just after the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and I've put a short prayer at the end of the post which you can use if you want. Conclusion To draw my little exploration to an end, it is quite surprising how this largely action, adventure film explores religious themes and questions. Religion is portrayed as realistically being used to cause harm and healing but the film is largely positive and optimistic of religious beliefs being a source of goodness and co-operation. The film could certainly offer a slightly more nuanced view, especially exploring more about Islam and the Crusades but overall, for an adventure story, it's pretty good. It is also good to see a fairly knowledgeable understanding of religion being drawn upon to add to the setting, which allows for realism and shows apparent respect for religious beliefs. To sum up the message of this film it would be corruption bad, co-operation good. Its a simplistic message but still a good one. We need optimism and heroics sometimes. 'Fairy tales are more than true — not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten' - Neil Gaiman (influenced by the works of G.K. Chesterton)

Prayer O God, who would fold both heaven and earth in a single peace: let the design of your great love lighten upon the waste of our anger and sorrows: and give peace to your Church, peace among nations, peace in our homes, and peace in our hearts: through your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. (Abridged from the Church of England website, a prayer for peace and safety amid unrest, https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/topical-prayers/prayers-world)