Posted on 05/12/2010 7:51:45 AM PDT by roses of sharon
Is it an accident that Ridley Scott's Robin Hood plays like a rousing love letter to the Tea Party movement? It's certainly something of a surprise. When the movie was announced in 2007 with the title Nottingham, reports suggested that it would sympathize with the normally vilified Sheriff of Nottingham as a man torn between two extremes: the corrupt tax-happy monarchy, and Robin Hood himself, who in this version would be a self-serving rabble-rouser who'd play on the emotions of the struggling public to incite anarchy. Russell Crowe was at first cast as the sheriff; a year later, Scott told MTV News that his frequent leading man would play both the famed outlaw and his lawman rival, to better reveal the affinities between the two.
The film Scott ended up making is called Robin Hood, the sheriff's role is minimal, and Crowe plays only the title character, whose ability to mobilize commoners with empty, anti-government rhetoric equating taxation with slavery is posited as a virtue.
(Excerpt) Read more at villagevoice.com ...
Not empty at all. That equation is exactly correct.
The usual depiction of Robin Hood is the central theme in socialism: steal from the rich and give to the poor
And that was definitely the impression I got from the History Channel last night, a program about the "real" Robin Hood (explanations and theories), the commentary from both Scott and Crowe, not to mention the scene snippets, led me to believe they were portraying it in the socialism mode.
Will have to check it out for myself.
It’s a revision of a quote from Mel Gibson in “The Patriot” in the scene where South Carolina is voting on a war resolution against England. The original quote was, “Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Feel free to use it.
“I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.”
“What man?”
“Robin Hood.”
“He was the man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I’m the man who robs from the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.”
“This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does….Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
– Ragnar Danneskjold, Atlas Shrugged
I’ve akways thought that James Cameron improved on Alien with his sequel.
Ridley Scott’s films radiate utter joylessness. It worked in Blade Runner because it was about the lack of joy in humans and non humans alike. I hope this is good but the previews make one yearn for Erroll Flynn,
I found a video of it on YouTube. If you search YouTube for “Dennis Moore” you’ll understand why I didn’t post the link.
Different styles. Cameron made an action movie. The first movie was more of a horror movie with a little sci fi thrown in. Cameron’s (second) movie was a bit too campy.
Ridley’s Alien was NOT campy.
I found Alien an empty-headed horror movie with little to recommend it beyond the disco-inspired art direction and some gimmicky cinematography. The suspense techniques looked tired in the 30s: for the most part, things simply jump out and go “boo!” Under the circumstances, the allusions to Joseph Conrad (Nostromo) and Howard Hawks (The Thing) seemed rather presumptuous.
I think this says all we need to know.
“...and Crowe plays only the title character, whose ability to mobilize commoners with empty, anti-government rhetoric equating taxation with slavery is posited as a virtue.”
Translation: This movie trumpets the glaringly obvious truth that taxation IS slavery and government’s tool to suppress the masses...and we CAN’T have that. Therefore I declare that the movie sucks least people begin to realize that mobilizing the conservative masses to oppose our current fascist president IS a virtue.
If it’s conservative - and from Hollywood - we need to show support with our boots. Walk on in...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.