Robin Hood: Parallel to American Power Struggle With Govt

Though it’s only May, I have no qualms with the following prediction: Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood will be my favorite film of 2010. It captured every element that a good movie requires: a bit of history, patriotism, loyalty, a struggle for freedom, war, and love.

Oscar-winning actor Russell Crowe stars as the legendary Robin Longstride, archer for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). Longstride dedicates a lifetime of service to Richard I, from the Crusades to war with France. When the King is murdered in battle, however, Longstride ventures off to Nottingham to fulfill the wish of a dead knight. There, he discovers a town that has been crippled by taxation and corruption.

It does not take long for the transition from Robin Longstride to Robin Hood, a name acquired by his use of a hooded disguise in his exploits. Robin and his merry marauders confront the corruption of both the government and the church in the village of Nottingham.

Unfortunately, while Robin Hood and his Merry Men make progress in Nottingham, England is plagued by greater threats from without, specifically a plotted French invasion and the overarching fear of a Spanish invasion, as well as those from within, Englishmen who are angered by the abuse of power at the hands of the newly anointed King John (Oscar Isaac).

In order for England to withstand war with France, the country must be reunited. Robin Hood proves to be the man for the job.

In addition to our strong and powerful epic hero, Robin Hood’s love, Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett), proves a beautiful and magnetic heroine. Blanchett’s on-screen presence is commanding. Marion assumes the male role of managing 5,000 acres of land, and does so efficiently, while making no reservations about taking up a bow and arrow when necessary. Likewise, there is major chemistry between Blanchett and Crowe accomplished through coyness and furtive glances. Scott leaves the consummation of their relationship to the imagination. Very classy.

For me, English history has always been fascinating and though Robin Hood himself is only a legend, the myth is padded by history. Most historians have concluded that the Robin Hood we have encountered in legend did not exist. By 1300, there were eight men who went by that name, but it seems more than likely that the name was one assumed by outlaws and fugitives: “Robin” as short for robber, and hood in reference to the attire of the Medieval period. It would not be until the 14th and 15th centuries that ballads would begin to romanticize the exploits of a man named Robin Hood who found a love interest in Maid Marion, served King Richard I, and played a role in the Norman Conquest. All of these components are found in Scott’s film, with the addition that Robin Hood’s father helped to construct the Magna Carta — the great charter limiting the power of the King and protecting basic rights that King John eventually signed in 1215 at the insistence of English barons.

Perhaps what has helped the legend of Robin Hood to persist for as long as 700 years is the creation of a hero from such humble beginnings. Also, while some may see Robin Hood as a thief, most appreciate his willingness to stand up to oppressive tyranny and injustice.

A hero like Robin Hood is one that may be welcomed more widely by today’s audience. While watching the film, I could not help but draw parallels between the oppressive King John and our federal government. King John robs from the poor to enrich himself and the government-favored elites through the power of taxation and also insists that his subjects meekly succumb to his every demand, without any protest. King John insists that his power is a “Divine Right.” On the other hand, the oppressed English insist that they are endowed by God with rights and that the King is answerable to them. The similarities to America today are uncanny.

The action sequences are thrilling, and grotesque. If your stomach can handle the sound of a metal sword slicing through the human body, and the sight of a bow cutting through a jugular vein, you will take no issue with the gore of the film. For the most part, I abhor unnecessary violence in film, but in this case, its presence was not obtrusive and seemed to further emphasize the bravery of Robin Hood, Maid Marion, and the noble Englishmen.

Unfortunately, several movie reviewers across the country do not share my sentiments for the film. In fact, Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a sad 46 percent claiming that it is an “oft-told tale [that] offers some fine acting and a few gripping action sequences, but it’s missing the thrill of adventure that made Robin Hood a legend in the first place.” It doesn’t make sense to me that the same people who complain that Robin Hood has been told and retold too many times are also contesting the movie’s deviation from the common legend.

"Hear undernead dis laitl stean laiz robert earl of Huntingtun near arcir ber az hei sa geud an pipl kauld im robin heud sick utlawz az hi an iz men vil england nibr si agen obiit 24 kal dekembris 1247"

On the grounds of the Cistercian priory of Kirklees, founded in 1155AD - this is where Marion spent her last days.

He was not born of 'humble beginnings" -

The libs will fight this movie tooth and nail - being such a stark parallel to what is going on here today, without saying so - when the libs object, they will only being admitting it themselves. They are afraid that many people who are still blind to what is going on, my 'get it" and wake up.

I expect obyummer to come out any day and forbid anyone to see it ;o)

I saw Robin Hood on Sunday. This is not the same Robin Hood that we've all seen in the past. there is very little of 'Robin Hood' in the movie as we have known. This story is intended to convey the history of the character before he became Robin Hood and what led him to so become.

NOTE: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS, SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT SOME OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MOVIE, SKIP OVER THIS COMMENT!

Contrary to the reviews I've read in numerous places, it was an EXCELLENT movie! I couldn't help but notice the parallels between this fictionalized history of a small portion of the 12th century and the events occurring today, especially with the obama administration:

1. King John became king automatically following his brother, King Richard the Lionhearted. Immediately after becoming king and accepting King Richard's crown from Robert (later to become Robin Hood), King John rewarded Robert with a ring, and immediately took it back as payment of past due taxes owed by Robert's ostensible father. Parallel: obama accepted Charlie Crist's and Arlen Spector's conversions to Democrat, and now has failed to provide either with any meaningful support for the upcoming Senate elections.

2. Later in the movie, King John met with all the remaining barons in the kingdom, and promised them that he would sign a formal document granting personal freedoms if they would defend the kingdom against the upcoming French army invasion led by King Phillip of France, then after the English victory and Phillip's retreat, met with them again and stated that their articles of freedom were preposterous, and burned the document, denying that he had made such promises. Parallel: obama made numerous promises during his election campaign that he has completely ignored and some that he has completely reversed following the election, and has made statements that such promises were part of the election process only, and that he should not be held accountable for them.

3. King John complained bitterly, on numerous occasions, that his predecessor King Richard had ruined the ability of the kingdom to continue to collect the largess of the kingdom due to his incompetence. Parallel: How many times has obama blamed the Bush administration for the numerous troubles that face us today, failing to admit that even though he inherited problems, his solutions that he forced through Congress against the peoples' wishes have dramatically worsened and will continue to dramatically worsen the problems that were in existence?

4. King John sent his armies out to collect any valuable possessions of the people in his kingdom, stating that they must do so to prove their loyalty to the crown. Parallel: obama forced his obamacare plan through Congress against the wishes of the people, and that includes hiring some 16,500 additional IRS agents to enforce its requirements.

5. King John was pretty much anointed as King with absolutely no prior relevant experience in ruling the kingdom. Parallel: obama was anointed by the press and other of his followers, with virtually no prior experience in the matters he faces, demonstrating his amateurish approach and his almost complete lack of knowledge about past history.

In summary, several critics complained that the movie was repetitive and reminiscent of Gladiator. There are of course some plot similarities, but the movie didn't remind me of Gladiator. I don't know if they reviewed it from an early (not final) version of the screenplay, or that they are just liberals and don't want the viewing public to recognize the commonalities between what's in the movie and what the current administration is doing to us, but I've noticed numerous times recently that it does not appear that the critics who write movie reviews have actually seen them. I've just seen too many inaccuracies in their criticisms that lead me to that conclusion. And my wife and I average seeing close to two first-run movies each week.

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.