Robin Hood

Diskusjon om alt innen kunst og kultur, slik som litteratur, teater, film, musikk og dataspill.

Robin Hood

Innlegg QIQrrr 24 Mai 2010, 07:31

Dette har tidligere blitt påpekt av Onar, men det skader ikke med nok en påminnelse med tanke på at karakterfremstillingen i den seneste filmen synes å være noe i utakt med realitetene:

The real Robin never robbed the rich

Financial Post, May 19, 2010

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

Further, praising the act of robbery from the rich because it serves the poor, without explaining the context, endorses the immoral principle of forcing the able and productive into sacrificial service of the needy. Free and productive men have always been generous, when respected and left free to support others as they choose. Turning against “the rich” as if their success had been ill-gotten, and mandating seizure of what is properly theirs for welfare state redistribution, can only lead to the exodus of the able and the collapse of civil society into a war over who manages to seize how much from an ever-shrinking storehouse of looted wealth.

Most alarming, however, is the implication of our culture accepting the Robin Hood mantra — he stole from the rich to give to the poor. To the contrary, historians report, and the movie presents by his own words what Robin Hood was after: “Liberty. Under law.” He sought the protection of private property, under law, from robbery by Normans and feudal barony.

That our culture can unwittingly and with increasing vehemence embrace this unjust and false portrayal of a heroic and virtuous man is evidence of our culture’s intellectual decline. When such virtue is portrayed as economic redistribution for the sake of economic redistribution and equalization, we are on the road to George Orwell’s 1984 — naked tyranny over a citizenry rendered dumb through the abuse of the English language.

Edit: Jeg har ikke sett filmen, men fra andre har jeg fått høre at den på ingen måte er venstreorientert. Dr. Ridpath adresserer nok utelukkende uttalelsene til Russell Crowe samt det generelle kulturelle forfallet.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Robin Hood

Innlegg lba 24 Mai 2010, 13:36

Det virker som det er mye uenighet om hvordan den "originale" Robin Hood var. Her er et annet synspunkt: ... wood-helt/
Innlegg: 195
Registrert: 13 Jul 2009, 02:17

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood: A Hero For Our Times

Innlegg Panther 02 Jun 2010, 16:12

1 June 2010 Scott Holleran

The story begins in the 12th century with a man named Robin Longstride (Mr. Crowe), who fights with King Richard the Lion-Hearted for England against France. Using fire, tar, stones, and arrows as weapons, the battles are swift and brutal. Robin is instantly identifiable as honest, brave, and intelligent. He thinks, he trades, and he owes no one, which he states as an absolute. He fights with valor.

The king notices him, which doesn’t bode well for Robin, and, when the king falls in battle, a scheme to unleash a foreign enemy from within is born—another parallel to our times—and the passionate hero steps into the fray. As the French conspire to invade England, the new king acts like a petulant welfare-statist, imposing exorbitant taxes and seizing private property. At times, Robin Hood is like a dramatization of the Obama administration’s policy to redistribute wealth. One poor villager pleads that “we have no money left to give.”

The Church is complicit except for a beekeeper named Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) who does what he pleases and regards merriment as rightly within everyone’s domain. Tuck is one of many individualists in a place called Nottingham who resist the government’s confiscation of wealth. A spirited woman named Marion (Cate Blanchett) resides there, too, defending her land, scowling at robbers, sending them scurrying back into the woods. Living with her blind father-in-law (Max von Sydow) and struggling to survive, she’s a brave, bold person herself.

Enter Robin Hood, not yet known by that name, riding into Nottingham to deliver a message and keep a promise. The nobleman father-in-law has an idea to save his property from the government and it co-exists with Robin’s goal to lay low. The band of merry men—Little John among others—are never far away, letting off steam by cavorting with the ladies and imbibing what Friar Tuck has to offer.

Amid gallant rescues, blazing battles, and bolts of lightning cutting the gray sky in the distance, this is the civilized world in turmoil, with Robin Hood leading the nation toward liberty and enlightenment. He deals in contracts—neither having faith nor initiating force—and, when foreign invaders make their presence known, he steps up to speak out and call for a “charter of rights” establishing “liberty by law”. Neither a prince nor a thief; this Robin Hood is a man of reason.

Marion, who resists him, equals him. When the government comes to steal her wealth, dictating—right out of Obama’s red book—that “no one should have 4,000 acres” Marion snaps in reply: “5,000 acres.” No little woman depending on others to defend her property, she knows how, when, and why to use a weapon.

The power-lust of religion meets the power-lust of the state and, as England becomes a God-state, Robin Hood assumes his well-deserved role as outlaw, legend, hero to the oppressed. With strong characters, stunning conflicts, and Russell Crowe playing Robin Hood just right, getting there is half the fun.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Robin Hood

Innlegg Petter Sandstad 02 Jun 2010, 17:25

En noe mer moderne versjon av Robin Hood er Pancho Villa. Men selv han er noe omdiskutert.
Petter Sandstad DLF
Petter Sandstad
Innlegg: 514
Registrert: 19 Jan 2004, 19:58
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Robin Hood

Innlegg QIQrrr 04 Jun 2010, 01:42

I likhet med skribenten i Minerva har flere amerikanske venstreorienterte kritikere store vanskeligheter med å finne noe som helst positivt ved den siste Robin Hood-filmen:

    Cato Institute, June 2, 2010: What is it with modern American liberals and taxes? Apparently they don’t just see taxes as a necessary evil, they actually like ‘em; they think, as Gail Collins puts it in the New York Times, that in a better world “little kids would dream of growing up to be really big taxpayers.” But you really see liberals’ taxophilia coming out when you read the reviews of the new movie Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe. If liberals don’t love taxes, they sure do hate tax protesters - Robin Hood and the Tea Party Haters
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Gå til Kunst og kultur

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest