The new Robin Hood movie isn’t intended to express Tea Party ideas, says its screenwriter. It just expresses Tea Party ideas….
Whatever you say about Russell Crowe’s up-with-people campaign against unresponsive, property-grabbing government in ” Robin Hood,” don’t suggest to its makers that the historical epic is the first Tea Party movie. “No, no,” says screenwriter Brian Helgeland. “That would not be good.”
Elsewhere, Crowe has called for governments to force even more income redistribution on their populations, to ensure that Hollywood’s progressive power-brokers don’t suspect him of Trotskyite deviationism and blacklist him.
Try as they might, however, it seems that the filmmakers are hampered by the fact that the movie’s story is indeed strongly in line with contemporary Tea Party sentiments. Consider, for example, its characterization of elitism and political oppression in the England of the time, which sounds very much like what is being perpetrated today in the United States, and the public response it is calling up:
Hood’s homeland is ruled by a king with little concern for his subjects and somebody—maybe that guy who’s so good with bows and arrows?—needs to step up and take the country back.
Helgeland acknowledges that the film has a strong populist, anti-elitist element, the Times writer notes:
Hood and his merry men are far less interested in redistributing the wealth than making sure King John (Oscar Isaac) focuses on the people in England. King John is in cahoots with a villainous adviser (Mark Strong’s Sir Godfrey purports to be English, but he’s as French as foie gras). “That’s where the heart of this Robin Hood is,” says Helgeland, whose credits include “L.A. Confidential” and “A Knight’s Tale.” “He is trying to give the people a voice.”
Perhaps that’s one reason L. A. Times critic Kenneth Turan didn’t like the film. He says his objections are all about the aesthetics, and that may be true, but we’ve heard that sort of evasion before. Maybe he will pardon our skepticism.