Very funny how history has done a 180.....
here's the text from the opening scene of the 1938 classic Adventures of Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn:
"In the year of Our Lord 1191, when Richard, the Lion-Heart, set forth to drive the infidels from the Holy Land, he gave the Regency of his Kingdom to his trusted friend, Longchamp, instead of to his treacherous brother, Prince John. Bitterly resentful, John hoped for some disaster to befall Richard so that he, with the help of the Norman barons, might seize the throne for himself. And then on a luckless day for the Saxons..."
go and recheck out this movie....
I dont get it.
Peace
the state is trying to push "muslims wanting to drive the indifels from the Holy Land" idea on the western world....as an excuse for them to continue their endless wars and endless police state....
Didn't Robin, in the recent movie, complain about how he regretted having particapted in the masacre of civilians? Or am I missing the point here?
Methinks you're reading a bit too heavily into the exposition card. Flynn's Robin Hood considered the crusades poor form for Richard if it meant the suffering of his countryman at the hands of his scheming brother and went as far as to rebuke his own king for it. The rest of the story is utterly unambiguous into its portrayal of good overcoming evil; no doubt they figured making the story more complicated than that would have driven away audiences looking to escape into the fantastic world that was film.
Indeed, all one needs to do is to have the main character give a speech containing 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'tyranny', regardless of how ironic the historical context may be, and American audiences are all but certain to lap it up.
It even worked for portraying the Spartans, of all people.
Rhetoric hath become more important than reality.
"Flynn's Robin Hood considered the crusades poor form for Richard if it meant the suffering of his countryman at the hands of his scheming brother and went as far as to rebuke his own king for it. The rest of the story is utterly unambiguous into its portrayal of good overcoming evil; no doubt they figured making the story more complicated than that would have driven away audiences looking to escape into the fantastic world that was film."
I agree...1938 Robin Hood is portrayed as someone who respects and wants freedom...its a great movie....
I'm just saying its funny they use the exact same wording that the statist use today.....only to describe the real bastard....the King who went on his endless wars....
nowadays...they mixed it up and try to sell the public that it is the muslims who want endless wars.....
its just funny they are using the exact same phrasing after all these years...."drive the infidels from the holy land".....