Robin Hoodwinked
June 30, 2010 5 Comments
By: Jay
The new Russell Crowe/Cate Blanchett Robin Hood is not very good. Usually, Ridley Scott is good, but not only is it an artistic failure, in my opinion, the film also has a Masonic theme. In the film, we find out that Robin Hood is the son of a “philosophical stonemason” who inspires his son with a hidden message stashed inside the local village obelisk. Robin Hood then becomes the inspiration for the Magna Carta. Yeah, right.
Oh, and all church folk are corrupt, as well as all kings. Notice that World Net Daily tells you nothing about the clearly Freemasonic underpinnings. Perhaps the writer did not notice it. However, there is clear biblical basis for such notions of liberty and freedom under law, apart from tyrannical oppression – they aren’t the discoveries of speculative Freemasons, which didn’t even exist in the 12th century.
Oh, and then it ends with Cate Blanchett killing the bad guy, in total feminist glory, wearing male armour. Russell Crowe then kisses her, and it looks like he’s kissing a man, since she’s still fully iron-clad. One wonders what Robin’s soldiers would have thought had they happened a glance in that direction. Robin Hood Men in Tights indeed. And then it end ends with Crowe and Blanchett setting up an Ewok-type settlement in the woods, where what appears to be the Lost Boys from Peter Pan (who mysteriously appear throughout the film to no real purpose) join them in ruffian, Rousseau-ist/communist bliss.
Fantastic analysis Jay! No flattery intended, just expressing the fact that I feel that the truth about this flick has been properly dissected and analyzed with the strictest and truest of moral precision. (And I haven’t even seen it.) And the bit about WND,…I’ve always wondered about them. I love movies and I love cultural/ethical analysis of them. May all pretenders to the throne of cinematic judgment turn red with embarassment as your discernment exposes their nakedness. Good job.
Notice that every Ridley Scott film is always the same? An anachronistic story about how modern style democracy was invented at some point in the distant past. In Gladiator, Maximus is commissioned by Marcus Aurelius to reestablish the Republic, which he ends up doing… never happened. In Kingdom of Heaven Orlando Bloom establishes a democracy in Jerusalem… also never happened. In Kingdom there are even Knights Templar, the proto-freemasons, except in that film they are bad guys not builders of democracy.
Weird too is Holly Wood’s love with what I call, over specific type casting. Blanchet dons full Armour in her Queen Elizabeth movie too. Bloom plays a blacksmith in both Kingdom of Heaven and the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and Lord of the Rings, which he was also in, has a lot of blacksmithing going on too. Viggo Mortensen is in Lord of the Rings and then in The Road he has this long scene where he stares at his wedding ring before he throws it off a bridge. There are many more examples of this kind of thing. Is the just coincidence? Is it intentional? Who knows?
Jay, if you haven’t yet, hear are some recent films you should see. I’d love to know what you think of them.
Book of Eli, The Road, Splice, The Gamer, Surrogates, Avatar and The Fourth Kind.
I’d especially like to know you’re take on the Christology presented in The Road.
Thanks Steve.
Ross, I have noticed that very same thing in regards to roles played, especially with someone like Nic Cage. I’m not sure what the purpose of that would be. Any ideas you have are welcomed.
I don’t know what to make of the Book of Eli; I’d have to watch it again and watch it closer. I hated Avatar – I noticed a lot of Avatar’s kabbalistic symbols, as well as race issues. The Fourth Kind was interesting, but not that good. More passing off possible demonic activity as “aliens.” Any time entities possess someone and speak Sumerian and say they are “god,” it’s a demon you’re dealing with.
Haven’t seen Splice, but it looked like a rip off of Alien. I don’t know what to make of The Road. What do you mean about Christology in the road?
To comment on it better I’d have to watch The Road again but for now I’ll go by memory. In The Road Viggo Moretenson says of his son something like “If he isn’t the Word of God then God never spoke a word.” This seems to establish his Son, his only Son, as representative of Christ, the only Son of the Father’s and the Logos or Word of God. Throughout the film Viggo seems to make him live under laws that often seem harsh. He tells his son they have to survive because they carry in them the spark, they are the good guys so they must stay alive in a world of madness, inhumanity and lawlessness. When a traveler from outside their fold steals their food because he’s hungry, Viggo is set to rob the guy at gun point, but the son begs him not to do this, arguing that there is no longer a point to them going on if they’re no longer the good guys. Later Viggo dies and his son, who contains the spark of humanity Viggo wanted to keep alive in the world, is later discovered by a new family who take him along with them. I assume Viggo represents God the Father and the old Mosaic Law and Viggo’s son represents Christ and the new covenant. Also the boy and his father together represent the biblical Hebrews and the new family the boy goes off with represents the Church, the new Israel. I remember Robert Duval being in the movie too. Maybe he’s the Holy Spirit. I’d have to see it again. The film might be orthodox in it’s Theological picture, saying the letter of the law is hardly better than lawlessness of it lacks the spirit and fulfillment of the law that is Christ. Or it might be heretical in a sort of Joachim de Fiore way, if we are to interpret it as an endorsement of antinomiananism, telling us the Age of the Father has passed. Like I said, I’ll have to watch it a second time, which will be hard given how bleak it was. Watch it again if you get a chance and considered it in the light of your extensive knowledge of both sound and unsound Christology. Let me know what you think, since I myself am as of yet undecided.
You know…the new website “Alternative Right” did a favorable review of Robin Hood.
No mention of Masonic under-tones, but they did see a lot of pro-racial themes.
I haven’t seen the movie yet either, but something didn’t feel right about the Alt Right review. Your review here makes more sense, and connects the dots better in my opinion. I mean…are we seriously supposed to believe that Hollywood…just, out of the blue…presents a racially self-conscious movie? Yeah right.
I have my own theories about Nicholas Cage and his ties to the masons; ever since he did the remake of “Wicker Man.”
The method is being revealed!