Crowe's 'Robin Hood' A Disillusioned Vet Returning From War Against Muslims…Not a Tea Partier

Yesterday Russell Crowe, star of Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood,” floats the absurd idea of what’s essentially a reverse-Robin Hood tax, where the government takes from the productive to give to the non-productive…

Today, we get yet another politically divisive statement, this time from the film’s screenwriter, who assures the L.A. Times that “Robin Hood” is not a Tea Party movie: [emphasis mine throughout]

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.”

If you read between the lines, you can tell that was a pretty big concern for the L.A. Times writer. “Please, please, please tell us ‘Robin Hood’ doesn’t inadvertently reassure the tea baggers.”

Whew.

But that’s the least of the story. Read on and then thank me for saving you ten bucks:

For all of its 12th century trappings, Helgeland and director Ridley Scott’s retelling of the mythical English archer tries to be thematically contemporary. Rather than a steal-from-the rich yeoman, the film’s titular hero is a disillusioned war veteran just back from a distant, violent campaign against Muslims. “We wanted to tell the story of how the myth was created,” says producer Brian Grazer.

There’s no such thing as a contemporary theme. Themes are as old as storytelling and the usage of the term “thematically contemporary” is usually nothing more than Newspeak for “political agenda” or “tired cliche” or both; and could anything be more tired of a cliche than the disillusioned war veteran?

Here we have a big summer movie with a big star and a big director, but because the film’s creators appear unable to control themselves, the promise of all that — the promise of a couple hours of air-cooled escape and adventure — no longer looks like it will be kept.

Who wants to pay ten bucks to have to sit there with their shields up worrying about something “thematically contemporary” rearing its ugly head to sucker punch you right out of the story?

I wouldn’t want the cinematic spell broken by some awkward “thematically contemporary” pro-Tea Party reference either, but at least that would be something original.

NOTE: In advance, I would like to express my insincerest apologies for breaking the Moviedom rule which allows only leftist, water-carrying Hollywood writers to speculate about upcoming films they haven’t seen.