Posted on 05/09/2005 4:47:54 PM PDT by CHARLITE
These days it seems that whenever Hollywood meets history, history gets the squeeze.
Last year "King Arthur," "Troy" and "Alexander" were put through the revisionist wringer. Today it's the factually challenged movie "Kingdom of Heaven" whose historical content appears to have been schmushed.
"Kingdom of Heaven"'s director Ridley Scott recently took a cue from Cecil B. DeMille and chose the Crusades as the subject of his latest epic. This is the same fellow who brought us "Gladiator" and "Blade Runner," which makes me wonder: How did a talented filmmaker like Scott get stuck with an incoherent script like this? It's understandable that a film dealing with the ancient battles that took place between European Christians and followers of Islam might seek to make some modern-day comparisons. But is it really necessary to stuff the screen with the kind of pseudo-humanistic claptrap that could make a knight dump his armor on eBay?
As is typical of today's Tinseltown chronicling, fiction is fused with fact, much to the chagrin of the more informed filmgoer.
The movie takes place in 1184, sometime between the Second and Third Crusade. At the top of the film the audience is introduced to a young blacksmith named Balian (played by Orlando Bloom). Balian receives a visit from Godfrey of Ibelin (played by Liam Neeson), who claims to have fathered him and is seeking forgiveness for having done so illegitimately.
After a few conversations with Godfrey, Balian switches out of his horse-shoeing duds and opts for Crusader couture instead. In a Middle Age minute, the guy transforms himself into the most formidable knight in town. He also starts stealing a page from MoveOn.org and some guidance counseling tips from Dr. Phil.
While on his deathbed, Godfrey knights Balian and instructs him to pursue the vision of a "kingdom of heaven," where Christians, Muslims and Jews can peacefully party together. Balian eventually finds himself as a stand-in for the king of Jerusalem and in a position to surrender the city to the Muslim army. But this doesn't happen until he's killed a creepy priest, given up on organized religion, tossed his faith out the door and joined the ranks of the "can't we all just get along" crowd.
The film has a certain cinematic allure for some. If you like lots of head-splitting, side-piercing, gut-wrenching, limb-flying battling between foes, then this flick is for you. If you like a hefty dose of accuracy with your historically based entertainment, then it's not. In part, here's why.
The film depicts Muslim leader Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem, with his forces breaking through the wall of the city during the final battle. But the actual battle was outside the city in a place known as Hattin. That's why it's called the Battle of Hattin.
On another note, in order to provoke Saladin, the knights knock off his sister. The truth is she was held up but never snuffed out.
But to me, the real problem with the movie's authenticity is the way it interjects sappy messages into the story line. Exceedingly clear is who the heroes are, and likewise who the villains are. Saladin (who, in one scene, respectfully cradles a fallen cross) is portrayed as a wise, seasoned and noble leader.
In contrast, Guy de Lusignan, crony Sir Reynald, and the Knights Templar are shown as bloodthirsty, empty-headed warmongers. And as you might have predicted, the Christian clergy are cast as cowardly hypocrites who want to kill "infidels."
Many who see the "Kingdom of Heaven" may not realize that the Crusades were actually defensive in nature. Christians didn't act until the Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Western World, and the Crusaders believed that they were restoring formerly Christian territories to their rightful status.
In the film the only Christian good guys are Balian, leper-King of Jerusalem Baldwin IV and his minister Tiberius. But unlike other Christians in the flick, these folks aren't motivated by religious faith. Instead they spout a form of modernist egalitarian drivel that sounds like it was written by Dennis Kucinich.
Balian makes a dramatic speech before the final battle where he tells the assembled throng that the Muslim army, which is about to attack and kill all of them, has just as much right to rule as its Christian counterpart does. Rather than a call to arms, Balian gives his troops a call to multiculturalism. If a real medieval commander had given such a speech, he'd have been chopped into tiny little pieces.
Which is probably what should have happened to that section of the footage, along with all the other PC portions.
Then you wouldn't mind FDR depicted as a homosexual? (Why was he always smiling with that cigarette holder in his mouth?)
"Make the world a better place" Yep that's a line that appear in all history books about that time period.
Monotone plot, monotone characters, monotone love story.
And a really bad line "How do you get to Jerusalem? Go until you hear Italian spoken, then keep going until you hear something else spoken," was spoken not once, but TWICE!
I concur. I did enjoy the film and ignored the preaching. As far as the Christian bashing goes it seems to me that in the end it's God and man one on one and in this none of us can hide.
Religion is intended to foster community, fellowship, and help us to control our baser natures. Religion also teaches us more about scripture and how it applies to our everyday lives. After this I guess it is about power and ego. After all, religions are made up of men.
One of the great joys of writing reviews apparently is writing clever reviews trashing a big blockbustter. But I think a lot of what this reviewer has to say is unfair. For instance, Balian does say in his "big speech" that the Muslims has just as much right to the city as the Christians ... but what he ultimately goes on to say to his followers is that they are not fighting for the stones of the city, however holy, but for the lives of their families who are living within the city, and that if the defenders fall, their families will die. Dunno about you, tovarisch, but that would motivate me!
I nearly did not go to see KOH after reading the wretched reviews, but finally did drag my husband to see it with me -- and both of us, picky viewers that we are, enjoyed it very much. We agreed it was miles better than "Alexander" but not as good as the final movie of LOTR. The cinematography was outstanding, as were the sets and the set dressing (though as for costumes, I was amused to note that Orlando looks very "seventies" in some of his dashiki shirts, or whatever they are -- very trendy fashionwise!). The opening sequence was particularly evocative, with lovely use of weather to set a mood.
We did not go to this movie to learn the history of the Crusades. I assumed it was only loosely based on history (if that), so finding out that it is not accurate is not a big problem for me. People who go to the movies to learn history probably thought "JFK" was factual too.
I did think that the Muslims were let off lightly, though I did not think that the Christians were unduly censored. A distinction was drawn between the Crusaders and the Knights Templar, with the KT vilified (rightly or wrongly, I don't know). And to say that the character of Balian is irreligious is just wrong, IMHO. He is drawn instead as someone who wants to believe, but has run up against some big stumbling blocks. (No one who is an arrogant atheist sits around all night on Golgotha freezing his butt for the sake of enlightenment!)
My biggest quibble was twofold: they showed Balian, the blacksmith, as being both literate and an excellent swordsman, without explaining either property. In that time period, the *village blacksmith* would have probably been a pretty burly guy, but not much of a swordsman (though he might have been handy with a pike or an axe). And it is improbable in the extreme that he would have been literate.
But ... Orlando Bloom is a fine young actor, and definite eye candy. I give KOH a thumbs-up.
What is the point in telling a story about an historical event if you don't try to get it right? Is it okay to lie about something as long as you do it on film?
Really. It sounds like this movie is political has hell.
When you make a movie about Muslims vs Christians you can choose to tell the truth or you can choose to give Islam a big wet sloppy kiss.
The coward. Mr Scott chose to do the latter because if he told the truth, he risked getting his head cut off
Mornin' to you, too. I love history. And, I love movies that can add knowledge while entertaining us.
I learned a lot about truth and respect from the old B westerns, as a kid. You know, the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats. Maybe, they weren't totally accurate, but they promoted ethics, to me. I still love westerns without bloodshed.
I will not go see a movie that promotes hate, visual bloodshed or what I feel is evil. That's my choice. I also won't go to movies that support Hollywood 'Rats.
I guess, going in, I felt that this movie would probably be critical of Christianity. So, I was interested in the review.
I'm rambling. Thanks for the reply.
LOL! Boy I knew that would be the first question that would come out.
But I know exactly what this movie is about because I've read enough reviews from the brave critics who suffered through it so we wouldn't have to. And I've wasted so much money on other politically correct crap just like it.
the defense of Jerusalem part of the film is stirring. It's not historically accurate and much of it's not even plausible but it's still a great scene
Why is it okay to lie about something as long as you do it on film?
I suppose if you are 14 years old, great action trumps everything else but I'm getting tired of politically correct propaganda masquerading as "entertainment". HollowWood has become just like TV, so boring.
Here are a few more opinions on Kingdom of Heaven:
"A historical epic totally destroyed by the infusion of contemporary political correctness and left-wing revisionist history." -- Chuck O'Leary, FANTASTICA DAILY
"The religious sentiment accumulates into a tower of politically correct Jell-O." -- Andrew Sarris, NEW YORK OBSERVER
"An epic about Christian crusaders who happen to be liberal humanists willing to die for the sake of religious tolerance. That's just ... weird." -- David Edelstein, SLATE
"This is the first time a been there, done that mood has permeated a Ridley Scott film." -- Brian Orndorf, FILMJERK.COM
"Bloom comes across as a vapid California surfer boy trying to be a serious "artist." This is an over-long, pretentious bore that I felt like I've seen and didn't like before." -- Michelle Alexandria, ECLIPSE MAGAZINE
"The movie does what any self-respecting politician would do: sidestep the issues, soft-pedal mortal costs, talk a fat game, and divert your attention away from history with exercises in spectacle and power." -- Michael Atkinson, VILLAGE VOICE
"A confused and confusing compromise at best and a dull obfuscation of history at worst." -- Peter Canavese, GROUCHO REVIEWS
"It's clear that Ridley Scott set out here to make as uncontroversial a film about the Crusades as it's possible to do. " -- Jill Cozzi, MIXED REVIEWS
"Yawn. Are the Crusades over yet? Wake me when it's time to leave." -- Boo Allen, DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE (TX)
"A staggeringly lazy, leg-twitchingly dull, unholy mess." -- Phoebe Flowers, SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL
"Could largely be synopsized as the failure of moderate Christians to restrain fanatical Christians from oppressing innocent Muslims, provoking justifiable Muslim retaliation." -- Steven D. Greydanus, DECENT FILMS GUIDE
"Kingdom of Heaven seems ready to anger everyone but the atheists and the action crowd." -- Daniel M. Kimmel, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE
"From watching the film, it s a bit hard to care who conquers." -- Dan Lybarger, EFILMCRITIC.COM
"Bloom s one dimensional effort and a laughably hackneyed script, waste Irons and Neeson in a tale of a religious war with a secular, anti-Christian bias." -- Tony Medley, TONYMEDLEY.COM
"The Crusades lasted just over 200 years, which is longer than Kingdom of Heaven, although not by as much as you might hope." -- Bruce Newman, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
"The climax features a dandy battle, but getting to it requires sitting through nearly two hours of posturing and pontificating." -- Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
"...an unmitigated disaster from start to finish, offering up a level of sheer dullness that's shocking..." -- David Nusair, REEL FILM REVIEWS
I might have actually went to the movie if that happened.
And there's a lot more where that came from: Rotten Tomatoes
59% of the critics who saw Kingdom of Heaven gave it a thumbs down.
That's right. Critics are generally to the left of the rest of the population and Red Dawn was not. So if the critics think something is too politically correct you know it must be pretty bad. Also, the more movies you see, the more you tend to become aware of the political agenda of the writers and directors.
And yeah, critics can't make movies but so what? It doesn't take a lot of brains to see a movie and tell us what it was about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.