Posted on 04/14/2005 11:33:01 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Gladiator director Ridley Scott returns to the historical epic with a film about the Crusades. Will the potentially controversial tale starring Orlando Bloom be enough to revive a flagging genre?
With the failure of King Arthur, the critical mauling dished out to Troy and the disastrous performance of Oliver Stone's Alexander, the historical epic has been unable to capitalise on the surge of interest instigated by Gladiator's enormous success. It's only right then that Hollywood's continued interest in the genre will rest with Ridley Scott's Crusades film Kingdom Of Heaven. If it works it will give the historical epic a much-needed shot in the arm.
The film focusses on the run up to the third Crusade in the 12th century and promises to deliver onscreen carnage on a vast scale. Orlando Bloom stars as Balian, a French blacksmith reluctantly drafted into the Crusades after travelling to Jerusalem to absolve himself of sin after his wife's suicide. Jerusalem at this time was ruled by the Catholic king, Baldwin IV, but he's suffering from leprosy and his policy that Muslims, Jews and Christians should be able to co-exist is under threat from his brother-in-law, Guy De Lusignan (Csokas), who is intent on wiping out the Muslims.
Given that one of the film's biggest set-pieces is the Battle of Hattin, in which the Crusaders are slaughtered by the forces of Muslim leader Saladin (Massoud), and the other major battle is Saladin's subsequent siege of Jerusalem, the film sounds potentially controversial, especially in the current political climate. According to Scott, though, it's actually the Christian forces that come off worst. "All you've got to do is tell the truth," says the director. "The whitest knight was Saladin and the worst fundamentalists were Christian. They made the problem."
Predictably the film has already upset some people. An article in The New York Times, which attempted to stir up controversy by supplying a number of academics with a purloined copy of the script, quoted one expert on Islamic history as saying the movie would teach people to hate Muslims by propagating stereotypes of them as "retarded, backward [and] unable to think in complex form". An article in the 'Telegraph' quoted several British academics who believed the film (which no one has seen) pandered to Islamic fundamentalism by portraying the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised and the Crusaders as brutes and barbarians.
Seems Scott can't win, but he has nothing but praise for writer William Monahan's script, describing it as "the best material I've ever had". A former journalist, Monahan used primary sources as much as possible to shape the story and while some will question the film's accuracy, as Scott points out, history is conjecture anyway. "There's 300 years of perception and a mass of material so what you do is you glean through a lot of it and form your own opinion."
What's not in any doubt is the quality of the cast Scott has assembled. Bloom may not have impressed in Troy but his character here is more chivalrous and it certainly promises to be a meatier, grungier role if he can muster the necessary gravitas. He's joined by rising star Eva Green (The Dreamers), who plays Lusignan's wife Sybilla and adds romantic tension by falling for Balian. Add to this mix Liam Neeson as Balian's father, Jeremy Irons as Tiberius, an uncredited Ed Norton as King Baldwin and the likes of David Thewlis and Brendan Gleeson in supporting roles and it's hard to see how Scott can go wrong.
The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!
Yes, I know my second link was about the Inquisition...if you go back to my post I said that the Crusades was just one of the black legends used by Protestants to attack the Catholic Church. The Inquisition is another.
Well, I promise not to use the Crusades against the Catholic church.
I understand that the modern day head of the inquisition, Cardinal Ratzinger (Head of the Office of the Propagation of the Faith), is in the lead in early betting on who becomes the next Pope.
Thank you for that link on the Inquisition. I had never seen it in that light. Excellent work, my friend. :-)
Unless it's quoted in a Mel Brooks movie, I probably wouldn't know.
Oh please.....
What? You didn't realize you were responsible for all that? Sure! We Latin Catholics are perfectly innocent.
Well. Except for that whole 'ignoring the pope and slaughtering the Eastern Catholics in Constantinople' thing. That hasn't worked out so well. And the Jews and Catholics in Syria and Lebanon and Jerusalem. Yeah, hmmmm, okay, maybe things did get out of control.
From the NR Online article:
"Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all."
Yeah, right. By Vatican "scholars" from Vatican sources. I'm surprised they didn't just come out and say the protestants got what they deserved.
>> however, I cannot think of a bad movie to date that had Ed Norton in it... <<
Well, Norton was very good in it, but there was a truly terrible movie with Richard Gere, wherein Norton kills a priest.
Ping!
Ego usque ad mortem luctor adversus Turcas et Turcarum Deum," Martin Luther wrote. "I will always struggle to the death against the Turks and the god of the Turks."
He seems pretty convinced on the day he wrote that. Bold words.
>>>> "Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all."
>>Yeah, right. By Vatican "scholars" from Vatican sources. I'm surprised they didn't just come out and say the protestants got what they deserved.
Umm... topcat, you do know that the Inquisition was applied to Moslims, don't you?
... did a great disservice to the Church by not revitalizing the Holy Inquisition when it was sorely needed to root out pederasty among priests. Maybe his successor will do better.
That's the one.
Ed Norton is in my estimation the best and most underrated younger actor. And he ain't so "younger" anymore. But he plays roles that are challenging but un-PC, so he gets neither the blockbusters nor the critic's adulation.
Other Ed Norton movies I've seen:
Rounders: Sketchy topic, but excellent character studies. ** 1/2
Keeping The Faith: A Jew and a Catholic join respective clergies and fall in love with the same woman. MUCH better than it sounds. ***
The Italian Job: I prefer it to Ocean's 11. ***1/2
American History X: Brutally honest exposition of the causes and effects of racism. Ouch. ****
Ed Norton hits I haven't seen:
Fight Club
Red Dragon
Frida (Marxist hagiography)
The People vs. Larry Flynt
... besides, the Vatican sources were the records kept by the Vatican. Should we believe rumor-mongering among illiterate peasantry, "histories" by those who weren't present, or the official records? If the records are contradictory, or don't square with other documents, then scholars will note that. But I dare say that the Catholic CHurch knows better what it did than the crafters of legend in distant England.
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.