Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'
telegraph ^ | (Filed: 18/01/2004) | Charlotte Edwardes

Posted on 01/17/2004 11:24:09 PM PST by dennisw

Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'
By Charlotte Edwardes
(Filed: 18/01/2004)

Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.

The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".

 
Sir Ridley Scott

Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations".

The film, which began shooting last week in Spain, is set in the time of King Baldwin IV (1161-1185), leading up to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 when Saladin conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims.

The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship.

"They were working together," the film's spokesman said. "It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them."

The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".

He said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and 'baddies' is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land."

Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."

Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The production team is using Loarre Castle in northern Spain and have built a replica of Jerusalem in Ouarzazate, in the Moroccan desert. Sir Ridley, 65, who was knighted in July last year, grew up in South Shields and rose to fame as director of Alien, starring Sigourney Weaver.

He followed with classics such as Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, which won him an Oscar nomination in 1992, and in 2002 Black Hawk Down, told the story of the US military's disastrous raid on Mogadishu. In 2001 his film Gladiator won five Oscars, but Sir Ridley lost out to Steven Soderbergh for Best Director.

 

31 December 2002: Ridley Scott is 'truly humbled'

 



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: crusades; moviereview; obl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2004 11:24:10 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I cannot bring myself to hate the director of Black Hawk Down, but this Crusades film is a disgrace.
2 posted on 01/17/2004 11:29:05 PM PST by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
And, notice the cast: Bloom, Neeson, and Irons. The first two are self-confessed Socialists, though I don't know about Irons - though safe bet is he's the same, too.

Hollywood, or England - no difference. revise history, and bash the culture that creates them.

3 posted on 01/17/2004 11:29:30 PM PST by Old Sarge (Operation Noble Eagle - We Watch, So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light...."

Alright. Now someone needs to make A pro-christian, muslim smashing movie to be fair. Americans would go see this big time.
4 posted on 01/17/2004 11:32:14 PM PST by bulldogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bulldogs
Your right. This is just the point Michael Medved makes. A pro-Christian, anti-Arab movie of any kind would, right now, make a ton of money. So why isn't there a studio out there making one?
5 posted on 01/17/2004 11:36:31 PM PST by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Another movie I won't be seeing
6 posted on 01/17/2004 11:37:37 PM PST by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

What arrogant hogwash that a moviewill 'rectify' history.

Someone is a little full of themselves and their place in the world.
7 posted on 01/17/2004 11:39:27 PM PST by LaraCroft (If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, do the stupid get stupider?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
A historical film should strain to be as accurate as possible.
8 posted on 01/17/2004 11:42:15 PM PST by cyborg (feed marmite to the prisoners and they'll never go there again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I bet Abe Foxman and the ADL will be all over this film and attack it with the same energy as they have gone after Mel Gibson.

Don't you think?

9 posted on 01/17/2004 11:45:09 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
So why isn't there a studio out there making one?

I guess there is a limit to thier greed. The most likely reason is that they don't want to end up being Salman Rushdie.
10 posted on 01/17/2004 11:47:06 PM PST by bulldogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The Islamic world whined and seethed about Scott's portrayal of the Muslim Somalis in "Blackhawk Down", though it was actually something of a whitewash to those who knew the truth.

Perhaps this film's revival of Walter Scott's discredited neo-romantic portrayal is an attempt to make amends to the exquisitely sensitive advocates of suicide bombing.

11 posted on 01/17/2004 11:51:33 PM PST by atomic conspiracy ( Anti-war movement: Roadkill on the highway to freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I bet Abe Foxman and the ADL will be all over this film and attack it with the same energy as they have gone after Mel Gibson.

There were no Jewish crusaders. Matter of fact there were some massacres of Jews by crusaders on the road to Jerusalem. But I am concerned about a film that seems to be fashionable (especially in UK) pro Islamic propaganda and a denigration  of the ideals of the Crusades

12 posted on 01/17/2004 11:56:22 PM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I hear ya.
13 posted on 01/17/2004 11:57:40 PM PST by Finalapproach29er ("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
It does not matter if there were no Jewish Crusaders. The ADL has been saying for months now that its main concern is historical accuracy and a firm comittment to the truth. If this film is neither, why would they not inject the same level of energy into debunking it as they have used against The Passion.?
14 posted on 01/18/2004 12:04:13 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
It sounds absolute balls.

ping!

15 posted on 01/18/2004 12:05:37 AM PST by BrooklynGOP (www.logicandsanity.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
OK, I'll get on the phone with Abs Foxman and ask what he can do about this upcoming Crusades film. As far as Mel's film, that one will help generate anti Semitism overseas. Especially in Europe and Latin America. Prediction: You will also see Muslims using it to try to turn Christians against Jews.
16 posted on 01/18/2004 12:09:47 AM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bulldogs
Rerelease "El Cid"!
17 posted on 01/18/2004 12:13:23 AM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
As far as Mel's film, that one will help generate anti Semitism overseas.

Why?

18 posted on 01/18/2004 12:56:34 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I assume the ADL will condemn this movie for inflaming anti-Christian sentiments.

NOT.
19 posted on 01/18/2004 1:01:32 AM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Why? Because cowardly directors and producers don't want death fatwahs put on themselves, that's why.

They can trash Christ and Christianity laughing all the way to the bank with muslim blessings showered on them.

If they portrayed the crusades as Christians attempting to kick the muslim invaders out of the Christian Holy Lands, they'd get death threats and perhaps more than threats.

This is the easy way.

Note that the avante garde artistes will do a "Piss Christ" but somehow they have never gotten around to a "Piss Mohammed."

No wonder why not. They're cowards.

20 posted on 01/18/2004 1:08:17 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson