Posted on 01/17/2004 11:24:09 PM PST by dennisw
Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden' 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".
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.
|
Spoken like true useful idiot.
Oops. I should have actually read the article, insted of just assuming what I'd heard was right. It seems the movie takes place right before the Third Crusade. My bad.
About your Black Hawk Down comment --- there is little mention of Islam in Black Hawk Down. Aside from a line about the enemy being "in prayers," there is no identification of the subject of the Somali militia's religious and ethnic specificity--presumably Sunni Muslim. Either this was a conscious choice on the part of the studio or Scott himself to avoid the appearance of Muslim-bashing.
Whatever the case, truth is the victim.
Exactly. I took an Eastern European History course at a local Christian university last semester (Im 33) and came away with that exact sentiment.
Huh?
Two nominations for historical events for such a movie;
1. The Siege of Malta: Seven thousand Christian Knights fight an army of 90,000 Muslims for six months........and win.
2. The Battle of Lepanto: The Christian fleets of Spain, Venice and smaller Italian city-states take on the larger Muslim Mediterranean fleet and annihilate it.
I submit that the course was biased. I've been reading the primary sources as a student of medieval history for the past 4 years and can assure you that that "sentiment" is the product of over simplification and a fundamental misunderstanding of the people and events of the period.
Or if you wanted to keep it in the time frame of THIS movie, you should go for the battle of Montgisard.
Raynald the knight of Châtillon-sur-Loing was not the "brother" of Baldwin! And his castle was not Krak-de-Chevaliers it was the Krak of Moab in Oultrejordan. And thirdly Saladin was not "distracted" during Baldwin's reign so much as he was forced into a cease fire treaty by Baldwin's superior soldiery (at the battle of Montgisard 500 knights under the Leper King defeated the entire Kurdish and Egyptian army of Saladin, who was supposed to be this great Muslim general.)
Do you have something specific that I should be looking at?
I don't need to point out anything specific, I only mentioned the Leper King to contest your claim that "it would be hard to put a good light on any buddy during the crusades." Baldwin IV was at the time not only a courageous and brilliant soldier, he was also universally respected for his piety and fairness by both Arabs and Christians. That he didn't come out of the whole thing smelling like roses was only because he dies of leprosy.
It was one of the greatest military achievements of the whole crusade period, but no one remembers it. Sad. The article you quoted makes it sound like Saladin didn't try to conquer the kingdom until late in Baldwin's reign. That is totally wrong, Baldwin was only 17 and already suffering from his disease when he defeated Saladin on his first invasion of the kingdom.
Richard I of England led the Third Crusade since Federick Barbarossa drowned and Phillip of France went home. He took the fight to Saladin and fought well. Maybe you were alluding to another Monarch? He also put to death the garrison of Acre when Saladin dallied in the payment of ransom money.
Santiago!!!
or #68 rather.
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.