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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
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."

Spoken like true useful idiot.

61 posted on 01/19/2004 1:37:07 AM PST by RussianConservative (Xristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: Pelayo
Well I hate to burst your bubble but they can't make a sequel with Richard I in it since this movie takes place long after the Third Crusade. Although, knowing Hollywood's understanding of historical accuracy they might put him on a boat with Don John of Austria.

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.

63 posted on 01/19/2004 8:57:51 AM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Scott needs to go back to making commercials...after all, what he is doing is "selling" his brand of history and he's done it before with Muslims.

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.

64 posted on 01/19/2004 4:14:24 PM PST by eleni121 (Preempt and Prevent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
All things considered, it might be hard to cast ANYBODY in a good light during the Crusades. I s'pose you put an emphasis on personal courage, but really, the whole thing was just a bloody mess

Exactly. I took an Eastern European History course at a local Christian university last semester (Im 33) and came away with that exact sentiment.

65 posted on 01/19/2004 4:23:06 PM PST by Windsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Solamente
Black Hawk Down failed to mention that the Clinton Administration sent those men there with only a few clips of ammo each, due to cutbacks on the military.

Huh?

66 posted on 01/19/2004 4:37:48 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bulldogs
Now someone needs to make A pro-christian, muslim smashing movie to be fair. Americans would go see this big time.

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.

67 posted on 01/19/2004 5:22:31 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
Exactly. I took an Eastern European History course at a local Christian university last semester (Im 33) and came away with that exact sentiment.

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.

68 posted on 01/19/2004 10:02:37 PM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Two nominations for historical events for such a movie;

Or if you wanted to keep it in the time frame of THIS movie, you should go for the battle of Montgisard.

69 posted on 01/19/2004 10:06:41 PM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
Don't see any evidence that Baldwin IV (aka Baldwin the Leper), Latin King of Jerusalem, was anything other than an ordinary ruler of the time, perhaps a bit unlucky in his health and his relatives.
Apparently he was lucky enough that Saladin was distracted distracted, and unlucky that his idiot brother Raynald started raiding caravans from Krak de Chevaliers (one of the greatest castles ever built!).
Do you have something specific that I should be looking at?
70 posted on 01/20/2004 6:18:27 AM PST by Little Ray (Why settle for a Lesser Evil? Cthuhlu for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Between The Patriot and Braveheart (and even Gallipoli, going way back in his career), Mel has quiet a bias against the English.

71 posted on 01/20/2004 6:34:18 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Fear of fatwa.
72 posted on 01/20/2004 6:39:13 AM PST by metesky (Patriots 28 - Panthers 17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Don't see any evidence that Baldwin IV (aka Baldwin the Leper), Latin King of Jerusalem, was anything other than an ordinary ruler of the time, perhaps a bit unlucky in his health and his relatives.Apparently he was lucky enough that Saladin was distracted distracted, and unlucky that his idiot brother Raynald started raiding caravans from Krak de Chevaliers (one of the greatest castles ever built!).

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.

73 posted on 01/20/2004 8:48:09 AM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
I didn't know there was more than one Krak; I only know of Krak de Chevaliers. Some friends told me that this was possibly the greatest castle ever built.

Was also wrong about Raynald being his brother. This is all I could find:

BALDWIN IV., the son of Amairic I. by his first wife Agnes, ruled in Jerusalem from 1174 to 1183, when he had his nephew Baldwin crowned in his stead.
Educated by William of Tyre, Baldwin IV. came to the throne at the early age of thirteen; and thus the kingdom came under the regency of Raymund II. of Tripoli. Happily for the kingdom whose king was a child and a leper, the attention of Saladin was distracted for several years by an attempt to wrest from the sons of Nureddin the inheritance of their father; an attempt partially successful in 1174, but only finally realized in 1183.
The problems of the reign of Baldwin IV. may be said to have been two: his sister Sibylla and the fiery Raynald of Chatillon, once prince of Antioch through marriage to Constance (1153-1159), then a captive for many years in the hand of the Mahommedans, and since 1176 lord of Krak (Kerak), to the east of the Dead Sea.
Sibylla was the heiress of the kingdom; the problem of her marriage was important. Married first to William of Montferrat, to whom she bore a son, Baldwin, she was again married in 1180 to Guy of Lusignan; and dissensions between Sibylla and her husband on the one side, and Baldwin IV. on the other, troubled the latter years of his reign.
Meanwhile RaynaLd of Krak took advantage of the position of his fortress, which lay on the great route of trade from Damascus and Egypt, to plunder the caravans (1182), and thus helped to precipitate the inevitable attack by Saladin. When the attack came, Guy of Lusignan was made regent by Baldwin IV., but he declined battle and he was consequently deposed both from his regency and from his right of succession, while Sibylla's son by her first husband was crowned king as Baldwin V. in 1183. For a time Baldwin IV. still continued to be active; but in 1184 he handed over the regency to Raymund of Tripoli, and in 1185 he died.

The account doesn't mention Montgisard, obviously a severe oversight on the author's part.
74 posted on 01/20/2004 9:14:12 AM PST by Little Ray (Why settle for a Lesser Evil? Cthuhlu for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
The account doesn't mention Montgisard, obviously a severe oversight on the author's part.

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.

75 posted on 01/20/2004 9:25:59 AM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
Well I hate to burst your bubble but they can't make a sequel with Richard I in it since this movie takes place long after the Third Crusade. Although, knowing Hollywood's understanding of historical accuracy they might put him on a boat with Don John of Austria

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!!!

76 posted on 01/20/2004 4:25:27 PM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
No I just didn't read the article fully. Some one had told me that Scott's movie was set during the Crusade to Egypt (the one that St. Francis of Assisi went on). See my post #69
77 posted on 01/20/2004 9:14:40 PM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo; Eternal_Bear
See my post #69

or #68 rather.

78 posted on 01/20/2004 9:18:21 PM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


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