Posted on 04/29/2005 1:00:01 PM PDT by missyme
We recently attended a preview of director Ridley Scott's crusader epic, "Kingdom of Heaven," which opens nationally May 6. The $130 million film -- which stars Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons -- tells the story of a 12th century blacksmith who rises to defend Jerusalem from Muslim invaders.
We're unable to officially review the film until its release, but we had these observations:
Although Scott put "Kingdom" in development before the 9/11 attacks, it's obvious that the War on Terror forms the backdrop for the film. "Kingdom of Heaven" is clearly intended to be a parable for our time, and it's therefore disappointing that a director of Scott's skill and experience (directing classics like "Alien," "Blade Runner" and "Gladiator") would opt for such a conventional, secular-liberal interpretation of the present conflict.
Even with its gorgeous settings, splendid action sequences, and some fine performances by Neeson and Irons, "Kingdom of Heaven" wears its politics too much on its sleeve.
The Western crusaders are too often dismissed as bloodthirsty and rapacious, and religion itself (both Christianity and Islam) is reduced to little more than a source of fanaticism. Scott doesn't glamorize the Islamic cause -- yet he can't understand it, either. Neither side's worldview is explored in any depth, because Scott assumes that war is the natural outflow of religion -- any religion.
Liberal Hollywood is struggling to find its voice in the post-9/11 world. Ridley Scott's effort may be the most ambitious yet in this regard, but the limitations of the liberal wordview in understanding our current struggle are become more obvious by the day. Aesthetically, "Kingdom of Heaven" may be a huge leap forward from "Fahrenheit 9/11," but its values are only baby steps removed.
See post 117.
Zoe Oldenbourg - The Crusades. Dated but encyclopedic and still accurate.
I wish they had struck back a lot harder and lot longer.
mark for later...
Don't discount the power of pop culture. It was TV that gave me my liberal indoctrination.
I see your point now. Thanks for your support. {whew!}
"You are an idiot. . "
Ad hominem remarks dopn't advance an argument.
You can't judge people living in the 1000's by contemporary standards of morality.
The Crusaders were no worse than their adversaries and frequnetly a lot more noble.
LOL. That was the equivalent of the WMD excuse of our day.
I believe the real reason--from the Church's standpoint--may have had more to do with politics:
Rome figured if it controlled the Holy Land, then other Christian religions would appear false, and thereby Roman Catholicism would have a monopoly on Christianity.
And there was no shortage of nobles who saw the Crusades as a chance to add mid-eastern fiefdoms to their domains.
I can't. Nor will I. Christians did not say anything about what the Crusaders were doing either. there is a point there I think.
Did I imply they were?
no problemo...
I wasnt exactly very clear :)
Splain what you're saying a bit better please.
Don't stand in the way of a committed Christophobe.
nope but I wanted to say it so that it was said....
"Rome figured if it controlled the Holy Land, then other Christian religions would appear false, and thereby Roman Catholicism would have a monopoly on Christianity."
Roman Catholocism DID have a monopoly on Christianity in Western Europe at the time. The Crusades certainly did reinforce the power of the Papacy, but I'm curious which other Christian religions you are refering to.
What I am saying is that at the time, no one, from a Christian standpoint said anything about what the Crusaders did or even knew what happened except that the crusades were "glorious".
Much the same could be said about the Muslim world these days. If there is a car bombing in Tel Aviv, someone in Saudi or the UAE won't know much about it unless they see it on TV because chances are their Imams will tell about how "Glorious" it was.
It doesnt absolve anyone of any guilt or association to the acts, but the surroundings are simliar.
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.