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.
Do you believe the Crusades were all the Christian's fault, and they had no reason to go to war?
The Christians of the Crusades are not the Christians of modern times. Unfortunately, the most visible and vocal Islamists today are as bad or worse than the Muslims in this era. Sorry for the naysayers on this thread, but that's the truth. Trying to buff up the present-day face of Islam by saying "Oh YEAH, well hundreds of years ago look what you Christians did!" is, uh, lame.
Thank you. It bears repeating that it wasn't just Muslims victimized by the Crusades.
Wasn't it the Byzantine Emperor who asked for Western Europe's aid against the encroaching Muslims that got the whole mess started to begin with?
The "Islamic onslaught" of the holy land was half a millenium before the crusades.
See post 39. The history of the Siege of Constantinople, when examined in detail, is far different from the standard story - the standard story was formulated to denigrate Christianity, not to publish fact.
Call me that after I get back from theater a year from now.
Don't bother replying, parasite, living off the freedom I give you.
I will never look at him the same again since he played that Kinsey pervert.
The point is that a movie showing a lot of the Crusaders being vicious and barbarous isn't particularly inaccurate. The article notes that Islam isn't glamorized in the film either, so that's not the issue.
You're not going to find clear cut good guys vs. bad guys in that time period. Any movie that attempted to do so either way - either showing the Crusaders as noble heroes fighting criminal hordes of Muslims, or Islamic noble heroes fighting off criminal hordes of Crusaders - would be highly inaccurate.
Wow, talk about tired. Even if "Hollywood" wasn't shorthand for movies released in America by Hollywood studios, and Ridley Scott among many others involved work out of Hollywood, you are, simply, wrong. Please take a look at the production credits for the film; 20th Century Fox is not only releasing this in the US--thus making this a Hollywood film--it also co-produced it.
In your effort to be a smartass, you might not trip over yourself so often if you'd research before you post.
the Muslims weren't victimized by the Crusades. They bloodily overran majority Christian lands, and then they started kidnapping, murdering and harassing unarmed pilgrims to the holy places.
Only after four centuries of unending Muslim cruelty did the Christian West strike back.
And they struck back in a very measured fashion.
Actors play unpleasant people sometimes. It's part of their job. He's played Macbeth too who was a brutal murderer.
20th Century Fox is one of three production companies. The other two being British and Spanish. I was talking about Production not distribution. I said 'mostly' a British-Spanish coproduction. Two out of three.
Sarge: I also hate anti-western Hollywood screen operas. Western civilization--particularly Great Britain--has done more to eradicate slavery (we pitched in the last part of the 19th century, along with the French) than any other civiliazation in history. 'Empire', by Niall Ferguson; `Black Rednecks/White Liberals', by Thomas Sowell, books that 'blame-us-first' bigots are too lazy to read.
Slavery still exists in Africa and the middle east.
And I hate modern Hollywood, too, along with the big three networks because they are liars. When I hear apologists for them I think of such things as soggy toast, creeping underwear and food lodged between my teeth.
Ranting on a Friday Afternoon
People here talk a big game sometimes. But I'd wager none of them blew themselves up for Allah, and were celebrated in the streets for it. When we went to war, we were uncomfortable with the idea that we might just up and leave without repairing the nations we invaded. You and your fellows have gone to war to preserve lives, stop butchery, and bring freedom to millions.
I see nothing even remotely like that in today's Muslim world. Nothing.
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.