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.
Nope, but it really isnt like most of them have had sterling examples to follow either.
Same thing with the eradication seekers on here. Big noise, little follow up.
as usual, I will wait to form an opinion on this flick until I see it, as I have with just about every movie I have ever seen.
I will see it for the action and spectacle. (And the score--which Scott has fooled around with, using sections of Jerry Goldsmith's score to The 13th Warrior in place of Harry Gregson-Williams's reportedly less-powerful music.) But all I've heard tells me this could have been an interesting history lesson without the PC crap. Scott gave me a shudder when he said Saladin was basically a good guy.
So you approve of this one! :)
????
newgeezer is no where near a Muslim or a suicide bomber. Cheap shot? Nope, more like just a misguided and hilarious post.
Scott's Blade Runner not only influenced other movies it actually influenced literature (Cyber Punk) and social theory (Postmodernsm in its more recent academic incarnations)
Did you phrase this incorrectly? Or am I having a problem comprehending? Or are you being sarcastic?(it's been a long day)
I dunno. Something about "Vengeance is Mine" springs to mind.
While it was nearly five centuries from the death of Mohammed (A.D. 632) until the 1st crusade (A.D. 1095-98), the 1st crusade was called in response to specific and growing outrages in the decades of the 11th century. So, yes, it's true that there wasn't any 'crusading' response to the original Muslim conquest of Palestine, but as the 11th century progressed the oppression of Christians in Palestine became more and more extreme. Destruction of the Christian Holy Sepulchre and all other Christian establishments in Jerusalem after A.D. 1009 could be consider a little bit intolerant, don't you think?
BACKGROUND (until 1096)
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/crusades_05.htm
SUMMARY: There was already a history of tension between the Christian world and the Muslim world going centuries back in time. Until now it had been fought mainly in Spain and Sicily, but with the change of rulers over Jerusalem in 1070, the treatment of pilgrims to the holy city became so bad that Europe reacted. Still it took a couple of decades before the reaction came - the crusades.
800: Ambassadors of caliph Harunu r-Rashid delivers to the Frankian king the keys of the Holy Sepulchre together with other religious gifts, recognizing a Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem.
9th century: Churches and monasteries are built in Palestine at the Frankish king's cost.
1009: The Egyptian Fatimid caliph, al-Hakim (who by the Druze is considered as their founder) orders the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all Christian establishments in Jerusalem.
1027: The Frankish protectorate is replaces with that of the Byzantine emperors, who start rebuilding the Holy Sepulchre.
11th century: Pilgrimage to Jerusalem becomes increasingly popular, both by priests, monks and nuns as well as common people.
1054: The emperors of Constantinople splits from the pope in Rome.
1070: Jerusalem is conquered by Seljuq Turks.
1084: The strategically important city of Antioch falls to the Seljuqs.
1095 March: Facing the advancing Muslim control over Asia Minor, pope Urban 2 of Rome calls for a crusade, in order to bring Jerusalem back under Christian control and stop the Muslim dominance in the region. This call is heard all over central Europe, and especially in the Frankian regions (corresponding to modern France).
— November 27: The crusade is proclamed at the Council of Clermont.
There was a post about this movie a few weeks ago that developed into a great Crusades debate. Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380170/posts
Thanks.
I think.
Sort of.
I guess.
apparently the writer of this film has also written a film about the Barbary War called 'Tripoli' due out in 2007. Intereting how that's received since no on ever seems to talk about that war.
Is that a quote from Anna?
True. I was not trying to imply that there were no abuses going on in the Holy Land in the 11th century, just pointing out that the region was under Muslim control for around 500 years by the time the crusaders got there, so "onslaught" maybe isn't the best term (though it works fine for the encroachments in Anatolia which compelled the Byzantines to call for help).
For that matter, the original Islamic conquest of Palestine and Egypt was not particularly bloody, and it seems that many of the citizens weren't particularly attached to their previous rulers (Byzantines) anyways. By the 11th century, as you point out, relations between the Muslim rulers and the other people of the book were not going so well, partially due to political instability in the Muslim world.
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.