Kingdom of Heaven
[Editor's note: On May 3 I attended a pre-screening of the film. What follows is my review.]
Ridley Scott’s latest epic on the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven, cannot escape the historical climate of our time. Osama bin Laden never fails to argue the Western world is bent on a new crusade. In 1998 he called his network of terrorists, “International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.” And on September 16, when Bush himself said “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while,” you can imagine that it didn’t sit well with everyone.
There is something about the great Crusades that can still excite our passions, and Kingdom of Heaven, featuring Orlando Bloom in his first lead role, attempts to tap into that. Although the acting and cinematography are decent enough, the film disappointingly fails to capture the essence of the Crusaders or their adversaries. In the process it muddies both the film and the history upon which it is based.
In the year of our Lord 1186, Godfrey Baron of Ibelin (Liam Neeson) stops by a village to find his bastard son and take him crusading. After first turning down the offer, the timid Balian (Orlando Bloom) takes up the quest in search of forgiveness he hopes to find in Jerusalem. With Godfrey’s premature death Balian is awarded knighthood and charged with protecting his lands and the Holy City’s King.
Kingdom of Heaven sets itself up as though it has some story to tell. But the history it does tell is inaccurate, and the plot utterly uninteresting. Balian is shaped by events rather than shaping them. This comes through most annoyingly in his inability to grasp the faith for which he fights, or the city he’s charged to defend. “What is Jerusalem worth?” he asks, not knowing the answer. When the great Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) finally conquers the city and demands terms, Balian meekly accepts freedom to leave with the survivors alive.
In spite of attempts to the contrary, Bloom and his character are weak, both spiritually and in battle. He lacks the physical build and imaginative vision of a lead in this role. We’re supposed to be moved by Balian’s soul-searching. The dying Godfrey advises his son to become “not what you were born but what you have it in yourself to be.” Who knew Dr. Phil had ancient forebears? Sadly, we’re left with a confused “Lord of the Rings” elf that doesn’t inspire. Balian’s moral lesson, and essentially the justification for his defeat, is that Jerusalem is in our hearts and minds, not within the city walls.
Director Scott hopes to draw comparisons to our own time. “I thought we were fighting for God. Then I realized we were fighting for wealth and land,” a thoughtful Tiberias says. As Balian rides off into anonymity at the end of the film, a few simple sentences note the Crusades were resurrected and peace in Jerusalem remains elusive. One gathers that the film is attempting to tell us that watery submission like Balian’s might offer a solution in our own time.
In the coming days many people will rightly explore the historical inaccuracies. But in fairness to screenwriter William Monahan, some parts aren’t far off. Godfrey was a just leader. He declined the title of “king” because he did not want to wear a crown of gold in the place where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. Saladin was in fact a true gentleman. When Richard Lionheart was sick of fever in 1192, Saladin sent him peaches and pears, and snow from Mount Hermon to cool his drinks. And Reynald of Chatillon was indeed a brutal thug, causing Saladin to decapitate him personally.
But these basic facts are shoved into a pre-packaged Hollywood film equation. Infallible hero? Check. Beautiful damsel in distress? Check. Cheesy lines about bucking the establishment and fighting for the common man? Check. Modern day groups portrayed in politically correct light? Check. There is a reason similar “historical” fictions like Troy, Alexander, and King Arthur all failed. Someone just forgot to send Ridley Scott the memo. The Crusades, with all their ghastly warts, was a reality packed full of rich drama and excitement. It’s a shame Kingdom of Heaven distorts it for Hollywood predictability.
9 Responses to “Kingdom of Heaven”
Good review, Josh.
Reynald was a thug? There were plenty of Templars at Hattin with as much blood on their hands or the desire to have as much.
On “Kingdom of Heaven”
Joshua at InTheAgora posted today on Hollywood’s latest distortion of history, The Kingdom of Heaven. Apparently he attended a pre-screening of the film, was able to actually sit through it to the end, and offers the following review:
As an avid reader of historical accounts of the Crusades, I’m looking forward to seeing Kingdom of Heaven, but with a certain amount of dread. I realize Scott has as much right as anyone to interpret history as anyone else, but from what I’m seeing in reviews, I just hope he hasn’t mangled it too much. Just a few pre-viewing comments though:
1. No king or prince from the 12th Century, not even Saladin, could be seen as living up to modern standards of religious tolerance and human rights. Saladin was an effective ruler, and a decent, magnanimous man for his day. He was also dedicated to jihad, and to deny this would be to slight the man. He was merciful to conquored Christians and Jew because he believed that the Koran taught mercy for those who would submit as dihimmi, and pay the jizya tax. He also accepted the custom of ransom for captured warriors. For those who would neither be dihimmi, nor pay ransom (like captured Templers), he saw no moral problem with killing them. Yes, Saladin was a gentleman for his time, but lets not go overboard in praise.
2. I’m a little put off by the constant “Arabization” of the Crusades. So few of the great Moslem players were really Arabs. Saladin, and the rest of the ibn Ayyub clan, were Kurds, Kilidj Arslan and al-Zengi were Seljuk Turks, and even Baibars and his mamluks were Kipchak Turks. It was the Turkish conquest of Anatolia that was the tripwire to start the whole thing, and the last Crusades were in South-Eastern Europe fighting the Ottoman Turks. Most of the time, Arabs were bit players in this drama. Heck, the Turks did most of the work, and ended up kicking the Crusader’s collective butts. Why is it that Arabs seem to dominate the “Islamic” point of view?
3. Reynauld of Kerak was indeed a “thug”, or perhaps better put, a stereotypical Medieval robber baron. Though supposedly the vassal of the King of Jerusalem, he was beyond the King’s control and plundered whoever he wished. For sheer brazenness, how can you beat hauling boats across the desert to the Red Sea, then roving the Coast of Yemen to rob Moslems on pilgrimage to Mecca? He was a brigand and a pirate, and I have no problem with showing him as a “bad guy”. He was a bad guy, by any standard at any time.
4. If Scott portrays the Templers as rabid fanatics, I think he’s a little out of it. They were certainly dedicated warrior monks, but they were a disciplined bunch, and certainly a lot more obedient to the King of Jerusalem than most of the secular knights in the Kingdom. Yes, the Master of the Temple gave reckless advice to King Guy before the Battle of Hattin, but Guy was a fool anyway, and the Templers didn’t cause the war.
I want to see this but I just can’t. I love the historical accounts of the Crusades and just don’t want to see it elfed up.
However, I did recently purchase the DVD of Terry Jones’s documentary on the Crusades and heartily recommend them. Good as history with great Pythonesque humor (though no “We are the Knights who say ‘In Hoc Signus Vinces… and NIH!”)
It was difficult to watch a movie in which there are plenty of crosses, but no Christ, many mentions of God’s will, but little evidence of God’s justice, the seeking of forgiveness from God, but only the infrequent sharing of it with others.
Regardless of any inaccuracies in the movie, with respect to both major sides depicted in the movie, we see a great demonstration of the dangers of civil religion. For so many people throughout history, their “religion” has been their identity, and such identity may at times be related to bravery and valor, but often not to a living faith or to anything remotely resembling the teachings of Christ.
Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that Bloom “in his character” rather than “Bloom and his character.” I doubt that you have the ability to evaluate Bloom’s personal spirituality, nor do I think you were really attempting to do so. I think Bloom was simply miscast. I think he is a fine actor but not every actor has the ability to play every role.
We need also temper our Crusader knowledge with the Crusades that took place in Europe proper. We all know of Lepanto but how many know of Jan Sobieski’s leadership before Vienna n 1683? Nine sovereign princes from all corners of Christendom came to expel the Infidel.
I haven’t seen it yet, and probably won’t until it’s only DVD, but just because we never get out to movies anymore. But really, what do you expect from a hollywood film with hottie actors, a ten-part BBC documentary? Anyway, it surprises me that so many Christians seem upset about less-than-accurate portrayals of the Crusades. After all, there’s pretty much nothing for us to admire about them; they stand Jesus’ ethic utterly on its head.