Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

My only "real" gripe: The main character really seemed to have a "green thumb". It was a bit bordering the hilarious when he took over the lands of his father and seemingly turned barren land into a flourishing paradise within weeks. ~;)

---

I thought about that, but I think it was maybe an unexplained editing goof. Recall in the film he arrives in 1184 and the final events of the film (his summoning to Karak, the imprisionment of Renuald) are three years away. My simpathetic reading is to see the greening as a couple years down the road from his taking up his charge, as it were. This of course means the woman was in his lands for some time. I think it was an edit that may be flushed out with all the extra footage coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I thought about that, but I think it was maybe an unexplained editing goof. Recall in the film he arrives in 1184 and the final events of the film (his summoning to Karak, the imprisionment of Renuald) are three years away. My simpathetic reading is to see the greening as a couple years down the road from his taking up his charge, as it were. This of course means the woman was in his lands for some time. I think it was an edit that may be flushed out with all the extra footage coming.

---

Good point - there were a number of occasions when things seemed a bit rushed. I expect that this movie will benefit from adding the cut footage as much as the old Cleopatra movie did (of which I still hope that they one day find the 1.5-2 hours that are still missing ~:) )

That is an excellent point. The timing was a bit off. And I really hope they show the battle of Hattin in the DVD...

Just got home, just watched the movie. Well what can I say, Great Movie!

The Siege of Jerusalem made my heart beat faster and the music through out the film was very well made.

But I noticed one funny thing, the music playing as the King dies is the same as when the letter written by Hannibal (in Hannibal) is read in that movie.

"Vide cor meom" or something its called. :bow:

If the battle of Hattin is in the DVD, and has lots of great horse archers my opinion of the movie will really go up :D

Also the great jerry goldsmiths score from the 13th warrior is there, the scene when Bloom knights some of outremers locals has the last battle music from the underated john tiernan film

Ok, just got back from seeing it. Here are my thoughts.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WANT THE PLOT REVEALED, DON'T READ ANY FURTHER.

Overall, I thought it was ok. Not great, not horrible.

Things I liked:

1. The music.
2. The battles were reasonably good. No Seljuk horse archery, unfortunately, and the troop formations were waaay too deep, but otherwise it was reasonably good. The cavalry even seemed to make some attempt to keep order during the charge.
3. The archery at the siege of Jerusalem. Maybe a few too many arrows, but it was neat seeing them flying about. I also liked the vultures on the battlefield.

Things I didn't like (mainly anachronisms):

1. Sibylla didn't end up with some guy named Balian. As far as I remember, she stayed with Guy.
2. Guy was not a Templar-- Templars didn't take wives.
3. Balian of Ibelin was an historical figure, but his history is changed beyond recognition.
4. The circumstances surrounding the battle of Hattin were needlessly altered. In actuality, Saladin besieged Tiberias, and Raymond of Tiberias' wife was trapped inside. In the end, Raymond himself advised against attacking, yes, but he did march out with the army. If you didn't do that, the king wouldn't just say, "Oh well, see you later; have fun!" If you didn't show up for the king's host in a time of invasion, you were disinherited at best, and executed at worst.

Oh, and all that stuff about Muslim propaganda: mostly bunk. I think Riley-Smith and Philips were flying off the handle there. Perhaps they had seen only an early version of the script. There was no crap about a confraternity of different religions. The Muslims were portrayed perhaps just slightly a bit too favourably (they should have shown Saladin executing the Templars and Hospitallers after Hattin, to balance it out, I think), but it was not 'Osama bin Laden's version of history' by any stretch of the imagination. There were zealots and politiques on both sides.

Anyway, these are a few of my thoughts. It was an entertaining movie. Bloom wasn't very good, nor was the plot, but the supporting cast was fantastic and it was great to see medieval armies depicted in such an extravagant fashion.

there were Hospitallers at Hattin!? I only saw Templars and Johannites. ~:confused:

Is that what they were? Couldn't tell... I suppose the ones with the black crosses were Johannites?
As for Hattin, I think more things will be put in. He did show him killing that red haired guy, and the piles of heads, so it wasn't like they didn't show the harshness of him.

as far as I know, the Johannites have black robes with white crosses while the Templar have white robes and red crosses.
In the movie, I guess the once in blue was the kings own guard but I noticed that the knights attacking the main character by that tree had white robes and black crosses. Who where they!?

The fellas in blue were the men of the Jerusalem garrison, white robes and black crosses sound like teutonic knights

They do sound like Teutonics, but Ballian's dad's friends had those on, even though later similarly dressed dudes tried and kill him. And since only one of those guys was a German, don't think they were Teutonics...
Besides, isn't it to early for them?

as far as I know, the Teutonics never went to Jerusalem. I only heard of them going east towards eastern europe.

The teutonic knights were formed around 1190, and they did have several castles and strongholds in the holy land, it was only in the 13th century that they began to colonise Prussia and parts of the Baltic.

Maybe scott just put them in or they were simply crusaders with white robes and black crosses

I know Balians father friend played by the great david thewlis was a Hospitillar and at Hattin both orders, Hospitillars and Templars were all put to death bar the Grandmaster of the Templars on Saladins orders at Hattin

Watched the movie and I find it nice. It's a politically correct movie and I think the only guys that will be offended are the hardline ultra-conservative Catholics (if they still exist). But I guess most Catholics are moderates these days. And anti-Muslim guys...

I also made some research :book: on the historical accuracy of the movie. Most elements of history, the setting, and the major characters are there but they made major distortion on Balian of Ibelin.

Balian is a historical character but his exploits is in no way similar to Bloom's character.

Guy is probably not a templar as Templars is a religious order. Guy is one of the nobles who owned land (Kerak?) and employs the Templars as his army.

I don't know what Bloom's order is? Brown uniform with black crosses.

The guys in blue with the marking of several crosses are the king's personal army. The multiple crosses is the logo of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

When Baldwin died, he was succeeded by his nephew (son of Sybilla through her first husband... not Guy). His nephew dies shortly and Sybilla was crowned queen.

And of course the love story. There was no real love story between Sybilla and Balien. The true love story, believe it or not, is between Sybilla and Guy. ~:eek: In the end Sybilla pays ransom? For the release of Guy and they fled to Tyre (the last remaining Christian city after the fall of Jerusalem) which was bravely defended by someone named Conrad.

I suspect Bloom's character might be originally intended to be Conrad but it lacks impact because the city he defended is not Jerusalem. And the Battle of Hatta(?) :duel: was intentionally left out because it does not concern Bloom's story and would only glorify the villain (Guy).

I dont think Blooms character was part of any order, as far I understod his men was simply his fathers Men-at-arms that he spoke of early in the movie. The brown robes with black crosses one was simply the Houses uniform I would guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

I dont think Blooms character was part of any order, as far I understod his men was simply his fathers Men-at-arms that he spoke of early in the movie. The brown robes with black crosses one was simply the Houses uniform I would guess.

---

That's what I thought as well.

As far as the Hospitallers, that's David Thewliss's order: black with white crosses. Here's an artist's rendering:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sandra.s/hospitallers.jpg

I've not heard the term 'Johannites' used, but I suppose it is another word for the Hospitallers (the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem).

The Teutonic Knights were not around at the time-- they founded a hospital in Acre after the fall of Jerusalem (c. early 1190s), but even then it took them a few years to move from a strictly charitable function to a military order.

ah, they are the same, Hospitaller and Johannites... that explains it hehe, in sweden we use the name Jahannites instead of Hospitaller for some reason. ~:)

In Norway the Hospitallers are called Johanittere.

And a quick remark. That Conrad who defended Tyre, was Conrad de Montferrat. His older brother William was actually married to Sybilla, and was the father of her son who became King Baldwin V. He died before his son was born though.

And as a further sidenote: Conrad had another brother called Boniface, who was the leader of the Fourth Crusade. And yet another brother called Ranier who was Manuel Comnenus' son-in-law.

And last fact: Conrad married Sybillas sister Isabella. Conrad though was killed by THE Assassins in 1192.

Amazing, what things u get to know when u have written a 30-page essay on the Fourth Crusade.

~D

Thanks for clearing that up. I wished they had pointed out that they were Hospitllers, to mabye take some of the emphasis off of the evils of the Templars, to show that not all the religous nuts were totally evil. ~;)
So his dad's friend (the one who dies at Hattin) is a Hospitaller? I thought I recongnized the actor, but the name doesn't ring a bell..

You would have seen him in harry potter and the prisoner of Azkaban as Professor Lupin

Aha! That's it. Thanks. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

ah, they are the same, Hospitaller and Johannites... that explains it hehe, in sweden we use the name Jahannites instead of Hospitaller for some reason. ~:)

---

They are also known as the Knights of Malta (Maltezer Ridderorde).

They were only known as that after Rhodes fell and aquired the island of Malta in the sixteenth century

I know, but that's what they're called nowadays. All right, off topic. I'm sorry!

Hey dude no offence intended. I really should have put a smiley after that sentence ~D

Not sure if this has been posted, but I came across this link to the historical background to the film:

http://users.panola.com/AAGHS/military.html

The history sounds rather more interesting than the film story, so far as I can make out not having seen the movie yet. Balian does sound a good subject for a movie - promising Saladin he would not fight, but being forced to lead the defence of Jerusalem - but why fictionalise him so much? [1]


[1]It reminds me of the ridiculous Heaven's Gate - IIRC the true story had the Christopher Walden character holding out alone under siege for about a day, in the film he is shot down in a few minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

The history sounds rather more interesting than the film story

---

On that, I think we agree. Why not tell the story of Raymond of Tripoli? The man who spurns his vassal for gold, and ends up provoking the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem? The man whose wife is besieged by Saladin, but who must advise the king not to try to save her, and who is then criticized for his wise, painful advice? One of the few men to escape all the carnage at Hattin?

Because he dies right after Hattin?