Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

[Hurin_Rules]

Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'
By Charlotte Edwardes
(Filed: 18/01/2004)

Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.

The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".

Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations".

The film, which began shooting last week in Spain, is set in the time of King Baldwin IV (1161-1185), leading up to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 when Saladin conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims.

The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship.

"They were working together," the film's spokesman said. "It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them."

The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".

He said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and 'baddies' is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land."

Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."

Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The production team is using Loarre Castle in northern Spain and have built a replica of Jerusalem in Ouarzazate, in the Moroccan desert. Sir Ridley, 65, who was knighted in July last year, grew up in South Shields and rose to fame as director of Alien, starring Sigourney Weaver.

He followed with classics such as Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, which won him an Oscar nomination in 1992, and in 2002 Black Hawk Down, told the story of the US military's disastrous raid on Mogadishu. In 2001 his film Gladiator won five Oscars, but Sir Ridley lost out to Steven Soderbergh for Best Director.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ixworld.html

[Papewaio]

Lord of the Rings portrayel of the West is to nice and totally ignores the years of fascist rule over the orcs...

Really it is just another movie. If it was a book it would be in the fiction not fact section.

[PanzerJaeger]

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

[sharrukin]

Asking Hollywood to make a historically accurate movie is like asking Dolphins to mountainclimb. They are not capable of it. I mean have they EVER made a historically accurate movie. They fantasize and cannot see that history is more interesting than anything they are capable of dreaming up.I would settle for a good movie which they are not too swift at either, but it is at least possible.

[Quietus]

Asking Hollywood to make a historically accurate movie is like asking Dolphins to mountainclimb.

That's Ridley Scott too. Black Hawk Down,

This is just a controversy ploy ala' Mel Gibson's Passions. More controversy, more buzz, more viewership, more cash.

I can already picture them brainstorming this "idea". It's so obvious.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

An interesting opinion of yours... A self confessed bias.

No way muslims can do any good?

Louis,

[Papewaio]

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

They are French knights though...

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Look at the date.....its nearly a year and a half years old, and the film comes out this week. I doubt they even started filming it by that point, and those guys haven't even seen it yet!

[Steppe Merc]

Well I certaintly am not having any high hopes for history with this, but I'm gonna go see it... But is it bad to show the Muslims as not evil? Preferably, neither side would be good or bad, and show both their faults, but I understand it's Hollywood...
And I fail to see potraying Saladin as not a monster is bad...

[The Wizard]

Now, I haven't read any of the replies yet, so forgive me for missing points already made.

Anyways, it seems to me -- from reading the article alone -- that these academics see Saladin as just your usual run of the mill ruler?

He certainly was not. The fact that even Christian accounts speak of his chivalry and excellent sense of honor points at the fact that he was a good, benevolent ruler and general.

But that does not mean that he did not commit any kind of atrocities. It was war, after all -- atrocities abound in that sector of livelihood.



~Wiz

[artavazd]

the crusades happend because the muslims especuialy the turks were rampaging through armenia and threatning the byzantine empire. it was a call for help. This should be pointed out and not make the movie one sided making the muslims be the good guys. The turks were taking christians mainly greeks and armenians and enslaving whole villages and towns forceably converting them to islam. ( the jannisary of the turks were basicaly christains who were taken from their homes at a very young age and raised as muslim)

[The Wizard]

the crusades happend because the muslims especuialy the turks were rampaging through armenia and threatning the byzantine empire. it was a call for help. This should be pointed out and not make the movie one sided making the muslims be the good guys. The turks were taking christians mainly greeks and armenians and enslaving whole villages and towns forceably converting them to islam. ( the jannisary of the turks were basicaly christains who were taken from their homes at a very young age and raised as muslim)

Do try to make a difference between the Selçuks and the Ottomans... Basically it was nothing special what the Selçuks did in Cappadocia and Armenia.

You see, taking Christians captive and selling them in the slave markets of Damascus was nothing new. And it was common practice for promising Christian children, taken captive, to be sold to the Caliph (or rich men within the Caliphate) and raised as ghulams. They were the precursors to both the Mamluks and the Yeniçeris.

The most amazing part was that it was common practice amongst Muslims to sell themselves as ghulams! Why? Because it was able for one of these men to buy his freedom later on, and if one could do that, he probably would have amassed enough wealth and power to live a much better life than he could have hoped for in his earlier life. Such a strategy to get higher up in society was much practiced amongst the Oghuz living in the Samanid emirate.

Anyways, on the topic of Crusaders going on crusade for profit or for zeal: personally I think that there was a fair share of both in the First Crusade. Men joined up to escape punishment for criminal acts, to go to Heaven when they first could not have, or yes, to simply become rich. And then there were people who went along as simple pilgrims, seeing this as a very large-scale armed pilgrimage. And then there were those who went purely and simply to 'liberate the Holy Land from the infidel.'

To say that there was one alone or the other is wrong, as stating with full assuredness a certain percentage of each.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Most of the soldiers were motivated by faith, and even some of the high ranking nobles. But the Crusades itself wasn't started about helping the Byzantines or about religon, and that's what I was talking about, not the actual soldiers.
And excellent point about the ghulams, Wiz.

I must say I swallowed this propoganda hook line and sinker. Dont our muslim posters always point out how more civilazed Saladin and they were back then? In fact every movie Ive ever seen on the crusades form the early silent ones to this one portray the christains as idealistic barbarians invading the more civilized Mulsim lands. Where even though they loose the great Saladin lets them visit the holyland out of his kindness. True they are pictured as heroic fighters but barbarians all the same. This seems to be refuted here. Whats the real truth?

Frankly, I view the Muslims as far more civilized and cultured. Better medicine, better books, better education, better warfare, better horses, better arceticture, etc.
But the Crusaders weren't barbarians as I don't think any culture is barbarous per se. They were just different. Both had bad people, and both had decent people (as the time went). If it happened today, both sides would likely be viewed horribly, but it was totally different back then.
I think that the idea of potraying the Muslims as cultered is accurate, as long as they show their dark side. I don't think the Crusaders should (or will be) shown as murderous barbarians, though some were very bloodthirsty.
As for Saladin, many of his enemies did admire him. Sure he did ruthless things, but so did his nemesis, Richard (great ruler... spent three months in his kingdom the whole time he ruled England...).
And I do think Muslims before the Crusades were far more tolerant, and lenient to all faiths, then the Westerners were at this time, and the Muslims became afterwards in response of the Crusades.

[the Count of Flanders]

...better warfare, better horses...

Again I don't agree. The crusaders adapted their tactics very quickly and they were very succesfull with them (and they were almost always outnumbered, often heavily) untill incompetent commanders made the big mistake of trying to force battle themselves. Seeing the enormous inbalance of resources one can only conclude the crusaders did a largely excellent job.
The warhorses were different, suited to their own kind of warfare. Destriers were excellent at their role, arab horses at their own. Saying that one is better is rather strange, since they were used in different roles. A destrier makes a better charger, an arab a better skirmisher.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I saw the film and it was enjoyable with the siege of Jerusalem being quite amazing and extremely accurate, especially with the parley between Saladin and Balain but it lags heavily in the middle and i would loved to have seen the battle of Hattin.

Edward Norton as King Baldwin is great, subtle and gracious. The poor king died when he was twenty four with leprosy and his mother forcefulness and sisters stupidity only adding to the quickness of his death.

Raymond of Chatillon is played well by Brendan Gleeson and for all the remarks made against him Bloom is fine and i think it just due to female admiration that people insult him and his acting ability.

[Steppe Merc]

I don't think Bloom is a bad actor... I would have prefered say Liam as the main character, but ce la vie. Hopefully will see it today...

[Pindar]

I saw the film. Charges of PCism are ill-founded. It is a good film, not great, but good. It plays out at close to two and half hours. Scott goes for an epic feel: the scenery, and general environment play into this. This will invariably be compared to Gladiator. It does not have the emotion that Gladiator had. I think this is due to chosen storyline as opposed to any failure on Bloom's part: the film goes for more of a political dynamic moving events than a personal vengeance story.

Even with the obvious a-historical elements, I noted several times in the film where they incorporated actual events and in this sense the film is more historical than Gladiator: though I have always been surprised by those who seek to get history from film.

There are things I wish they had done differently: not making Balien a blacksmith, showing Hattin etc. but still it was OK.

I understand that the DVD will have an extra 80 min of film included in the director's cut. That will be a long film, but I like the genre so I'll buy it.

[Thoros of Myr]

i would loved to have seen the battle of Hattin.

Bloom is fine and i think it just due to female admiration that people insult him and his acting ability.

Yes, I was a little upset they left that out, hopefully it's in the directors cut.

Bloom was better than I thought from seeing the trailers but King Baldwin and a few others steal the show from him. Bloom wasen't bad though.

[Hurin_Rules]

Dear lord, do you mean to tell me that they don't show anything about the Battle of Hattin? ACK!

I'm seeing it tomorrow, but sheesh... that is so very disappointing.

[Steppe Merc]

And you are incorrect to my knowledge when you say Christian inf wasn't so good...they got much better by the end and were a capable force, if always outnumbered and without as effective cav support. After all, the Turcopoli were never the most reliable iirc...

I don't like infantry, period. To me, they just are support for the cavalry, not an particullary important part. Foot archers are the most key infantry soldiers, in my mind.

One thing I am not sure about...apparantly many muslim Ghulams using the spear 2 handed (much like the Kontos as far as I understand) were actually more dangerous than the couched lancers...

They were trained more to use different types, and use it more delicetly, if you will. So it wasn't as much of a shock, but more dangerous in actual fighting since they manuevered it better.

[The Wizard]

Back to the topic of the movie again -- however good Kingdom of Heaven may be, only Gladiator surpasses the Korean movie Musa the Warrior. That movie had no CGI; the money left over was spent on good actors for a change, elevating it far above almost every 'ancient war epic' flick. You should see it!

Bloom isn't a bad actor AFAIK... it's just that I hated ol' elf boy in the book already and don't get me started on Paris. But in Pirates of the Caribbean he was OK -- outmatched, of course, by Johnny Depp.



~Wiz

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Exactly. And skirmishing is superior, espetially in the desert. Christians are slow and plodding, and can only fight one way. Muslims had far more varied and rigourous training. But I prefer Eastern style warfare with horse archers and lighter armor to just charging.

As I said come face me in VI and Ill show you that Christains even rule the desert. Slow and plodding my butt. Ill be all over you like white on rice. On normal ground its no contest. Ill also out last you in stamina.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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