|
| I have never been sure what the box office magic is for Middle Ages battle movies and I am not a fan of that genre. But Gladiator and Braveheart did extraordinarily well at the box office so there must be a reason why. But as for Kingdom of Heaven, the main characters seem to be imbued with a new age sensitivity. I tend to doubt that the Crusaders or the Muslims that they fought were filled with a willingness to understand the other side's point of view. At least some reviewers have pointed this out also. During the era of the Crusades, both sides felt a moral absolutism. And Kingsom of Heaven had kept to that reality, it would be a far better, more interesting movie. In that era, whatever education the people had came from the clergy. And the clergy at the time was not teaching about sensitivity and relating to other faiths.
Why not make a movie that is true its historical time instead of making a movie that makes characters from a thousand years ago, whose only education would come from the clergy of their own faith, into new age babblers. |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
- Posted by woodnymph2 (My Page) on Wed, May 11, 05 at 9:33
| Reggie, I see your point, however, I disagree. I think you may be imposing your own values on history. I was enlightened by reading "Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages." Among the facts it cites is that there were "pockets" of the world in those days where people of opposing faiths coexisted peacefully. One example is Spain, that is, until 1492. History will point to other examples, as well, if you look. Besides, there are always those who go against the prejudices of their times and see the greater good, the big picture. There were lots of examples of that in the pre-Civil Rights days, in the deep South. |
|
- Posted by taylmat_OK (My Page) on Wed, May 11, 05 at 11:39
| The clergy at that time did teach pupils to read classic languages. Perhaps some of the educated nobility actually read those ancient works rather than relying on what the clergy told them. |
|
| History, the Bible and so many other things in life can be tweaked to reflect almost anything you want. |
|
| reggie, I think there was much more diversity of thought and behaviour than some historians would have us believe. People don't change that much, we all interpret individually. There were many subjects where discretion was neccessary but that's equally true today. When I first joined RP there was a wonderful thread about Karen Armstrong's 'The Crusades,' I don't know if anyone archived it - people who went to Palestine did so for a variety of reasons, religion, adventure, to make a fortune in trade importing expensive luxury items to Western Europe. |
|
| Reggie, you continue to generally make the least informed posts on these boards. Where have you been? Wake up! ALL Hollywood historical films have always been revisionist. This is like complaining about a new movie where all the Germans only speak English to each other. It's always been that way and there's no reason to change it. As the great John Ford famously said "when the legend is greater than the truth, print the legend". |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Thu, May 12, 05 at 9:14
| Spamlet, You'd have to agree with me that the Kingdom of Heaven would be more interesting if made from the perspective of the historical time. It could truly be a great movie. I thknk the Coen Brothers tried to that in "Oh Brother" and the movie, while not perfect, actually worked. My favorite book of all time "War and Peace" by Tolstoy essentially proves my point. Sure, Tolstoy played around with some historical facts but he kept the characters squarely within the context of the lives that they lived and the mindsets and attitudes that people had in the early 19th century. And we read the book today and it has the same force to new readers as it did to readers from the 1800s. So doesn't that prove my point? BTW, Spamlet, wasn't I correct about how great a movie Sideways is? And I said it long before it became a box office hit! You have to give me that one. |
|
| reggie, sorry but Kingdom of Heaven made from a contemporary point of view might well be incomprehensible to many. There's a huge gap between the 12th[?] century and the early 19th cent. Saladin was regarded with great respect even by those who opposed him. In 1191, Richard Lionheart had 2,700 Muslim prisoners and their families massacred outside the gates of Acre and their bodies cut open in case any of them had swallowed jewels to hide them, which aligns Lionheart closer to Hotel Rwanda than the Kingdome of Heaven. Remembering past films dealing with this period they tended to be glamourized and sanitized beyond belief. A parallel is the difference between the Olivier and Branagh Henry V. Branagh's film was dead on, but compared to earlier versions it was revisionist. But, as Frieda said on another thread, I'm usually a 'Renegade' rather than an 'Orthdox' :-) |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Thu, May 12, 05 at 18:45
| Kate: Good commentary. I saw "A Man for All Seasons" on AMC a long time ago and it was quite good, as I recall. I don't know alot about the actual incident that was the basis of the movie and maybe the movie changed alot. But it was quite good nonetheless. |
|
| Sorry reggie, you've lost me. I was comparing the Olivier and Branagh 'Henry V.' Olivier's film was a booster during the Allied Forces drive East. It's a great film full of colour and optimism. But Olivier admitted his Agincourt was based on the battle on ice from Sergei Eisenstein's 'Aleksandr Nevski' the first Russian film with sound shot shortly before WWII. William Walton who wrote the score was open that the battle music was an homage to Sergei Prokofief's Nevsky music because he couldn't imagine improving on it. BTW, there's another homage to Eisenstein's battle on ice in last year's King Arthur in the Cat Coit Celidon sequence. But the Olivier battle was filmed on a brilliant sunny day. Branagh's staging was historically accurate. The weather was terrible, the English army, far from being triumphant was struggling with cold, exhaustion, poor food and loose bowels. They were cornered and vastly outnumbered. What they intended was to reach a friendly port and leave. By sheer guts and a lot of luck they turned an Ur-Dunkirk into a spectacular victory. Here revisionist history works 100%. Beginning with the 'Agincourt Song' comissioned shortly after the battle and continued by Shakespeare, the earlier versions of the story have glorified the events. Branagh [Who researches like mad] got it right. BTW I have the Branagh version on tape plus the music from both versions. Sorry this is prob too long but as most of you know by now, my lode-stone for science and history is 'Well, why do you think that? Can you support it?' |
|
- Posted by woodnymph2 (My Page) on Fri, May 13, 05 at 11:04
| "People whose only education came from the clergy of their own faith"? Reggie, how can you know this, with all due respect? People do learn from others who have differing points of view, and they learn from travel and trade. IMO, Kate is right, in her first post. Human nature is the same, no matter how much history has elapsed. History is made of up individuals, some of whom will always "go against the prevailing norm" and make up their own minds about what is fair and just. Read the Rubenstein book I cited above. (and there are many others on the same topic) |
|
| woodnymph and reggie, again, individual perceptions of education vary wildly. Those who have incurious natures usually don't take their education beyond the mandatory or the financially necessary, are often relieved when it's over and are less likely to challenge their 'Group's'choice of status quo. My ex-husband was one of those. No wonder the marriage was doomed;-) People like myself and [Thank goodness] my offspring, constantly challenge our own and each other's ideas and read a lot on many subjects, which makes for some very interesting meal time conversations. |
|
| This film has yet to reach the depth of the English countryside but I thought you might be interested in this review from a daily paper here in the UK; other papers had very similar write-ups. |
Here is a link that might be useful: Guardian 'Film of the Week'
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Fri, May 13, 05 at 20:09
| According to the New York Times review of Kingdom of Heaven, there was really nothing much of modern secular education in that era. According to the Times review, the predominant religious faith of the era was accepted as literal truth. There was not "public education" but basically education coming from the pulpit. The New York Times reviewers are usually knowledgeable about these things so I will accept the Times account until someone shows me that the Times is wrong. And a movie about the Crusades in which the Crusaders and their enemies were literal believers in their respective religious faiths, as the Times says they were, would be fascinating. Maybe it would be a brutal movie, I don't know. But it would be original movie making. Taking the Crusaders and making them new age types filled with self doubt is not terribly creative and original. I respect Ridley Scott as a fine director but this movie is not terribly original. I didn't argue that revisionist history makes for a bad movie. "A Man for All Seasons" is still a superb movie and stands the test of time even though it probably played fast and loose with history. But why not try a movie in which the lead characters have the views and beliefs of the people who actually lived in that era? The producers and directors obviously believe that such a movie would not attract a young, urban audience. But they since they won't try, they won't know. |
|
| reggie, no one said that during these times there was an alternative to schools run by various religious orders. You are quite right, 'A Man for All Seasons' did play fast and loose with history. Thomas Moore far from being a fine, honourable and merciful man, sent many to the stake without hesitation including a woman who went into labour, was taken out and then burned alive once her child was born. This is not about attracting a 'young urban audience.' I agree with woodnymph2. You are wilfully ignorant about history and obviously have no interest in learning because it might disagree with your rigid and uninformed beliefs. Shame on you. |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Sat, May 14, 05 at 8:30
| I wasn't arguing that every movie or historical novel should stay 100% to the realities of the time. My favorite book of all time "War and Peace", which I have read several times, took some detours from the facts of the Russian-Napoleon wars. The great Leo Tolstoy shaped the book to conform to his unique views of history. But his writing is so extraordinary and his development of characters so brilliant that the novel works perfectly. It is no stretch to say that "War and Peace" is the greatest novel ever written. In the deft hands of a genious like Tolstoy it works. In lesser hands it does not work. |
|
- Posted by sherwood38 (My Page) on Sat, May 14, 05 at 13:03
| I haven't seen the movie yet but did read the the 'review' by Bradshaw in the Guardian provided by Vee. All I can say is that Bradshaw is a nasty & sarcastic man and as with most critics if he thinks it is terrible I will probably enjoy it! Pat |
|
| Pat, I read Bradshaw's crit. of King Arthur which he slammed because it wasn't the 'Idylls of the King,' ignoring any discoveries made in the last 20 years. reggie, I appreciate 'A Man For All Seasons' is partly fictionalized but sorry, I cannot award Moore the status of a heroic martyr given what he did earlier. There was nothing saintly about burning people alive over a difference in philosophy. |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Sun, May 15, 05 at 10:19
| Over the weekend, I checked out a novel based in the period of the Ccrusades called "Unto Death" by Amoz Oz. Now this would make for a great movie. It wouldn't have grand battle scenes and would probably not be box office gold but it could be a good, small movie. |
|
- Posted by woodnymph2 (My Page) on Mon, May 16, 05 at 10:52
| Pat, I hope you will see it. I liked it far better than "Troy". Let us know what you think. Mary |
|
- Posted by chinacat_sunflower (My Page) on Tue, May 17, 05 at 14:31
| hmm... you seem to be mistaking critics (even more so than the filmmakers) for historians... a common enough mistake in the world that mistake media for reality. but then, as a Jew with a family history of scholarship and even female literacy that we can trace back 300 years-I get the sense that european history was, well, written by the vitors ;) and is about as trustworthy as the later editions of the new testament (like I'm going to trust anything promoted by a religion that preferred the works of St Agustine 'the castratii for Christ' over the works of Valentin, who actually had a WIFE ;) precisely how long did you spend on persian history in school? a week? a month? bet you didn't spend a month studying the crusades, actually. bet very few of the critics did, either. in fact- I bet they did their research online, with a beer in the other hand. and I haven't even seen the movie yet- but I've noticed that my islamic friends seem to think better of it than my christian ones...and my 'neither' friends don't understand what all the fuss is about. |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Tue, May 17, 05 at 18:05
| In order to make the movie a cheerful epic, the screenwriters had to sugarcoat both the Crusaders and Saladin. Neither was the tolerant, "let's understand one another" type that the movie has the Orlando Bloom character and the Saladin character. I think the screenwriters underestimate the intelligence of the audience.There are many, many people in all age groups who would buy tickets for a more realistic portrayal, if only the studios would give us a chance. |
|
| How many movies are made for the "intelligent" audience and become big money makers? After all, that's the real goal, at least for the big production companies. I believe there are plenty of independent films that cater to that "intelligent" audience. Isn't there room for both? Sometimes I just want escapism, not to have my brain taxed. I can appreciate both types. I actually feel sorry for those who can't let go and just have a good laugh or appreciate slapstick comedy. As far as historical accuracy, I chalk it up to literary license. As someone previously said, "It's not billed as a documentary". I'm sure I'll get slammed for thism but I have broad shoulders so ... slam away. |
|
| I think the "sugarcoating" of the Saladin character had more to do with the current political climate than the estimated intelligence of the audience. Look at the flak '24' received just for having Islamic terrorists. Imagine if Scott had shown the atrocities ordered by Saladin against Christian families. The movie would never have been released. Though I must admit, as chinacat said, I'm relying on the net for history, though not with a beer in hand :P. My knowledge of the Crusades really only covers changes in canon law. |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Thu, May 19, 05 at 14:03
| Tiphanie, I think you are right about the PC reasons behind the sugarcoating of Saladin. The real Saladin was hardly the moderate man portrayed in the movie. But for purposes of making the PC crowd happy, Saladin had to be made into a saintly character. |
|
| Tiphanie, I'm puzzled, could you be specific? I searched several sites Wikepedia etc and found no ref to Saladin having Christians massacred but rather the reverse i.e. Richard I. The results were remarkably consistent in finding Saladin brave, wise, honourable even 'Chivalrous.' These are contemporary sources so not the 'PC crowd.' reggie, how much if any, history have you studied, when and where? Like Ridley Scott, I'm far too old to be influenced by PC nonsense. Various crusades show repeated patterns of intolerance and terrible cruelty. Perhaps Scott should have filmed the crusade of 1596 when German crusaders following the Rhine Valley massacred many Jewish communities in what has been called 'The First Holocaust.' On July 15 1099, crusaders massacred almost every Jew, Muslim and Eastern Christian inhabitant of Jerusalem. The monk Fulcher of Chartres wrote 'None were left alive, neither women nor children were spared.' In 1209, after the period in the film, the inhabitants of the city of Bezers in Souther France were slaughtered. The military commander asked how were his troops to distinguish between the orthodox and the heretical [Christian] Cathars? 'Kill them all' replied the abbot of Citeaux, 'God will know his own.' Saladin didn't have 'To be made into a 'saintly' character. He was a Sunni Muslim, a sect which still encourages tolerance and learning who was admired by friend and foe alike. And, oh yes, I'm serious about your knowledge of history.
|
|
| I'm sorry, Kate. I had forgotten where I had heard these things. Most of my understanding of the Crusades comes from the net, but I've really only learned of Saladin through discussions with a professor and some other students. Who really aren't reliable sources, either, I guess, though I think they were referencing the Battle of Hattin, and the subsequent execution of hostages. I never meant to imply that Saladin was a monster and Richard was not. The atrocitites committed by Richard, or from his orders, were far more severe than those carried out under Saladin. And I don't think it's about being politically correct, either, just a respect for the current political climate. Scott did understand the potential ramifications of the film, that I'm pretty sure of, even if it's clear that being PC wasn't really a major consideration. All of that aside, I still really want to see the movie. |
|
- Posted by reggie_van_gleason (My Page) on Fri, May 20, 05 at 12:32
| One of the unwritten rules of Hollywood screenwriters and directors is that for PC reasons, villians must be either crazy Russians, berserk Eastern Europeans or best of all Serbs. Neither Russians or Eastern Europeans (especially Serbs) are protected by PC rules and so Russians and Eastern Europeans have been made stock villians. Recall "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney. Nutty Eastern Europeans were made the bomb crazy lunatics. A James Bond movie from a few years ago had Pierce Brosnan doing battle with loony Russians. Even in a recent Tom Clancy adaptation, the screenwriters changed the villians from Muslim fanatics to Eastern European villians. Yet anyone who travels to a country like Bulgaria will find a country of highly intelligent people who are making extraordinary progress and don't engage in terrorism. But Eastern Europeans and "crazy" Russians have no PC protection and so can be made into perfect movie villians. Fortunately, there was no way to make the villiams of Kingdom of Heaven eastern Europeans. |
|
| The role of terrorists is a changing fad. We've also had cattle rustlers, white supremecists and Africans. |
|
| I had watch movie kingdom of heaven problem.This movie is action based and i enjoyed while watching it. |
|
- Posted by stelalouis (My Page) on Wed, Aug 3, 11 at 3:47
| Its one of the greatest post about kingdom of heaven that I got from this place. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Circle Theater Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
|
|