2005-05-04 - 11:10 p.m.
Kingdom of Heaven.
I�m so disappointed that the first and (probably last) modern major movie about the crusades is going to suck so badly.
Yes I know I haven�t seen it yet. But I have seen the numerous �special clips� and extended trailers online. The garb and armor look very nice, (made by Weta Workshop of Lord of the Rings Fame) If nothing else this film will be a nice reference for 12th century clothing
The principal weapon (passed down from father to son) was obviously designed for later* marketing purposes. It�s not terrible, I�ve seen several depictions of late 12th century swords that are pretty ornate, but for some reason this one just screams Hollywood! There are several other swords in the movie that seem quite nice. Garb helmets and other sundries are also available and will probably start showing up at an SCA event near you. (how many LotR sword have you seen so far) This is apparently very big business as the sword is featured over prominently in all the release photos. �Could you hold the sword up a bit more, it wasn�t quite obvious enough, that good!�
*Actually not even later as you can buy the sword right now at http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/detail.aspx?ID=7199
Balin�s (Orlando Bloom, our hero) shield, is so wrong that only Hollywood could have produced it. It is a lovely small heater style shield, the only problem is that it belongs to a Knight from the 14th century, not the 12th. (and yes folks, there is a difference.)
Now before I go too far, I myself have seen smallish heater style shields depicted in the 12th century, but they are the vast exception to the shoulder to knee heater of the time.
I guess I take exception more because of why the shield was chosen. It�s hard to run around and fight Hollywood style with a large shield, especially when you�re a skinny little whelp like Orlando. (This movie was originally cast, 10 years ago, with Arnold Swartzennager and Jennifer Connely as the leads)
I won�t speak to much of the fighting, it is standard Hollywood �I�ll attack your sword, you attack mine, that way we could never actually hurt each other, deal?�
Any sword blow (received by the enemy), to any part of his body, is immediately (and instantly) fatal. People in full armor die from blows that wouldn�t hurt a man in a cotton shirt, there is much spinning and running around with a single sword, lots of enemies running onto your blade with their arms in the air, ect ect...
Latching on to the popular trend, the Knights Templar are depicted largely as corrupt villains, though in an interesting contrast the Knights Hospital are seen as quite saintly. I�m not defending or attacking either group, they had their many faults, but this literally black and white reading of history is disappointing.
However not as disappointing as the dehumanization of the Arabs and Turks. With a couple of exceptions, namely Saladin and some other major players, they are a mindless, screaming horde, they might as well call them orcs.
Interestingly enough, this might be the only accurate thing in the whole movie, (let me explain before the hate mail arrives) That mindless, screaming horde, is exactly how many crusaders thought of their enemy, and how they would have depicted them if they were to make a movie about the crusades. (unfortunately this movie wasn�t made by 12th century men, but by 21st, and we are supposed to know better)
There might have been a few that came to know the Saracens as more than that stereotype, especially the generations of Franks born and raised in the Holy land, but if you read the many accounts of the wars, there are few kind words for the native Arabs and Turkmen. They were most commonly called Paynm, (devils, or demons.) and their depiction in art was just as grotesque, black snarling faces ect.
But just to make matters worse our hero is a fully developed modern man, some combination of JFK and Martin Luther King. In his big speech to the defenders of Jerusalem he states that the three great religions are equal and that they aren�t fighting to defend the holy sepulcher, the west wall or the dome, but rather that they are defending the innocent people of the city (of all faiths.)
While this is a wonderfully enlightened attitude, it is completely wrong for the time and place. When the Franks conquered Jerusalem in 1099 they killed just about everyone living there, Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. That is the 12th century ideal of �inclusiveness� I�m not just Christian bashing, the Muslims were quite adept at dehumanizing their foe as well.
This modern notion of solidarity among he religions is nice, but it is a small olive branch to the hopefully quell the Muslim outcry that will follow this movies release.
In an interview the Director (Ridley Scott) stated �I�d like to do a movie that is completely accurate, but I don�t have the six hours I�d need to do it, so you have to cheat a little�
What complete B.S. Getting things right doesn�t take any longer than getting them wrong, you don�t have to tell every aspect of the true story, you just have to get the things you do show right. Why does Hollywood feel like they have to sex up history? The truth is always more fantastic, more dynamic, and yes, stranger, than the fiction that they spew at us.
As educators we will now have to fight against the millions of dollars that Hollywood has spent miss educating the public.
And to add to the general craptacular nature of the film,
There is a forbidden love triangle thrown in for good measure.
You heard it here first,
Justus
