There’s this Ridley Scott movie coming out called Kingdom of Heaven that’s about the Crusades. Word I’m getting is that it is problematic, though not an all-out Christian bashfest.
For some of the problems, here’s films critic Peter Chattaway semi-fisking the NYT-noids at the New York Times and their comments about the movie.
EXCERPT:
The article continues: "Mr. Scott and his screenwriter, William Monahan, have tried to be balanced. Muslims are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe."
Um, this is balanced? All the extremists are Christian and all the Muslims are nice and peaceful? I think the film, to say nothing of history, is more complicated than that, though I don’t think the New York Times is.
I’ve also heard that the film contains a positive depiction of euthanasia.
And I won’t see KoH based soley on that French woman’s snide little comment!
Of course it’s balanced. The original version had…oh never mind. I should never blog in a sarcastic mood.
Jason Apuzzo has a review up over at the Libertas blog.
Anybody know of a reliable and succinct source for reading about some of the Crusades? Succinct as in, not a 500 page history…
I always thought there was something funny about Orlando Bloom ~ can’t be doing with a man who looks better than me in a pair of tights.
God Bless.
(not in order)
1.) Muslims have invaded Iberia? Check
2.) Muslims have invaded Sicly? Check
3.) Southern Italy? Check
4.) Northern Africa (you know that Christian stronghold…)? Check
5.) Holy land under siege? Check
6.) Europe panicked enough to launch a generational war? Check
I just can’t feel guilty about the crusades. It was a war in a period where war crimes were frequent, but to paint the crusaders as random contributors to violence is just silly. You also have to remember that Europe ended up reconquering *Iberia*. The Mongols ripped the heart out of Islam. That’s right folks, they did convert, but only after they realized that all their subjects were muslim.
It’s not actually as bad as all that.
It’s not about feeling guilty about the Crusades.
The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem is actually idealized as a period of tenuous but successful peaceful coexistence among Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
Some of the Crusader knights (i.e., those led by Jeremy Irons) are good and noble, supporting the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Others (i.e., the Knights Templars) are evil, instigating for open war with the Muslim infidels. Some Christian clerics are contemptible (e.g., the Patriarch of Jerusalem, which seems actually to be historically accurate); others (e.g., David Thewlis’s Hospitaler) are noble and upright.
The Muslim side is a lot sketchier. We’re told that the peace is threatened by “fanatics of all denominations [sic],” meaning on all sides, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. But in fact the only Muslim character who matters is Saladin, who’s a moderate like the Christian King of Jerusalem. We also fleetingly see a Zealot-like Muslim eager for war on the Christians and recapturing Jerusalem. No Muslim clerics, good or bad. No treacherous Muslim equivalents to the Templars — but also no loyal Muslim equivalents to Jeremy Irons and his knights.
Even Saladin isn’t an uncomplicated noble character; in the siege on Jerusalem he explicitly repudiates the option of showing mercy to the Christian civilians of the city, and relents only in the face of outstanding resistance.
The film is problematic in some ways, but it’s certainly not a broadside on the Crusaders or the Christians. The film has Liam Neeson describe the Kingdom of Jerusalem as “a better world than has ever been seen… a kingdom of conscience, peace instead of war, love instead of hate. That is what lies at the end of crusade.”
FWIW.
Review coming Friday….
Can’t wait for the review, SDG!
“The film has Liam Neeson describe the Kingdom of Jerusalem as “a better world than has ever been seen… a kingdom of conscience, peace instead of war, love instead of hate. That is what lies at the end of crusade.””
Yeah, but as Ridley Scott says in an interview, his Balian of Ibelin (a real historical figure, I’m told) is portrayed as an agnostic. An agnostic defending the “Kingdom of Heaven”…too much of a suspension of disbelief to me. They should’ve just taken the Neeson character and run with it.
How come nobody wants to make a movie about the First Crusade? Count Raymond of Toulouse would make a much better Crusader character.
Well…what would you do if your capital (religiously) was being held under seige? My gosh…they call this balanced? Well…with today’s movies…never mind…Gesh…
Sooo…the Muslims want to coexiste, eh? Don’t they want to destroy all the infidels? Of course, mabye not all belief that, but that’s what Mohammed thought…heck, he conquered almost all of Turkey, Asia…you name it, he’s got it. Heck, Europe is goin’ down to them right now…thanks to their declining population (THANKS, abortion)
So………..yeah. Whatever. With today’s films (That one Judas filim…) Who Cares?
Watch movies real closely and see who is strongly associated with the image of the cross. The Creepy Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite, the cannibal kid in Sin City, Buck from Kill Bill Vol I … notice something? They’re all really bad people. Traitors, hypocrites, duplicitous, self-serving, and even maniacal.
Very rarely will you ever see a person with open religious affiliation in movies portrayed as being less totally repugnant. At best, you find “likable” characters who only give religion lip-service and oscillate between agnostic to indifferent or just flaky (the friar from Hellsing, the professor from Hellboy, the Mariachi from Desperado). But these are rare and, frankly, still far short of any faith ideal.
History tells us that real heroes are those who have unwavering faith in the face of great personal trial and temptation. But in my book, I think Hollywood is trying to condition people to hate religion in general (the Japanese mafioso draped with Buddhist prayer beads in Elektra) and Catholicism in particular.
Think of what this type of societal influence can do to someone who is trying to return to church after a long time away.
I was excited to hear about KoH, because Scott said in interviews he got feedback from “Catholic experts.” But I saw on the website the main character commits the sin of fornication (extramarital sex) which is a really bad example. So surprise surprise — more of the same.
Strictly speaking extramarital sex is adultery. Fornication is sexual intercourse between people who are not married but who are free to do so.
And adultery or fornication per se is not evidence of a bad story. In a movie, however — since we know Hollywood — it does create a reasonable expectation that the sin will not be treated as a sin.
One correction, Kosh: Mohammed just conquered Arabia. He died before the other conquests–the more notable figure in those was Khalid al Whalid, called The Sword of God by the Byzantines. He was a masterful general, even if he used his skill to bad ends.
Just a historical correction–not saying I disagree with you.
X-Men 2’s Nightcrawler was a devout Catholic praying the Rosary in German, saying the Our Father and Psalm 23 in English. Also, Aunt May from Spiderman was praying the Our Father as well, and she is a kindly old lady.
I haven’t seen the recent Exorcist prequel, but I’d say that these are good examples of Catholics being put in a good light.
Generally I would agree, but I think Napolean Dynamite is the worst example you you could have listed.
First, the movie is a farce, but secondly, if you are looking for a positive Christian symbolism in there, did you forget about Pedro and his familia? What about when Napolean is rescued (were they Pedro’s brothers? I can’t remember) and a crucifix is dead center of shot in their rear view mirror. Yeah, Uncle Rico is creepy, and he wears a dangly gold cross, but Pedro and his hermanos represent genuine, salt-of-the-earth, Catholic culture. Note the only other Cross in that movie is a Crucifix, and those dudes are the heroes there. 🙂
The association of the crucifix with creepy Latino toughs is not a positive one. Nor is the generally dopey way in which Pedro’s Catholic spirituality is portrayed. I feel the faith is sort of denigrated as a superstitious outlet for the poor, uneducated (and greasy) foreigner — which is actually a longheld anti-Catholic tradition in America. The writer of Napoleon Dynamite was amused by the story of the “holy chip” he heard in real life as a Mormon (LDS) missionary in Chicago. The scene was eventually edited out of the movie, but remains with commentary on the DVD.
Don’t get me wrong, I really liked Napoleon Dynamite. It is one of my favorite quotable movies because there are times when my “lips hurt real BAD!” What was so disappointing was that even in that light, innocuous comedy, subtle pot-shots were being taken against faith in general and Catholicism in particular. However, especially because there are poor, uneducated, and superstitious Catholics in the world, you really cannot fault the makers for being true-to-life. But how many more Catholics are actually out there making a real difference in the world by throwing their lives selflessly on the pyre? And do any of these ever make it into the movies? Rarely. And where were the self-effacing pot-shots on Mormonism that are required of Catholics in movies? Would it be right for a Catholic to make a movie that slighted Mormons in this way? People would have a fit.
Nightcrawler was the one good exception I could find. Not only in the movies, but also in the anti-Christian and religion world of comic books and video games (he reads Aquinas in X-Men Legends). My concern here is that I feel the writers of the X-Men comics are trying to make up for missing the real civil rights movement of the 60’s and in effect are working to use the plight of mutants to paint the gay rights movement of today in a similar vein. Such simplistic thinking would require relegating Catholics to the position of the mindless anti-mutant public who are too twisted by their hate to sympathize with mutants (ie, homosexuals). This is a dangerous road to go down. In reality, the Catholic position towards homosexuality is much more in tune with Prof. Xavier’s idea that self-control is a key element of keeping society secure and safe for all.
I do not know if the relationship the Bloom character has in the movie. I was under the impression that adultery was a type of fornication (one is more broadly defined than the other) but now I know…
Though the CCC defines fornication as “the sexual intercourse between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.” American Heritage defines it as:
“Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.” I always thought that any sexual activity between unmarried partners counted as “fornication.” Interesting…
Yes…I meant his principles.
Sean S, huh? Interesting.
“Think of what this type of societal influence can do to someone who is trying to return to church after a long time away.”
Or what it does to someone trying to enter the Church.
.
Well, not all writers are as scrupulous as they should be. And when talking about sexual sins in general people often lump them under “fornication.” Such as “Shun fornication.” — in translation, of course; it is translated here
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm
as
“Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body.”
Note that there is not only adultery and fornication but incest — the man and woman could not have married because of their close relationship. And when terms get technical — children born to a fornicating couple are illegitimate, but may been treated differently at law. (In some times and places, for instance, a couple who had commited fornication could legitimize their children by marriage.)
poker 456
poker 456