Movie Critiques

[dinadan]

Well, I'm going to see the much anticipated Kingdom of Heaven tonight. I cannot wait, especially since I realized I haven't been to a movie since February when I went to see Constantine. That makes me ill; that means that schoolwork has tried to claim my movie-going passion (and it also means that nothing has come out that I just had to see). Oh well, we break the dry spell tonight.

[Riothamus]

I'd like to weigh in on The Patriot just long enough to say that I refer to it most often as "Braveheart: American History Edition."

Exactly; hence my "Gibson fights for freedom. Again." comment. Except that The Patriot definitely doesn't have the heft of its predecessor.

Looking forward to your comments on Kingdom of Heaven--just glancing at artsandfaith.com, it sounds like it has some food for thought; there's some mild debate over just how anti/pro religion it actually is.

[dinadan]

Kingdom of Heaven

Well, I must say, it was better than Gladiator. Very typical--although better--Ridley Scott cinematography. Excellent battles scenes (although the Karnac battle showed some of the worst battle tactics ever conceived--and yet somehow Orlando Blook won the battle).

It was an excellent depiction, I thought, of how religious fanaticism destroys the message of religion; Godrey, King Baldwin, Saladin, Nasir and Balion all exhibit having knowledge of this. It is the Clerics of Islam and the Bishops and Patriarchs (and the once-named Pope who does not come into the film at all) who are the villains of the film, for being self-serving and forgetting that Christ and Mohammed did not preach that the powerful should use the weak as pawns. So yes, in some ways, it is anti-religious. In other ways, it is definately quite a powerfully commentary on how peace is achieved--not through conquering your neighbor, but loving them.

Of course, there were glaring historical problems with the film. The most important, because it sets the story in motion, is that the bastard child of a baron could not inheret lands in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Acre any more than one could in the Kingdom of France--and yet, somehow, in Baldwin IV's magical world of Jerusalem, legitimate birth and the laws of succession seem to have been suspended. Also, the Templars get demonized (of course, there's nothing new with that), while the Knights of St. John are viewed as tolerant, saintly, true knights; the truth is, these two groups--and later the Teutonic Knights got added into the mix--often fought between themselves as much as they fought with their "enemies."

Overall, however, the message of the film was clear: we Christians have a lot in common with each other, and yet we still fight among ourselves (although we don't often do it with the aid of broadswords anymore). Until we can unite with each other in service and love, we cannot hope for peace with our Muslim bretheren. There is one quote that sticks with me from the film, uttered by Orlando Bloom when he is ordering the bodies of the dead defenders of Jerusalem burned (much to the horror of the bishop) so that the rotting bodies will not spread disease: "God will understand. And if He does not, then He is not God, and we have nothing to worry about." And later, when treating with Saladin, he askes "What is Jerusalem worth?" to which Saladin replies "Nothing.........Everything." Powerful words, and full of meaning. I only hope that we are wise enough to puzzle that meaning out.

God be with you all, may you be under His peace.

[dgan]

Heh. I was hoping that reading your commentary would encourage me to spend my $7 elsewhere. Great, now I have to see it. ;D

The depitiction of poor - no, impossible - battle tactics ranks high on my irritability list, so I'm almost declined to go. However, I'm intrigued by this seemingly harmonious understanding among enemies. You conspicuously omitted any reference to the identity of the driving force behind the conflict itself, and I am interested in seeing how (or if) that is presented.

Instead of a spoiler, I get a teaser. Thanks a lot!

[dinadan]

Sorry...I didn't want to ruin it for you. Although, I must say, I figured that the driving force behind the conflict was obvious, since it is a movie about the crusades. However, as any good story teller does, there are wheels within wheels when it comes to what motivates each character.

[Riothamus]

Very interesting thoughts; I'll definitely have to catch this one. Thanks for being so detailed.

[dinadan]

As always, you're welcome. I wonder what you'll think of it, though.

[Riothamus]

Well, I'm going to see it tomorrow night, and I'll put up my thoughts the next morning, if all goes well.

[In the meantime, ChristianityToday discusses the crusades:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

Given that it's a "popular" publication, a grain of salt is, I suppose, in order, but it's a very interesting article.]

[amodman]

*phew* Good, gotta see it now. I was afraid it was going to be another Aurthur ot Alexander.

[Riothamus]

Saw it. Enjoyed it for the most part; the visuals were great, the story was strong and it felt epic in a way that Gladiator certainly did not.

The whole religion thing was pretty dismal, though. It enjoins a spirit of co-operation, to be sure, and for this it is to be admired, but it does so at the expense of any concept of truth. In the end, it is implied, religion doesn't matter as long as you're a "good person." In fact, the less religious you are, the better (Christians don't come off at all well in this film: all clerics are wicked or cowardly; all professing believers in Christ are wicked. Muslims, on the other hand, with the exception of a token fanatic, are generally level-headed people, for all that Islam is built on conquest.) "Why bother," Scott implicitly asks, "with religion? Religion kills people and makes them feel bad. Why can't we all just get along?" Thus the concept that Islam and Christianity might be mutually incompatable isn't even raised.
[If pressed, I'll try to elaborate further; however, Jeffery Overstreet puts it nicely when he states the film's viewpoint as

We must first and foremost adhere to the religion of tolerance, and keep our other religious convictions to ourselves. It's more important that we please each other than that we please God.

( lookingcloser.blogspot.com/2005/05/revised-first-and-second-thoughts-on.html ) This is exactly my concern with this aspect of the film. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that the last battle-shot of the film is a God's-eye view, in which all distinction between Christian and Muslim are lost, and all you see is men hacking on men.]

Still, I enjoyed the film. The King of Jerusalem was wonderfully iconic, and performances were strong all around. The battles looked nice (although the shakey-camera stuff always annoys.) I would definitely reccomend it.

[On another note: did the movie strike anyone else as particularly topical, given events in the world? Could Jerusalem, on some level, be a stand-in for America? Just a thought; I'm not sure where I stand on that one.]

[And, as before, I've cribbed this post for my 'blog.]

[Dred]

I've been planning on seeing this film since I first heard about it. I knew there were going to be historical inaccuracies but I was really hoping that the overall message in the film would be a good one. I'll have to see it and make a post here afterwards.

Thanks for all the detailed comments.

[dinadan]

My personal opinion is that, with the last lines that close the movie, that Jerusalem is Jerusalem--as if we're being asked to see that the conflict between Christians and Muslims (with the Jews stuck in the middle) is still raging on.

I sort of suspected that this would be your response to the way religion is portrayed, Riothamus, but I don't think that Godfrey or Balion (or Baldwin aka King of Jersusalem) were not religious people; I think that they all had a realistic grasp on the fact that you can't take two powerful monothesitic religions and try to convert each other with the sword. You may not be able to convert each other at all--but that doesn't mean that you can't live in peace. I felt that this was the message between Saladin and Baldwin; Baldwin rides to battle with the intent of going to war with Saladin at Kerak (not because he wanted to but because it was his duty), but then, they reached a settlement, and Saladin offered to send his personal physicians to attend the weakened King. Excellent example of brotherly compassion, despite the differences in relgious theology.

It's not that you can talk about the differences--it's that you shouldn't be motivated to kill over them. That's the point that I saw in the movie.

[dinadan]

I watched The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou again last night. I had forgotten what an insanely clever, off-beat humor sort of commedy that it is. I loved it just as much as I did when I saw it in December. Wes Anderson is a genius.

[Riothamus]

I sort of suspected that this would be your response to the way religion is portrayed, Riothamus, but I don't think that Godfrey or Balion (or Baldwin aka King of Jersusalem) were not religious people;

I'm going to have to learn to be more surprising....

As a matter of fact, Ridley Scott has stated that Balian, in the film, is an agnostic, and the fact that he is nowhere seen in any overtly religious position affirms this. Early on in the film he's angsty, but once he fornicates with his arch-rival's wife, it seems to clear up marvellously. Curious, that. At any rate, Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is basically a kingdom where only the agnostic can live. If even one of the characters had openly voiced pious thoughts and not turned out to be a crook, I would think differently. However, distaste for religion is almost a predicate of heroism here.

I don't want to hijack the thread, though. I enjoyed the film and would definitely recomend it to any fan of the genre.

(I've heard good things about The Life Aquatic. I might have to find it....)

[dinadan]

Well...I have tickets for the 9:30 showing of Revenge of the Sith--I'm so excited that I can't stand it.

I'll post comments when I get back--or maybe tomorrow morning.