"Kingdom of Heaven"--The Crusades, Coming Soon To a Theater Near You
There is a great deal of controversy brewing over this summer's release of movie director ("Gladiator) Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven." (And the best round-up of the controversy can be found at the "Kingdom of Heaven" Info Page.)
The film 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.
In a 2004 article in the (English) newspaper The Telegraph, 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."
By all accounts, Ridley Scott worked overtime to cut and paste and reshoot the movie to conform to a historical perspective acceptable to Muslim leaders. This approach has left many Western scholars rejecting the film's final version as historically flawed and imbalanced in its portrayal of not only Christians and Muslims but Jews as well.
From a cinematic standpoint, at least, the film has been deemed worthy of a "thumbs up" from Roger Ebert. But Ebert is a movie critic, not someone conerned with historical accuracy or liberal political correctness.
As a Christian pastor, I will be watching the lead-up to the film's release with special interest. When I finally have a chance to see it for myself I will set down my own impressions in writing. Until then I can only rely on others to provide information on the conflicting versions on the film's historical reliability.
UPDATE: I have now seen the movie. Read my review of "Kingdom of Heaven" here.
The film 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.
In a 2004 article in the (English) newspaper The Telegraph, 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."
By all accounts, Ridley Scott worked overtime to cut and paste and reshoot the movie to conform to a historical perspective acceptable to Muslim leaders. This approach has left many Western scholars rejecting the film's final version as historically flawed and imbalanced in its portrayal of not only Christians and Muslims but Jews as well.
From a cinematic standpoint, at least, the film has been deemed worthy of a "thumbs up" from Roger Ebert. But Ebert is a movie critic, not someone conerned with historical accuracy or liberal political correctness.
As a Christian pastor, I will be watching the lead-up to the film's release with special interest. When I finally have a chance to see it for myself I will set down my own impressions in writing. Until then I can only rely on others to provide information on the conflicting versions on the film's historical reliability.
UPDATE: I have now seen the movie. Read my review of "Kingdom of Heaven" here.
posted by Bird of Paradise at 8:52 AM
<< Home