Kingdom of Heaven

[Ceneca]

Kingdom of Heaven
From Melissa Snell,
Your Guide to Medieval History.


Historical accuracy aside, as a film, Kingdom of Heaven isn't bad. Most of the performances are strong, and the sets and costumes are very well done. The action was exciting and well worth a visit to the theater for the full force of the wide screen and sound system. Battle sequences appeared incredibly realistic. And the cinematography is awe-inspiring.

But there were some notable problems that had nothing to do with historical fact.


Orlando Bloom, while a very attractive young man with undeniable talent, didn't seem comfortable in his role as Balian of Ibelin. His speech before the climactic battle fell far short of rousing, and I sensed no real chemistry with Eva Green as Sibylla. If this had been a fantasy film, I might have bought his extraordinary fighting skill after a lifetime of blacksmithing and five minutes of training with his father. Then again, I might not.

The plot was muddled and at times difficult to follow. The surviving shipwrecked horse was unlikely on several levels. And at times the dialog was terrible:

Godfrey: I once fought for two days with an arrow through my testicle.

Guy de Lusignan: Give me a war.
Renaud de Chatillon: That is what I do.

Muslim Warrior: Why aren't they firing back?
Saladin: They're waiting.
Frustrated viewer: Well, duh, Saladin, whatcha think they're waitin' for?
And before the film was half over, I'd had quite enough of the sorrowful choir music rising over the increasingly muted sounds of graphic violence.

Still, there's enough excitement and adventure to compensate for these flaws -- as long as you don't mistake what you see for historical fact.


What Scott Got Right

To be fair, a good deal of Kingdom of Heaven is close to factual. The costumes are very good, but, since heraldry was in its infancy during the 12th century, there's a lot of leeway concerning the coats of arms -- so, who's to tell? The sets are marvelous, from the dusty walls of Jerusalem to the richly-decorated chambers of the leper king.

The weapons appeared to be accurate, too. Both the siege towers and the trebuchets were very like those used at times in the Middle Ages. Even the flaming balls flung by the trebuchets are possible (though not likely to have been used on such a scale). Documentary evidence exists to support the use of a substance similar to "Greek Fire" in the 12th century (see Medieval Siege Weapons by David Nicolle, p. 41). I wouldn't be surprised if some sharp-eyed medieval weapons experts catch some problems with swords and other hand-held weapons, but I noticed none.

And one point that amused the audience was something that was actually done in the Middle Ages: the blow given to prospective knights was a feature of dubbing. (And, just to be clear, it was not always a blow; sometimes it was an embrace or a kiss.)

But there were many, many errors, and a few serious misrepresentations.


What Scott Got Wrong

The standard practice for laying a suicide to rest is to bury him in unconsecrated ground. It's not to cut off his head and bury him under a gigantic cross.

Both Guy de Lusignan and Renaud de Chatillon were real historical figures. Guy was indeed King of Jerusalem and Renaud was an unbalanced troublemaker prone to violence. However, neither of them were Templar Knights.

The actor who portrayed Saladin (Ghassan Massoud ) was extraordinary, and to my mind, his performance was the closest representation of an actual historical figure in the film. Yet the moment when, in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem, he gently sets upright a small Christian cross clashes with the description by Terricus, eyewitness and acting commander of the Templars:

"After Jerusalem had been captured, Saladin had the Cross taken down from the Temple of the Lord and, beating it with clubs, had it carried on display for two days throughout the city."
--The New Knighthood by Malcolm Barber, p. 114.

Terricus was acting commander because the previous commander, along with a huge portion of those Templars and Hospitallers who had survived the Battle of Hattin, had been beheaded by order of Saladin, who considered the military-religious organizations "impure races" (see Barber, The New Knighthood, p. 64).
The real Balian of Ibelin did indeed knight men of Jerusalem right before the battle, but he didn't knight just anyone -- there were 30 burgesses, plus all noble boys over the age of sixteen. None of them were servants.

It is true that the battle for Jerusalem ended with terms negotiated between Balian and Saladin. But the terms that were reached in historical fact, while generous, were not quite as depicted in the film. Safe passage was guaranteed to Jerusalem's survivors for a price. And although the ransoms theoretically covered the poor, several thousand were not redeemed and may have been sold into slavery (see The Crusades article at The Encyclopedia Britannica online).

But these (among others) are just minor film flubs that you're likely to find in any historical epic. The biggest, most jarring inconsistency between fact and film lies in Scott's imposition of modern viewpoints on medieval individuals.

http://historymedren.about.com/od/crusades/fr/kingdomofheaven.htm

[Ceneca]

What Scott Got Really Wrong

Scott may not have intended it, but there is a pervasive anti-Catholic viewpoint running through the entire film. From the priest who stole a cross from a corpse he was burying, to the angelic monk shouting "To murder an infidel is not a sin -- it is the will of God!" to the sniveling bishop ready to surrender with "Convert to Islam now; repent later," not a single official of the Catholic Church was portrayed with any sympathy. I will freely admit that there were indeed bad priests, lunatic monks and self-serving bishops associated with the Crusades. But there were also priests of conscience, peace-loving monks and competent bishops. You'd never know it from Kingdom of Heaven.

Perhaps it was because there are no Templars left around to offend that Scott chose to cast them as bloodthirsty warmongers bent on violence at all costs. I hope it had nothing to do with the fact that Templars bore a great red cross on their surcoats. But whatever his motives, the depiction is extreme.

Other reviews I've read mention how the film contains both "good Christians" and "bad Christians." That's true -- as far as it goes. But the only "good" Christians are those that espouse philosophies inconsistent with medieval thought.


I don't expect Scott (or any other film director) to understand the complexity of theology as perceived by the lay medieval Christian. I'm certainly no expert in the subject myself. But the Church was an integral part of medieval man's life, and none of the "good" Christians are depicted as having a realistic relationship with it. Attitudes toward such subjects as suicide, guilt, atonement, and "religion" itself are completely misrepresented in sympathetic Christians like Tiberias (Jeremy Irons), The Hospitaller (David Thewliss), Godfrey (Liam Neeson) and, most especially, Balian.
It is entirely conceivable that a man whose child has died and whose wife killed herself from grief should suffer a crisis of faith. But Balian never came across as a Catholic undergoing such a crisis. Rather, he seemed to be an agnostic from the outset -- never having had any faith, never understanding anything about the Church in which every single Christian soul in Christendom was raised from infancy. This is not how a medieval Christian would have been likely to behave. A medieval Christian might think his god had abandoned him, or he might reject what he had once believed out of anger, sorrow, despair, grief, or any combination of these.


As Balian, Orlando Bloom never displayed any of these emotions with any conviction. I would lay the blame at the actor's feet, but for an interview with Ridley Scott I saw the night after I viewed the film. In it, he stated frankly that Balian "was an agnostic" who was searching for answers.
"Agnostic" is simply not a philosophy one is likely to find in medieval Christian Europe. It is a modern concept that sprang up after the "Age of Enlightenment," when the idea of religious freedom was made a reality in some western societies. And there are other unlikely modern viewpoints expressed.

Godfrey's description of Jerusalem as less of a "holy land" than a place of opportunity deflects the all-encompassing motive that drove historical Crusaders to make their pilgrimages. The independent views espoused by the Hospitaller would be completely alien to any medieval Christian, and would have been especially out of character for a man in that order of Knighthood. The understanding reached by Tiberias that what he thought was a war for God was actually for greed is simply not a point of view a medieval crusader would comprehend, let alone agree with (and there are several modern scholars of the Crusades who wouldn’t agree with it, either).


I can't blame Scott for shying away from casting any Muslims as villains. But by making nearly every Muslim sympathetic, he only throws the Christian villains into sharper relief. By avoiding any direct mention of the Church and its role, he allows the numerous misconceptions about its culpability to stand, and be compounded by offhand remarks, unsympathetic portrayals, and the general course of events depicted in the film.

Lest you think I am crying "Foul!" out of loyalty to my own religion, let me remind you that I am an agnostic, and when it comes to gods and religion, I question everything. So why am I defending a faith I don't personally share? Because the facts are what interest me, and anytime someone twists them in order to sell a sentiment or message, even if I agree with that sentiment or message, it tends to tick me off.

And unfortunately, though not surprisingly, twisting the facts to make his point is exactly what Ridley Scott has done here. I don't disagree with his message: tolerance is good, fanaticism is bad, war in the name of religion is absurd. It's just a shame that he has chosen such a complex and already much-misunderstood historical period to muddle up in order to do so.

http://historymedren.about.com/od/crusades/fr/kingdomofheaven_2.htm