Scholars call new Crusade movie ‘rubbish’

[The Straight Story]

Scholars call new Crusade movie ‘rubbish’

Los Angeles, May. 04, 2005 (CNA) - With anticipation of English director Ridley Scott’s new film, Kingdom of Heaven steadily growing, the skepticism of many scholars of the middle ages is also growing.

Hollywood observers are predicting that the film will be one of the summer’s biggest blockbusters with a cost of over $150 million and an all-star cast including Orlando Bloom of Lord of the Rings fame.

A recent New York Times review said that Muslims in the film “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.”

Robert Spencer, however, in a column in Front Page Magazine noted that the film, “is being touted as ‘a fascinating history lesson.’ Fascinating, maybe”, he said, “but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves.”

One leading scholar, Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades, called the movie “rubbish,” and pointed out that, “it’s not historically accurate at all.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3804

[villager]

1. Catholic News Agency?

Might they not have a stake in having the Crusades protrayed a certain, specific way?

[The Straight Story]

5. Indeed, but

There are many sides in the cube of life - looking at things through varied lenses can enable to see more, even if it is biased (we all have a bias of some type).

If I don't like catholics then I might view this movie as being accurate simply because it portrays a message I want to get out, ie it helps me along in propogating my view. Personally I challenge my own views and to do so I try to look at things like this in a more central light.

They believe it is inaccurate, some don't want to believe it is. The real question is - is it?

[villager]

8. fair enough -- I think Sui Generis has an interesting take, too

in the post below...

[The Straight Story]

11. True

I think myself that if they made a really historical view of it people would come away and vomit.

Mankind is brutal, the church was corrupt, islam was not all roses and wine, and all the attempts to make JoeBlow a hero and focus of a movie will further erode a general view of things and how they were. I wish they would leave history to the documentaries and try to entertain us with more creative things where no one gives a rat's ass if they are historical.

I want to be entertained, not converted to someone's view of how things went.

[fishwax]

12. CNA ... AND front page mag

david horowitz's rabid right wing rag. Yeah, I'm thinking bias ;)

[lenidog]

2. I guess the Catholics are upset that Ridley Scott portrayed everyone

more or less accurately. In other words Saladin is treated as an educated, civilized and honorable foe. While the majority of Crusaders were freebooters who killed anything that moved regardless of religion.

[atreides1]

14. Yes he did portray them accurately, more or less

Most of the books I've read on this period in history, pretty much show the same thing.

Saladin had his moments, and he was at times ruthless, but once he had gained control of Syria, he mainly left the Crusader kingdom alone.

It was one, Raynald de Chatillion, who constanly provoked Saladin, by harassing Muslim trading and pilgrimage routes. But what made Raynald a monster in the eyes of the Muslims was his threat to attack Mecca and Medina. In 1185 Raynald looted a caravan of pilgrims
on hajj. This was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

Saladin wiped out the Crusader army at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, and took Jerusalem, and every other Crusader city except Tyre.

I guess the Catholic church still can't stand up to scrutiny, even after 818 years?

I'd like to see someone do a movie set during the time of the Inquisition. Then we'd get to see the Catholic church get its panties in a big bunch.

[not systems]

3. Front Page Magazine is a hate site...

I can't understand why some DU's take that rag seriously.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17823

...

But many of those dead included assorted terrorists, jihadists, and other collaborators and uprisers against Americans. Ruzicka had the gall to insist that these Afghani and Iraqi dead, terrorists or not, get recognition and sympathy equal to victims of the 9/11 attacks.

...

[CBGLuthier]

4. The sniff of bias

Yeah, this smells pretty funny.

I love the sworn vocation of defending the Holy Land BS. Defending a land from its own citizens???

[sui generis]

6. it is rubbish

and I'm a heathen

They killed as many brown skinned christians as heathens when they went over there, just because they didn't look like your average medieval European christian. Woops. Let god sort it all out.

They did not build multi-cultural tolerant fiefdoms or even care to, and they enslaved the locals and worked them to death whenever possible. The crusades were about nothing more important than an excuse to steal gold and riches from another country, and moreover a manufactured war to unite the European political landscape and give standing armies something to do.

Shades of Iraq . . .

[eissa]

28. Bingo

The Christians of the Middle East view the crusaders as negatively as their Muslim neighbors. Just as many churches were attacked by the invading Christian armies as mosques -- we may have been Christians, but not the "right kind." They couldn't tell the difference between us physically either, so just as many perished. To be honest, western Christians have done horrible damage to the plight of the Christian population of the Middle East through not only the crusades, but missionary trips that attempt to convert the converted and weaken the ancient churches in the region, and engaging in imperialistic schemes that help divide and conquer the populations.

[Squatch]

7. Best way to generate $$$$ for a movie?

Step 1:
Film a movie with dubious historical accuracy, but plenty of beautiful people with perfect teeth (dentistry was an artform back in the middle ages)

Step 2:
A few weeks before the release, create a media shitstorm over the release. Pit "their" scholars against your scholars, throwing potential movie goers into a advanced ticket buying frenzy.

Step 3:
Stand by an watch the money roll in as your movie pegs the number one spot on the charts for about two weeks. Rush the movie to DVD immeidately after people find out that it does, in fact, suck.

[freedom_to_read]

9. GASP! A Hollywood epic is not historically accurate?!

Say it ain't so!

[rock]

10. “it’s not historically accurate at all.”

It's a movie.

[LuminousX]

13. Gee, a fictional movie is not factual?

[leftofthedial]

15. Does this mean they won't use it for a Nova episode?

Or that they won't use it as a Summer replacement for Mass fo Shut Ins?

Where was the outrage when Mel butchered Scottish history, or when he sodomized the Bible?

[Zynx]

16. It's less rubbish than Gladiator - there are at least SOME facts here

None of Gladiator happened, period. It's as fictional as Star Wars.

Maximus isn't even a real Roman name.

[Bandit]

22. Star Wars is fictional?

Shucks, does that mean Darth Vadar is still alive?

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Well, there was an Emperor Comodus who succeeded Marcus

Aurelius, but that is about as close as it got.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Many Muslim scholars disagree....

From Arab sheikhs and Muslim terrorists to belly dancers and mysterious women swathed in burqas, Hollywood depictions of Muslims don't generally ring true. But a film opening this Friday may offer a less clichéd view of Muslims, even as it embellishes history.

In Ridley Scott's new medieval epic, "Kingdom of Heaven," after Muslim forces have retaken Jerusalem from the Christians, their leader Saladin strides through a room full of battle debris, only to stop at the sight of a fallen cross. He gently picks up the Christian altarpiece and sets it on a table.

This gesture, as much as any fights or dialogue in the film, delivers a key message about the Crusades: Muslims were human beings, as capable of honor and faith as any Christian in that period, and by implication, says Mr. Scott, in today's world, as well.

www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0502/p12s01-almo.html

The movie has gotten mixes reviews as entertainment but I'll probably check it out. Of course it's not 100% accurate, but the background of those offended makes me think it might be worthwhile.

[Mike Daniels]

18. The major complaint I've heard about the film is about Bloom in that....

you just don't buy him as the main character in much the same way "Troy" ran into problems with Brad Pitt as Achilles (just to name one).

Beyond that, most reviews I've seen have said the structure and flow is pretty coherent for an epic and the story is successful at holding interest.

I'm not looking for historical accuracy in a movie that's being filmed more for entertainment and storytelling. That said, after seeing these type of movies I've usually bought up non-fictional material that details the showcased historical period.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Yes. They keep putting young Orlando in swashbuckling roles...

Although he became famous as an elf who wasn't a typical swashbuckler. Sure, he looks good in costume & can wield a weapon--but let him do some lighter roles in modern dress. (Although I'll gladly watch Johnny Depp teach him to be more piratickal in the next 2 Pirates of the Caribbean.)

The Houston Chronicle gave the film 3 out of 4 stars. Not great, but not a stinker like Troy.....

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/moviestory.mpl/ae/movies/reviews/3169526

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. "the background of those offended makes me think it might be worthwhile."

I think that says it all.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. OmIGosh!!! I didn't realize this is being billed as a DOCUMENTARY!

:eyes:

[SnowGoose]

21. The BBC had a good series a while back

Seems to be in a lot of libraries. Hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. From what I know as an armchair medievalist, it seems pretty well grounded in the facts.

[rockymountaindem]

33. My Islamic History professor showed us a few clips from that.

Evidently she thinks pretty highly of it too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. What do they think of the Virgin Birth and walking on water as history?

Or, the flood? Burning bush? The falling walls of Jericho? Adam & Eve? The talking snake? Little Davey and his slingshot? Loaves and fishes?

No doubt, they are all historically accurate. Did Jesus really look like an Austrian ski instructor?

[WilliamPitt]

24. The only movie I've seen that comes close to representing history

is Thirteen Days. Also Schindler's list.

[shadowknows69]

30. Thirtteen days rocked n/t

[ck4829]

25. Robert Spencer...

Is tied to the Free Congress Foundation.

Paul Weyrich is connected to him, even going to the point of referring to him as a colleague.

Cites stuff from WorldNutDaily.

And his proud list of appearances include one with Michael Savage.

I'm a Muslim who's not too concerned with the Crusades that happened a millennium ago, were they a crime? Yes. The people who committed atrocities, both Muslim and Christian, will face God for their crimes.

The Muslims at one point though were more advanced then the Christians in Europe. The Christians borrowed many ideas from the Muslims, such as architecture and math, and this helped the Christians come out of the Dark Ages.

[tokenlib]

27. What's new?

From a factual historical standpoint, most historical movies are rubbish. When there are exceptions, it is a wonderful thing. I happen to believe the real story is often more compelling than the fiction the filmmakers replace it with--in many cases.

[JCMach1]

31. Saw it a few days back here in UAE- Better than Gladiator

I thought (but then I did think too highly of that movie).

I was a good summer epic style movie. I am also a sucker for the time period. And yes there are Hollywood stretches here. The Greek fire from catapults (used by Saldin's army) I am sure annoyed the historians to no end...

I also had to deal with annoying UAE censorship... However, I believe one of the scenes they cut was a rape (or implied rape) scene of Saldin's sister... Also, we got none of the hot love scenes beyond passionate embraces.

[CJCRANE]

32. I just saw the UK version,

it sounds the same, don't think it was censored.

[Javaman]

34. So, huh, 2+ hours of movie doesn't = 3 centuries of crusades?

Well, no duh.

I love when they have these various experts come out telling how historically inaccurate a movie is portraying a particular event.

several things:

first and foremost, I'm under the complete belief that these various "experts" are paid by the studios to do this kind of "controversial" publicity. Since when ever is a movie historically accurate????
I'm not talking about documentaries either, although many of them are questionable as well.

second: we live in a society that values who wins on American idol more so then how our elected officials screw us. So do these guys comments really matter to joe blow in the middle no where of anystate, USA?

thirdly: I love this quote, "Spencer added in his column that Kingdom of Heaven takes no “notice of the historical realities of Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule. They were never treated as equals”. As if any non-christian living under christian rule was always viewed with tolerance. Oh please.

Ugh, I say Ugh. If I wanted a history lesson from a movie, I certainly wouldn't go see one that was made by ridley scott.