From the New Duranty Times, with thanks to Jerry Gordon:
SIR RIDLEY SCOTT'S new blockbuster, "Kingdom of Heaven," could hardly be more topical. It shows Muslims resisting Christian invaders, battles raging in wind-whipped deserts, ancient cities under siege and civilians cowering. It even shows prisoners decapitated for their beliefs.O.K., so all this screen mayhem is meant to be happening more than eight centuries ago, but doesn't it sound like recent news from Iraq?
Well, the movie is not meant to show that Christians and Muslims have been at one another's throats for centuries. Rather, by dwelling on the extended, turbulent holy war known as the Crusades, Sir Ridley said he hoped to demonstrate that Christians, Muslims and Jews could live together in harmony - if only fanaticism were kept at bay.
To that end, for all the furious battle scenes in "Kingdom of Heaven," which opens nationwide on May 6, 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.
If this is accurate about the film, I can't imagine why The Scholar of the House is so upset about this movie. But as an accurate portrayal of history, this is laughable -- as I will show in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Regnery).
"It's actually about doing the right thing," said Sir Ridley, 67, a Briton whose screen combat experience also includes directing "1492: Conquest of Paradise," "Black Hawk Down" and "Gladiator." "I know that sounds incredibly simplistic. It's about temptation and avoiding temptation. It's about ethics. It's about going to war over passion and idealism. Idealism is great if it's balanced and humanitarian."If so, the Crusaders got a few things wrong. From 638, when Muslims first occupied Jerusalem, both Christians and Jews were permitted to visit their holy sites. Then, in 1095, responding to an appeal from the Byzantine Christian Church in Constantinople, Pope Urban II organized the First Crusade to liberate Jerusalem. Four years later, those crusaders seized the city, massacring almost all its inhabitants in a bloodbath invoked to this day.
Seven more crusades were waged, bringing European monarchs, lords, knights and their armies of devout followers to fight - and settle - in an area stretching between what is today Syria and Egypt. The Muslims responded with their own sporadic jihads until finally, by 1291, the Christians had been driven out.
It's hard not to wonder, is this really a good time to show warring Christians and Muslims as entertainment?
No mention here, of course, of 450 years of Muslim invasions and conquests of Christian lands that preceded the Crusades -- or of sacks of cities by Muslims that equalled the brutality of the Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem. One atrocity does not justify another, but what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem was common practice for armies in those days.
"Kingdom of Heaven" is an entertaining version of history that is riddled with inaccuracies. The sad fact is that many get their history lessons from inaccurate venues of entertainment rather than from scholars. In this case, the goal of this sad predicament is to soften up and create an ignorant population that believes in a sanitized version of Islam that will be ready and accepting of dhimmitude and socialism.
When will we have a fact-based movie about the life and 'ministry' of Mohamand? Based on the Koran and other holy Islamic scriptures.
You would have Violence as he slaughters his victims and beheads the remaining jews of Medina, sex hs he (and his hordes) rape the women and children that very night. The liberals should love it as he consumates his marrage to his nine year old wife.
It would be a blockbuser!
The same problem exists with a true portrayal of any movie about biblical prophecies of the end-times. There are always some kind of "special-relish" kind of knives needed to defeat the anti-christ, or the Messiah is born as a baby again.
I say all of this because the TRUTH is a much better story, no need to embroider history.
There will be a generation that will eat this tripe up and believe they are watching a history lesson. arrrrggghhh!
Movies are made to put bums in seats, not to inform them of objective, historic truths. (Michael Mooore has certainly proved that.)
"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."
Sir Ridley, I have a recommendation for you. Get out into some strong sunlight, lay off the blood pudding and head cheese but most importantly quit romaticizing Islamofacists into nobel 'Lawrence of Arabia' types.
After removing the rose colored glasses you dour, effete Brits always wear (when contemplating Islamofacists) you will see Lawrence of Arabia is really is a rancid Muktada al Sadr with dirty feet, rotten teeth, a filthy night shirt and innocent blood on his hands. SNAP OUT OF IT!
If it is anywhere near as laughably inaccurate as his film "Gladiator", then we are in for a p.c. mess.
In that weirdly depressing opus, the hero rode his horse from 'Germany' to 'Spain', as a deserter and enemy of the new Emperor, along Roman controlled and patrolled roads for 1,000 miles, or so, and no one asked for his travel documents or reason for crossing the continent, although the Empire was known for its strict vetting procedures, border gates, espionage system and swift communication methods.
"Spartacus"*, on the other hand, was a mature film on the same topic, although one based on history, not fantasy.
(*A pity the Hollywood pimps have recently leased its central and humanly inspiring message "I am Spartacus" for a goddamned t.v. commercial... a dismal and I would think illegal trend started by "Forest Gump"'s insipid prostitution of a martyr to history for a mere 'gotta pee' joke... don't the dead have to sign 'release forms' [a technical impossibility] to have their images used in advertising or for-profit fictionalizations?)
"Gladiator" was about at the level of a video game based on a 'graphic novel' (AKA comic book).
Lots of special f/x flash, but a core as hollow as a termite-riddled centerpost.
The fanatical Muslims should be cheering this apparent whitewash if the director's stated intent from this report appears on the screen.
Better no film than a load of b.s.
And CAIR has given the film its stamp of approval:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050425/pl_usnw/muslims_call_new_fox_crusader_film__balanced___cair_says__kingdomof_heaven__avoids_negative_stereotypes126_xml
Sure reason enough to avoid the slick piece of trash.
Yes Suzan, if the film is "balanced" according to CAIR, it is a hatchet job on the rest of the world.
Politics - U.S. Newswire Press Releases
Muslims Call New Fox Crusader Film 'Balanced'; CAIR Says 'Kingdomof Heaven' Avoids Negative Stereotypes
Mon Apr 25,12:15 PM ET
Suzan-
Thanks for the link. Very instructive.
I'll be renting a video instead.
(Probably not the old Anthony Quinn film about the glories of Islamic conquest "The Messenger".)
Maybe "True Lies".
Or was that Scott's original title for this (apparent) boneless chicken posing as a feature film?
If C.A.I.R. approves, it's sure to be a hoot.
One assumes that the movie offers no context. There is no mention of the conquest of vast territories once inhabited by Christians (and Jews, and Zoroastrians). There is no mention of what the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land meant for both its indigenous inhabitants, the Jews, who had held on through the Roman and Byzantine periods, but found it impossible to remain in large numbers under Muslim subjugation. There is no mention, one suspects, of the razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009, ordered by the Fatimid Caliph Hakim in Egypt. Nor, one suspects, does the movie mention all the other attacks on Christian sites and Christian pilgrims that caused the Pope to call for a crusade in the first place.
The scriptgirl faxed me a copy of the Producer's marching orders to the Director, after he had been informed of Muslim displeasure, and knew how unfortunate it would be if the movie theatres received threatening phone calls -- it might cut down on the size of the box office receipts.
For the movie to be boffo, for all those foreign rights to be worth much (think of angry Muslims in France, or in England, or in India, or... -- well, those foreign rights mean a lot of money to the American producer, the one who is indifferent to prizes at Cannes but extremely canny about those European and Asian markets.
And this is how the Secret Directions went.
Ridley, baby, you know we said you could have full artistic freedom and final cut and all that, but just keep one thing in mind.
We can go with Place: Jerusalem, the Holy Land.
We are fine with Time: 1187 A.D.
But Ridley, don't climb on some high horse here, especially one that neighs and whinnies about Art and Truth. You've spent a lot of your life making commercials. You know that if the client isn't happy, you don't get hired again. Remember what happened to Orson. And to Preston. And we don't want audiences scared away because Muslims might announce that they are unhappy with the result. You know how Muslims can be when they are unhappy.
So if you don't want to go back to pitching Gentleman's Relish and the Wales Tourist Board, when you are filming make sure to keep firmly in mind the last, but most important, part of the script:
P.O.V.: That of CAIR. Always, in every scene, the P.O.V. of CAIR.
We've invested a lot in you, and we expect just this one little favor in return.
Let us know when you want our people to take a look at the rushes. We need to make sure that there hasn't been any costly misunderstanding, or if there is, that we can reshoot some of the scenes.
Got that?
Good. We're confident that it will be a great film.
I was intending to see this movie - oh well, another one for my boycott list.
I have enjoyed a lot of Ridley-Scott's movies, too bad he has turned into another dhimmi a**kisser.
Hugh has described what happens when Islam is shown in a bad light even if the information is true! Imagine the furor death that a film about the life of Mohammed would cause. Imagine the death and destruction such a film would cause even if the information was lifted straight from the Koran.
Contrast the life of Mohammed to the life of Christ and the longing that people have to see such films. Christians glorify and Muslims deceive and hide the facts...
epg-
I'm sure the message of the public slaughter of film-maker Theo Van Gogh tempered any troubling truths about Islam that Scott might have ever considered depicting in his opus.
Van Gogh only made a short film, mildly criticizing Islam's mis-treatment of women, and for that he was murdered.
Scott, making a full-lenth feature, would probably have had to worry about an RPG up his butt if he took on this story of the Crusades in any way other than the standard History-eunuchs-of-Hollywood treatment.
Why not just set it on another planet, call them "Slami's", and tell it more accurately?
It worked for Aesop.