Oh, my. Sometimes I just have to wonder what people are thinking when they make a film and Ridley Scott’s latest is one of those times. Scott’s next film, Kingdom of Heaven, is a Crusades-era epic about a Muslim led assault on a Christian held Jerusalem. Think The Passion got people all worked up into a religious froth? I guarantee that this will be far, far worse. What exactly goes through a studio-exec’s mind when green lighting a film like this in the freshly post-9/11 world?
The thing is in the right environment and with the right combination of script and director – Scott’s involvement honestly doesn’t give me much hope on that front as he’s a fabulous technician who too often doesn’t seem to have much interest in depth of character – this could be a fantastic film on all levels: a solid critique of the co-opting of religion by politics and the relationship between the Christian and Muslim world, and if historically accurate should actually portray the Muslim characters in a very positive light as they were far more advanced in terms of culture, education and social structure than the Christian world was at the time. But, assuming Scott manages to pull all of that off, will anybody even be able to see it for what it is given the current global climate? To far too many people this is going to be simply a story about Muslims killing Christians – yes, I just gave away the ending, so sue me – and is that really what the world needs right now? So: brave and visionary, or cynically capitalistic and divisive? I’m really torn on this one.
Read the New York Times’ in-depth story about the film here.
we need some more horror films oh and i like to give a shout out to mishawaka high school home of the cavemen TRIO! anyways those horror films are needed
we need some more horror films
All war is a massacre. That’s pretty much the point. Kill more of the other guys than they kill of your guys. In the days of hand to hand, close quarters combat this was even more the case. I’m not trying to make any sort of comments about moral superiority based on who won what battles.
My comment on the Muslims being more ‘advanced’ has nothing to do with warfare and everything to do with the levels of culture, education, medicine and technology. If not for the muslim world christendom would probably never have come out of the dark ages. While the church was burning whatever they could find of the ancient greeks’ work in math, science and philosophy as heresy and refusing to teach literacy outside of the priesthood the Muslim world was building libraries out of these western texts and furthering their work. We’d have lost Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, etc, etc, etc without Islam. Which is pretty ironic, really.
As for when would be a good time to release … well, this would be sensitive material at any time, but to release a film about a Muslim assault on Christian held Jerusalem in the current political environment … well, it’s not hard to look at it as cold, cynical opportunism. And it’s definitely not going to do anything to help western / arab relationships. Seriously: why bring up the crusades when people are thinking that Bush is basically trying to launch them again? It’s going to hit a LOT of hot buttons for a LOT of people in a LOT of different countries no matter how well done it is. I think if approached properly it could be a great, subversive film, but Scott’s not really known for his subtlety …
Is Scott the right man? I don’t know … he’s definitely got the technical skills. On that basis he’d have to be at the top of the list of current directors, yeah. Why I question, though, is that Scott tends to focus on the technical end of things to the detriment of character and plot, which will be the most important elements in whether or not something like this works. He’s made some brilliant films but I think that his truly exceptional ones are that way because he’s worked with incredible screen writers who have proven records with other directors as well. I can’t think of an example where Scott has elevated his script through his film technique, but I can think of several where his style has gotten in the way. And based on interviews I’ve seen him do I really don’t think he even understands why his best films – Bladerunner and Alien, in my opinion – are as good as they are. I can think of a LOT of people with the technical ability to pull it off who would be FAR worse – can you imagine Michael Bay throwing his rah-rah go USA schtick into something like this? – and I can’t really think of anybody who should automatically vault over him on the list, but it just makes me leery. It’ll all depend on the script, really.
Tripoli was a massacre. They killed a lot of people and burned down maybe the biggest library in the Middle East in the 12th century. It sure will be bloody, even with muslims being more advanced than christians. Is it a bad time to release it? Well tell me what would be a more appropriate time? It is still entertainment, isn’t it? And personelly I think the Brit, Ridley Scott, is the right man for the job.
I’m wondering if that commenter has read the same post I have.
I think Ridley deserves a bit more credit, since I can hardly see him making narrow-minded cinema. If you want narrow minded, go see indeed ‘Passion’. But I am glad it is out there. It is but still the vision of Gibson’s mind as Kingdom of Heaven will be a vision of Scott’s mind. If you are looking for historical fact (if this is not a contradiction in terms), go read a book.