WARNING: This post talks about a movie! Kingdom of Heaven, to be precise. So if you haven't watched it, and don't want to get the plot spoiled, then don't read this yet!! You may or may not keep on reading...
So I went and saw it the other night, and I'd have to give it a C or C- rating. I hate giving less-than-good reviews for historical epics, because I so badly want them to be wonderful. A history buff just salivates at the thought of a new movie coming out that will depict some crucial event or exciting period. It doesn't matter if half the reviewers listed at rottentomatoes.com give it a thumbs-down: persons such as Flip and myself do not have the option of abstaining. I knew that KoH has been given mixed receptions, so I'm not surprised by my experience.
The plot has a solid premise but it ends up opening too many paths that it ultimately doesn't want to walk down. The dialogue is often choppy, stilted, and riddled with cliches. I became annoyed because I felt the characters talked more like eighth-graders who think they know anything but can't pronounce more than a one-sentence assertion on a particular subject. These are supposed to be people who have left behind everything that was familiar - homes, friends and families - but they can't seem to clearly articulate their devotion to their particular causes. Balian of Ibelin himself, the main character played by Orlando Bloom, often wanders without direction, and often both villains and heroes come out as flat, stereotyped, and spouting little more than hackneyed phrases and platitudes.
History versus Hollywood
What I really want to do, however, is compare the movie with history - not because I expect or demand it to be perfect, but because I think such a dramatization can be a springboard for learning more about what really happened in the past. At least, if you're weird like me and find stuff like that to be rather fun.
Perhaps my biggest criticism is based on geography, however. And that is to say: Israel (Palestine) is not just a big desert! It actually has some of the most interesting variations in landscape in such a small strip of land: fertile coastal plains, forested rolling hills, lush valleys, AND rocky, semi-arid highlands and fairly harsh deserts in the east and south. But Kingdom of Heaven never shows the land to be anything but rocky and dry. Balian becomes the noble overlord of Ibelin, a castle that was located on the coastal plain between Ashqelon and Jaffa. Yet the movie makes it look like Morocco. Oh wait, the movie is filmed in Morocco. Ah, but of course - location as an excuse for sloppiness. The same goes for the scene that shows the "Horns of Hattin" - the mountainous spot in Galilee where the Army of Jerusalem is whipped by Saladin's Muslims. Galilee is anything but a desert. I could be more forgiving, but every movie seems to turn Israel into nothing more than sand dunes, rocks, and palm trees.
The movie opens by claiming that Europe was in the grip an economic at the time at this time. Actually, quite the opposite was true: Europe was relatively prosperous and economically healthy.
Orlando Bloom's character is loosely based on the real Balian of Ibelin, who was not a bastard son of the fictional Godfrey of Ibelin (played by Liam Neeson) but a legitimate child of a man named Barisan. The real Balian was born and raised in the Crusader Palestine. The movie does portray some aspects of his life accurately. He did help orchestrate the defense and surrender of Jerusalem, but after that he did not move to Europe but stayed involved in crusader politics. He did support more reasonable men against the firebrand Guy of Lusignan.
The movie is also accurate about the close collaboration between Guy and Reynald of Chatillon, the very hairy figure played by an actor you may remember from Braveheart. Reynald was indeed responsible for provoking the war that led to the fall of Jerusalem, deliberately attacking a Muslim caravan in 1186 that included Saladin's sister. The aggressive attitudes of Guy and Reynald led to the destruction of an otherwise secure kingdom.
The movie also reflects reality by highlighting tensions between the Knights Templar (white outfits and red crosses) and Knights Hospitaller (black outfits and white crosses). This division was one of several such problems that weakened the Kingdom of Jerusalem as orders and nobles bickered amongst each other instead of remaining united against a common threat.
There are some details about the politics that the movie has to smooth over for the sake of a more dramatic story, such as the succession from Baldwin IV (the leper king) to Guy. Ridley Scott spares you the details, and I think I should too.
The scene with Guy and Reynald before Saladin also fits with what historians have recalled. The Muslim leader offered a drink to the captured Guy, who then gave the glass to Reynald. Saladin knocked it out of his hands, stating he was not subject to Muslim laws of hospitality. He was either beheaded by Saladin himself or executed by one of his aides. But he then turned to Saladin and reportedly said, "Have no fear. It is not the custom of kings to kill kings."
So the movie actually does some of the history well, apart from reconfiguring Balian and throwing geography out the window. Then, of course, there's Balian's egalitarian and ecumenical mindset that seems VERY out of place for the period. But I would say Kingdom of Heaven is worth at least one view, especially if you are interested in the history of the Crusades and Crusader kingdoms, but ultimately I think the story fails to fully flesh out the tensions, passions, and ideas that resonate from this time period.
