Ostriig on 20/5/2010 at 18:12
Quote Posted by Muzman
Although it seems a little pat and convenient, there's a fair bit of truth in the essence of the story (albeit selectively told and simplified). The crusader rule of the holy lands has been blamed by some historians for starting modern Islamic militancy. While Saladin and co were unlkely to be nice (by our standards almost nobody was) there's little doubt the crusaders were in the wrong in just about every respect.
I did not know of that theory, thanks for pointing it out! Ironically, though, it emphasizes the essence of my complaint - had the movie portrayed the two sides in a "fairer", more reasonable manner, I'd have been far more likely to pay attention to whatever underlying shreds of history were present. As it is, by the end of the movie I had discounted most of its contexts as gross exaggeration or pure fabrication for the sake of being all edgy and rebellious.
Fafhrd on 21/5/2010 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Muzman
While Saladin and co were unlkely to be nice (by our standards almost nobody was) there's little doubt the crusaders were in the wrong in just about every respect.
Actually, going by Wikipedia and what I remember of the Divine Comedy (there's a brief mention of Saladin in The Inferno, where he is consigned to the outermost ring of Hell because he was decent and noble, but not a Christian), Saladin was pretty much done right in Kingdom of Heaven. Balian and Baldwin got pretty well whitewashed (they seem to have given Richard the Lionheart's post-Crusade relationship with Saladin to Baldwin, to a degree).
Nicker on 21/5/2010 at 05:22
Just got back from the cineplex. Well that was a decent medieval romp. If I'd wanted accuracy I'd stay home and watch the History Channel. Mind you, the WW2 landing craft were a bit much.
It could have been tighter and better written (but then 90% of what hits the screen could be).
Everyone seems to delight in picking it apart, like it's high art. It's a friggin' Robin Hood movie, ya winging jessies! Can't we go out for a good rollick without all the bitching and moaning?
Muzman on 21/5/2010 at 07:49
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
Actually, going by Wikipedia and what I remember of the Divine Comedy (there's a brief mention of Saladin in The Inferno, where he is consigned to the outermost ring of Hell because he was decent and noble, but not a Christian), Saladin was pretty much done right in Kingdom of Heaven. Balian and Baldwin got pretty well whitewashed (they seem to have given Richard the Lionheart's post-Crusade relationship with Saladin to Baldwin, to a degree).
From what I can gather, and if I remember, the main tweak of Baldwin IV is the emphasis on keeping the peace rather than keeping the peace by being generally tough. But we don't really see what got things to the state they are in the film. Broadly speaking the circumstances in the film and the things he was doing, the threats to his rule from within and without, are true. If I remember my wikiducation that is.
Balian; well, I don't know if I'd call it a white wash as more of a completely fictional character who intersects with the real one in a few places.
I'm reasonably cheerful about this situation. It's not a history. It's an old fashioned epic. Using so many real characters and situations does invite trouble. But really it is
Gladiator, it's also
Spartacus,
Ben Hur,
The Robe, any number of hero myths wrapped in history. I'm more impressed how much real detail they managed to cram in given that. The succession complexities are fairly well illustrated (if not exhaustive). There was apparently speculation Balian could have been offered the throne, since Baldwin didn't want Guy de Luisongn getting it (in the film he refuses out of honour and it falls a bit flat. However, there's a bit where you can blame the script on the face of it, but a better actor could have brought out the internal conflict a lot more and generally improved things).
I can let it slide. I suppose people don't want to see pop overwrite history with the propaganda version. But the occasional romanticisation is alright once in a while. Does anyone remember the reality of
Gone With The Wind or
The Untouchables? There's some eras that've had the truth beaten out of them just as bad or worse than many things more ancient. It's true that the real circumstances are insanely complicated compared to the film, though, and something like a crusades TV series would be really cool.
Aaaanyway, Strangely the Movie Show here (Or At the Movies or whatever they call it now) gave Robin Hood a rare double rave. Somewhat different from the general 'eh's it's getting elsewhere. History geeks want history. Everyone else wants Prince of Thieves again.
