Kingdom of Heaven
May 6th, 2005 by park
The Kingdom of Heaven is in the mind and heart. This is the driving force of Ridley Scott’s new epic film. Mr. Scott has a very particular style in filmmaking, and we’ve born witness to it time and again. Gladiator, the film that put epics back on the map for Hollywood, shares the same dark, brooding camera styles as Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, they share so much in common stylistically I’d call them sister films. The characters are eerily familiar as well, but the music really draws into a place that makes the suspension of disbelief possible. It really is Hollywood magic at its finest. However, I have beef with the film. It seems I cannot watch a film these days without some twinge of cynicism creeping in.
For starters, the script didn’t feel as polished as Gladiator. In fact, I would almost say it felt like Hollywood had a meeting and this is what
resulted. They wanted to touch on modern issues in the Middle East. Can we live side by side and still respect each other? On what levels are we similar, and how can we market that? What is religion, and why does God get so much respect. I blame the latter on the spread of Scientology, but what do I know? I just watch the crazy stuff pumped out by Hollywood and am somehow expected to like it without question.
Secondly, the direction is so intensely similar to Gladiator it makes me wonder if he really put as much thought into the film as he did his previous endeavors. This is not to say I dislike Scott. I actually think he is one of the more talented directors in Hollywood today. But I feel that a director should try to push himself past his previous work. Something we saw Mel Gibson guilty of for a short while.
I am concerned with its historical accuracy as well. Myself, and many others are armchair historians, and have a certain fascination with the Templar Knights. In this incarnation of the Crusades’ story, the Templars are painted as tyrannical mad men with only a two dimensional
characterization. And while I appreciate that in large mob-mentality villains this is needed to carry the story along quickly, I feel they were
slighted and not given proper weight or consideration. This leads to Scott’s inability to direct drama amidst turmoil. Guy de Lusignan, the man who becomes king of Jerusalem, is not even a real Templar apparently, because he is actually married to Sybilla, the Queen of Jerusalem. I don’t really know, because sadly, my research is not quite that precise when dealing with the Crusades. I only know legends for the most part, and the facts do tend to become somewhat muddled. However, it definitely felt wrong, and the over-the-top portrayal of the Templars as the two-dimensional caricatures of evil felt vile and sadly wrong.
Did this completely ruin the film? I cannot say really. The best I can tell you is that, if you liked Gladiator, but wish it had knights in armor,
and really cool “buzz phrases” then you’ll dig this film. If you are looking for a historically accurate telling of the Crusades and what it
really felt like to be there, you will most certainly squirm in your seat and cringe. I think it all has to do with your personal satisfaction with
Hollywood. Personally, I am still digesting it, but I feel heartburn coming on.
Once again, I have to thank the Carmike Wynnsong Theater here in Mobile, AL for letting me watch the film with them. You couldn’t ask for a more courteous or knowledgeable staff to help you with your film watching.