Skip to main content

I once fought for two days with an arrow through my testicle.

Kingdom of Heaven
Director’s Cut
(2005)

(SPOILERS) There’s an oft-cited view that Kingdom of Heaven, in its unexpurgated as-Ridley-honest-to-goodness-intended director’s cut – in contrast to some of his other, rather superfluous director’s cuts, in which case – is a goddam masterpiece. It isn’t, I’m afraid. First and foremost, Orlando Bloom is not miraculously transformed into a leading man with any presence, substance or conviction. But there are other problems, more than evident, mostly in the form of the revisionist pose William Monahan’s screenplay adopts and the blundering lack of subtlety with which his director translates it.


As is frequently the case with historical movies, the problem is not that Monahan and Scott choose to reflect the present through the prism of the past, but that they do so to such an extent that it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief in their envisioning. Paul Verhoeven famously planned Crusade with Arnie in the early ‘90s, a picture that floundered on the rocks of a voluminous budget (Carolco opted to go with Cutthroat Island instead, and look what happened there). It’s debatable that would have shown any more fidelity to nuance in its Christians = bad, Muslims = good take, Verhoeven being one for excess in all things, but it at least wouldn’t have come across as ineffectually as Scott’s picture. There’s an element of “Tell us something we don’t know” to this scenario, presenting the atrocities of the Crusades but also of a mealy-mouthed apologia, presenting the Muslim front solely as victims of beastliness. Monahan’s take is a plea for mutual tolerance amid Bush Jr’s War on Terror, but one faces inevitable problems attempting to overlay modern sensibilities on those living a millennium ago, and the screenplay take this tack throughout: the divisions are between good (= moderate) and evil. And the evil are soooooo evil.


PriestConvert to Islam, renounce later.
BalianYou’ve taught me a lot about religion, your eminence.

Early on in the picture, Godfrey de Ibelin (Liam Neeson) tells his bastard son Balian (Bloom), on repelling a force of men sent by his brother (Robert Pugh) “It was not that they had no right to take you. It was the way they asked”. And so it is with Monahan’s script; it’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it. Or rather, you can show people being good, bad or somewhere in between, but as soon as you start setting out your stall and presume your audience is too stupid to appreciate relative values, you’ve sunk all hope. 


Initially at least, the picture isn’t too bad on presenting contradictory statements as they run through religion, law and social meter, but as soon as Michael Sheen’s half-brother priest appears, a living embodiment of hypocrisy, it’s pretty evident this is going to be rocky road to unearth any depth or nuance. Sheen’s really entertaining, a cartoonishly malign performance; his priest is such a monster, he goads Balian into killing him, setting out the standard that follows.


Martin Csokas, amusingly OTT as Dr Kafka in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, takes it to the next level as Guy de Lusignan, who practically has “boo”, “hiss” placards hanging over his head whenever he enters shot. The actual Guy was reputedly arrogant and foolish, some say ineffectual (Reynald de Chatillon considered him pathetic, and pushed him into the Battle of Hattin, depicted in the movie, on the reasoning that it would be cowardice not to confront Saladin), but he at least had a loyal wife (Eva Green’s Sibylla can’t wait to jump in the sack with Balian), one who willing asserted his claim to the throne of Jerusalem and remained married to him until his death. It’s as impossible to take Guy seriously as it is Balian, representing equal and opposite undiluted poles, and as they’re principal antagonist and protagonist, that’s a serious impediment to the picture’s effectiveness right there.


The list of simplifications doesn’t end there, alas. Once the siege of Jerusalem is underway, whispering words of doom and offering garlands of damnation is Jon Finch’s priest, incurring the disdain of King Baldwin (Edward Norton) and receiving the rebuke “I shall confess to God when I see him, not to you. Now leave me” before showing his true cowardly colours – he doesn’t really believe anything at all, and by implication, this must be true of all reputed men of God, unless of course, they follow Islam – when doom looks certain (thus confirming the wisdom of Balian’s scepticism/ cynicism/ agnosticism). You could probably get away with one such caricature, but when they are pocked throughout the narrative like this, the cumulative effect is wearing and patronising. 


SaladinI did not give the cup to you.

The solitary contrast on the evil Christian zealots front is Reynald (Brendan Gleeson), not because he isn’t a caricature, but because he’s an insane caricature, and thus gets away with it through differentiation, dancing about in his cell or running Muslims through with gleeful abandon. It makes for a more effective equation, if it’s a simple equation you want (religious extremism = madness). Even here, though, the picture’s one-size-fits-all approach is in evidence. Reynald (who really was a very bad man) wasn’t actually a Templar, but by personifying them through him, they’re all presented as a baleful force (he was executed personally by Saladin, however, much as depicted).


BalianThere’s your religion. One spark, a creosote bush. There’s your Moses. I did not hear it speak.
HospitallerThat does not mean there is no God.

In Kingdom of Heaven, those who are doubtful of the divine are inherently honourable, the rest are mad, bad or dangerous, pretty much. There are a couple of exceptions, although one couldn’t really call either the Hospitaller knight (David Thewlis) or Imad (Alexander Siddig) religious. What they both have, which makes them an agreeable exception in an achingly (as in painfully so) sincere movie, is a sense of humour. Hospitaller is a believer who has no truck with religion, which makes it unlikely that he’d be crusading in the first place, but one might at least accept as plausible that he’d adopt (heretical) views. As with all the characters, he’s given to over-telegraphing his every position – “I’ve seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers”; “So they are dying, for what the Pope commanded them to do?” asks an on-the-nose Balian, “Yes, but not Christ, I think. Nor this king” comes the equally unpolished response – but by sheer dint of being the unlikeliest knight ever, Thewlis has a knack of making his swine feed sound like pearls, and occasionally there’s an actual gem in there (“You go to certain death”; “All death is certain”). Apparently, Scott and Monahan envisaged the character as a spirt from God, something that entirely didn’t occur to me given every other aspect of the movie is thuddingly literal.


BalianYou have taken it very well that I have killed your master.
ImadIt was the end of his time. All is as God wills it.

Siddig, in contrast, who has cornered the market as Hollywood’s go-to Arab, peppers Imad’s dialogue with ironic stoicism and a lightness whereby it’s hard to tell if he believes anything and just likes platitudes (“This horse is not a very good horse. I will not keep it”; “And if God does not love you, how could you do all the things you have done?”) Both characters come more from the sword-and-sandals romp end of the idiosyncratic chain, so aren’t quite in line with the picture’s intentions, but they’re much more successful than the constant drip-drip-drip of unfiltered polemic masquerading as thoughtful examination.


TiberiusBut Saladin and the king, between them would make a better world.

The moderate stances are embodied by King Baldwin IV and Saladin (Ghassan Massoud, with whom Scott has worked twice since), and the actors are so good in their roles that their entirely anachronistic perspectives don’t feel nearly as off-putting as they should, at least until mulling the picture afterwards. Norton is outstanding as Baldwin, so it’s ironic he opted not to be credited (since he remains behind a mask). It’s a sensitive, pained performance, one you can feel the deleterious effects of the King’s condition (leprosy) in his movements, manner and cadence. Inevitably, since he’s reasonable, he has no truck with religion and wants only peaceful terms (Baldwin did indeed defeat Saladin at sixteen and maintain a truce while he presided over Jerusalem, but this was borne of pragmatism rather than a genuine vision of equality and fraternity). 


SaladinIf I do not deliver war, I have no peace.
ImadThe King of Jerusalem will die soon. When he is dead, the boy will become king of a kingdom he cannot control. The Christians will make the war you need.

Likewise Saladin, whose popularity today is based more on the romanticised depiction of nineteenth-century authors, than the stock contemporary Muslims held him in (he was a Kurd). He’s envisaged as cajoled reluctantly into conflict, when he was really quite capable of ruthlessness (rather than unconditional safe passage granted from Jerusalem as depicted in the film, he declared a ransom must be paid, resulting in thousands of Christians who couldn’t meet it entering slavery). Likewise, he had no respect for the Christian faith, ordering the True Cross to be dragged the through the streets of Jerusalem. But the modernisation of these two characters is forgivable to the extent that this advance their thematic positions, more or less reflecting the situations they presided over; there were indeed significantly more extreme manifestations of both their religions surrounding them. Mostly, though, they’re effective because whenever Norton or Massoud are never less than commanding, adding shade and resonance to Monahan’s dialogue by dint of perceived intellect.


TiberiusI pray Jerusalem and the world can accommodate such a rarity as a perfect knight.

The contrast with Bloom’s Balian couldn’t be starker. He’s introduced as a lowly blacksmith, a lowly blacksmith with a great facility for designing battle equipment yet who has inscribed on a beam over his smithy, “What man is a man who does not make the world better?” Oh, how noble is Balian. Poor Balian, subjected to mechanical flashbacks to happier times with his beloved. The actual Balian of Ibelin did defend Jerusalem and surrender it to Saladin in 1187, but he didn’t hail from France, was not illegitimate, and was an older man who didn’t have an affair with Sybelin but married the widow of Baldwin’s father (which by all accounts was a loving marriage). He was a believing Christian who favoured peace with the Muslims yet didn’t hold such sway over those in Jerusalem that the Christians weren’t going to massacre all their Muslim prisoners and destroy their holy places.


Balian as depicted here is simply too good to be true, both in terms of his lack of belief, and also our attempting to swallow Bloom as that character. He never seems remotely convincing as a great strategist, fighter, moral philosopher or skilled orator. He’d likely be an offensively dull character even if Bloom wasn’t playing him, but the actor only adds to the offence. When he comes on trading wisdom and others listen, it’s tantamount to Luke boasting about bull’s-eyeing womp rats in his T-16 back home. There’s no reason for anyone to be rapt and in awe of him because Bloom has no presence. The material here is much more interesting than John Logan’s in Gladiator, but the difference Crowe absolutely delivered there, and Bloom absolutely flails to do so here (this and the same year’s Elizabethtown would effectively be the start and end of his bid for leading man status; the public wanted none of it).


King Baldwin IVIf you continue like this, God will have to find a use for you. If God can spare you, that is.
BalianGod does not know me.
King Baldwin IVYes, but I do.

You can’t boast an effective epic without a screenplay that’s erudite in its themes, and you can’t voice those themes if you don’t have an actor of sufficient substance. Bloom makes the whole thing seem fake, even where the basis is factual; Balian’s threat to burn Jerusalem to the ground was pretty much accurate, give or take, but falls as ashes from Bloom’s lips. The character’s constant protestations of God being a stranger are tiresomely off beam, particularly when married to his specific morality. He’s happy to embark on an affair with Guy’s wife, but baulks at the offer to oust Guy and marry Sybelin (“I cannot be the cause of that”), proclaiming unaccountably of Jerusalem, “No, it is a kingdom of conscience or nothing”. His rousing rallying speech finds him encouraging his men with “We fight over an offence we did not give”, again characterising everyone here who has any valid belief as scorning religious conviction (which simply doesn’t wash). It’s a phony sermon reeking of tractability, so clumsily aligned with modern mores it makes you want to throw up your hands and ask what kind of historical epic they thought they were making. Astronauts might as well have landed halfway through.


Other excruciating zingers traipsing from his lips include “Sounds like our prayers” when he hears Muslims bowing to Mecca (of course, because all religions are the same; if only we could all just get on), and his pronouncement to Imad that “I have been a slave, or very near to one. I will never keep one or suffer any to be kept” (ironic considering the real Balian’s actions suffered exactly that). And visually, there’s the daft sight of his genius toppling a succession of attack towers like dominoes, as if Scott has suddenly got his Peter Jackson mojo bubbling under.


Scott’s work, purely visually, is as technically effective as one would expect. His propensity for inserting aesthetically incontinent, choppy slow motion during action sequences hasn’t aged well, and his desire to include gravity-free, prettified snow marbling scenes recalls nothing so much as Legend, but there’s the occasional flash of greatness (a soldier, picking up a striking blue flower, is rudely killed with an arrow through his face). He’s as cack-handed with his choice of music as he was in Black Hawk Down– perhaps he was conscious on some level of how racist that picture was, and chose to over-compensate; of course, he’d go back the other way with his casting of Exodus: Gods and Kings– relentlessly ethereal choirs dousing everything.


TiberiusI have given Jerusalem everything. At first, I thought I was fighting for God. Then I realised we were fighting for wealth and land. I was ashamed.

Even at three-hours-plus, there’s a slew of actors who get short shrift. Iain Glen bags the Sean Connery Richard the Lionheart cameo as Russell Crowe was unavailable. You wonder why Kevin Kidd suddenly disappears, or what Nikolaj Coster-Waldau is doing in about two scenes (the early passages seem to set up a later confrontation with Waldau and Godfrey’s brother that never comes, particularly since Balian returns to France; maybe Ridley shot it but deemed it an ending too far). Eva Green is luminous but ill served with a character that goes from sympathetic to ruthless, to mercy-killing her kid, and back to sympathetic again. Jeremy Irons as Tiberius (based on Raymond of Tripoli) never entirely convinces, and one can only assume the actor couldn’t be arsed (he has been known to phone it in, and I’m just not feeling it here). He also gets possibly the crappiest, most over-stated speech in the picture, which is saying something.


So where does Kingdom of Heaven arrange itself in the Ridley pantheon? As a director, he has only ever floundered when entering the realm of politicised material, repeatedly so (Black Hawk DownExodusBody of Lies), and one doubts he’ll learn his lesson at this point. To have made a great movie out of the Kingdom of Heaven material would have required understanding and contextualising the mindset of those living during that period, which wouldn’t simply have involved throwing brickbats at Crusaders and venerating Muslims. But would you expect that kind of movie from Sir Ridders? Would you be entertained by such a movie? For all that it flopped stateside, Kingdom of Heaven did surprisingly brisk business internationally; it just cost far too much to justify the outlay ($211m gross on a $130m budget), when Fox clearly hoped for Gladiator numbers (bean counters doubtless looked at Bloom’s supporting roles in two of the biggest franchises going at the time and made five from the result). The consequence? He chose to retrench, scale down, and try something he hadn’t tried before, and (wisely) hasn’t attempted again since: a comedy.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.