Does anyone know anything about the historical background of the upcoming movie Kingdom of Heaven? I know it’s the Crusades, but the Crusades took quite a long time; does anyone know more specifically what period?
From what little information I’ve heard about it, Kingdom of Heaven would appear to be set during the Second Crusade at Jerusalem, which was then ruled by King Baldwin IV (Edward Norton). He was a powerful and respected ruler, but also a leper. His sister Sibylla (Eva Green) married Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), a French nobleman who Baldwin didn’t trust. His attempts to have Sibylla and Guy’s marriage annulled failed, and when Baldwin died in 1185, Guy and Sibylla seized power (her son by an earlier marriage, Baldwin V, ruled for a year, but died still a child). The nobles of the kingdom hated Guy, and demanded Sibylla divorce him. She agreed, on the grounds that she would chose her next husband. So she divorced Guy – and then immediately remarried him.
Saladin was becoming a threat to the Crusader kingdoms, and in 1187 he completely shattered Guy’s army at the Battle of Hattin. Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom) was the husband of Maria Komnena, the stepmother of Sibylla and Baldwin IV. He survived the Battle of Hattin and went on to play a role in the Third Crusade, the most famous Crusade, helping to negotiate the treaty between Richard the Lion-hearted and Saladin that ended the Third Crusade.
It’s about the end of the Frankish Kingdom - the Battle of (Karnei) Hittim and the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin; it may also involve the Second Crusade. The movie is vaguely based on the rather amazing true story of a knight by the name of Sir Balian of Ibeline.
I’m actually quite excited about this film. I’ve studied the period, I know the terrain, and I have faith in Ridley Scott’s abilities as director (although if Gladiator is any indicator, historical accuracy isn’t his highest priority).
Thanks for the info, guys. I’m also v. keen to see this film - I think the Crusades will make a brilliant setting for a movie ( but then I also thought the campaigns of Alexander would make a brilliant setting for a movie)
Does it seem strange to anyone else to release a film about the Crusades in the current geopolitical climate?
Yes - although they seem to be playing it safe. While the hero of the film is supposed to be a crusader, the actual crusader leaders of the time will be portrayed as warmongering savages (which they were) while Saladin is to be shown as an noble, honorable warrior (which he was).
Oh goodness, the trailers for this one are glossy, but it looks like we’re going to have another Braveheart on our hands. Aside from various historical inaccuracies, I have trouble accepting Orlando Bloom as a big bad tough Crusader warlord. If the real Balian of Ibelin had Bloom’s pretty skin and soft hair, I imagine the Saracens would’ve become confused and he would’ve ended up in Saladin’s harem.
From what I’ve seen from the trailers and the like, it’s impressed movie as a movie that could be completely awful just as easily as it could be really good. Which end of the spectrum are we talking about here?
Really? If so, that’s reassuring. From the trailers, it seemed as thought it was going from the traditional “Crusader good, non-Crusader bad” angle. If it isn’t, I’ll probably go to see it in theatres.
I saw it last night- Mississippienne’s historical description isn’t all that far off really- I was expecting a “Gladiator” style completely fictional story, and instead it’s mostly accurate, except for the events surrounding Balian of Ibelin’s birth and involvement in the 3rd Crusade.
From the reviews I’ve read, it’s some crusaders good, some crusaders bad. Anti-crusader good but misguided in crusader’s perspective.
I’m a huge Ridley Scott fan, so I hope to get to see Kingdom of Heaven this week.
I enjoyed this movie, although I was really really tired so I was never fully engaged. It does a good job of showing both sides of the Crusades in pretty even terms, i.e. it isn’t Christians good, Muslims bad.
I enjoyed it, too. I have a question, though. Why did Sybella cut her hair?
I enjoyed the film, I thought it tended to be a bit PC when Orlando was talking about Jerusalem.
My question was if Sibylla (in the movie) gave up being a queen, why did she have a fur lined cloak when they rode off?
From Wiki:
My roommates and I just got home from seeing it and dove into Wikipedia looking to see how historically accurate it is. From what we could get through Wikipedia (bias warning, blah blah blah), Balian (Orlando Bloom) is based on his historical name sake, with a good deal of leeway. I’ll leave you to check the links posted by bienville.
I’d like to say I enjoyed the movie, and am looking forward to adding it to my dvd collection.
I enjoyed the movie and thought it was fair, as far as its portrayal of the Crusades goes. However, Orlando Bloom was Al Gore-wooden in this flick. After yet another long stretch of silence from him after some other character’s monologue, I leaned over to my friend and said “Now Bloom IS going to say something eventually, isn’t he?” I guess it’s a sort of play on Lincoln’s advice: “Better to remain silent and be thought a bad actor than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
I saw “Kingdom of Heaven,” and I really liked it. There were some things that did annoy me, though. I didn’t think the movie made a case for Balian the Blacksmith all of a sudden knowing how to fight with a sword. And, after meeting his father and getting a lesson about attacking high rather than low, he’s all of a sudden a swordsman expert enough to defeat trained knights and Arab swordsmen once he steps foot over in Jerusalem. The film just asks us to accept without any back story that a mere articulate and literate blacksmith–back in the 12th century I doubt there were many literate blacksmiths around–can all of a sudden fight like a knight.
However, I liked how irreverent Balian is about religion and politics. The following scenes ring true, though they do skate rather close to being preachy and didactic. I put them in spoiler tags for those who haven’t seen the movie.
The scenes where he critiques Guy’s plan to go to battle in the heat of the day with no ready supply of water; where he tells the priest that they need to burn the bodies of the dead, or they’ll catch disease from them, and if god is god, then god will just have to understand, and if god doesn’t, then they just can’t worry about it; the scene where he knights all the available fighters, no matter their origins; the scene where he says they fight to defend the people of Jerusalem, not the religious relics in the city, and lastly the scene where Balian surrenders Jerusalem and says he’ll let god have it to do with it what he will.
Still the point of the film is to be critical of how humans can get caught up in privileging religion, religious relics, and misplaced religious ferver/fanaticism to the exclusion of common sense and ultimately to the detriment of what should matter: the quality and value of human life and the necessity for each individual to be true to him/herself. I find this message to be very appropriate now when the lines between religion and politics are becoming more and more blurred.
I find Orlando Bloom, as hot as he looks, to be a rather wooden actor, but for some reason his woodenness works in this film. And, he has much better lines than he had in the LOTR. His reticence and grudging speech makes him sound tired and world weary, rather than dull and emotionless. I found myself believing he didn’t have much to say because it’s too hot, he’s tired of bullshit, and he doesn’t know or care to know how to deal with the political machinations of some of his corrupt counterparts.
Finally, I appreciate how the film makes a successful attempt to present complex characters and not stereotype all Christians or Muslims as all good or all bad. They are human beings who make mistakes. I left the film thinking about what could there possibly be about the city where the Bible tells us that Christ was tortured and murdered that would make humans continue to torture and murder and fight countless wars just to claim it. How could Christ be happy with humans not learning from his sacrifice, but rather perpetuating inhumanity in his name? I think the title “Kingdom of Heaven” is rather ironic and certainly satirical in that regard, and rightly so.
Saw this a couple of nights ago with two of my friends. After the absolutely necessary squeeing over Orlando Bloom (and Liam Neeson, and Jeremy Irons), we turned to less important things:
I liked the angle at the end, about how peace was still elusive in “the Kingdom of Heaven” (Jerusalem)–a nice way of tying it all up. Orlando Bloom’s woodenness didn’t seem to grate on me that much this film, and everyone else does a passable job. The special effects and scenery were gorgeous, of course.
I hated that we didn’t get more backstory on the ‘lesser’ characters–especially Sybilla, and Baldwin.
Altogether, much slower and more thoughtful than Gladiator, and missing some of that vital energy, but a good film in its own way.
Saw it a few days ago, and thought it was quite decent, but didn’t really come togeather as well a Gladiator (was happy it bore some resemblance to actual events, though, unlike Gladiator). Also I agree that Orlando’s acting was suprisingly decent in this movie. He has apparently discovered that the part of the sword whielding orphaned blacksmith agrees with him.
The main problem for me though was that the climatic final battle didnt’ make a lot of sense. Consider:
Orlando is supposedly fighting the Saladin to force him into a draw where he will be forced to allow the people of the city out unharmed. But at no point does he actually think to ask Saladin to just let the people go until after several days of bloody fighting. And from what we’ve seen, Saladin is fairly anti-bloodshed and he’s already avenged his sister. It feels like the writers wrote themselves into a corner at the end and had to manufacture a victory for the protagonist to win.