Movie "Kingdom Of Heaven" really pro-Muslim propaganda?

[Preacherman]

The blog "Little Green Footballs" posted a note about this (see http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15706_Kingdom_of_Heaven-_Propaganda_Film&only=yes for their post).  Full details may be found at:

http://www.zombietime.com/kingdom_of_heaven/

Looks rather well-documented to me - and as a student of history, and knowing quite a bit about the Crusades, I can confirm that there never was any "brotherhood" of Muslims, Christians and Jews together.  This has a bad smell to it.

[K Frame]

It's Hollyweird, for God's sake.

Does anyone expect actual HISTORY or historic accuracy out of that freak factory?

If you do, can I interest you in a bridge?

[Sean Smith]

This is the same director (Ridley Scott) who made Black Hawk Down, which accuratey depicted the horde of Somalis (almost entirely Muslim) that attacked Task Force Ranger as drug-addicted, bloodthirsty savages.  And based on his various film commentaries, he's not exactly politically correct, either.  I guess it's possible that he's suddenly gone stupid, but I consider it unlikely.

[RaggedClaws]

That's a lot of commentary for a movie that's not even out yet.

[K Frame]

Black Hawk Down was based on an event for which is there is huge volume of contemporary, eye witness material. In most cases, these accounts differ in some details, but overall support each other and provide a comprehensive view of the events around that incident.

The crusades happened nearly 1,000 years ago. No eyewitnesses are around, and the contemporary accounts that now exist are often highly contradictory. There's also been ample time for a huge amount of legend to build up around the known historic facts.

And, FWIW, Ridley Scott also directed Gladiator.

Any calls on how historically detailed and accurate that was?

I can partially answer that...

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/wardgladiator1.html

[Jacobus Rex]

Without having seen this particular movie, I'd have to guess that anything done by Hollyweird is going to generally be anti-western, anti-christian, and pro-everything that is anti-western or anti-christian.  I've been expecting the actor types (I prefer to think of them as "fakers".) to develop a love affair with islam.  Although, I'll have to admit to speaking in general terms because I have not seen this particular movie.  Also, never expect any movie to be historically accurate.  The exceptions are few and very far between.

James

[bobs1066]

Guys in mail bashing each other with swords. What's not to like about that?

[Sean Smith]

And, FWIW, Ridley Scott also directed Gladiator.

Any calls on how historically detailed and accurate that was?

About as accurate as it claimed to be?  Or did it have a "THIS IS NOT FICTION" tagline that I missed?  

[K Frame]

"About as accurate as it claimed to be?  Or did it have a "THIS IS NOT FICTION" tagline that I missed?"

So where are the claims that Kingdom of Heaven is accurate down to the smallest historical detail?

I'm certainly finding no claims to that effect on their website.


Your original post reads as a verification of the care and historical correctness of the movie to its last details.

"This is the same director (Ridley Scott) who made Black Hawk Down, which accuratey depicted the horde of Somalis (almost entirely Muslim) that attacked Task Force Ranger as drug-addicted, bloodthirsty savages.  And based on his various film commentaries, he's not exactly politically correct, either.  I guess it's possible that he's suddenly gone stupid, but I consider it unlikely."

That last sentence is quite curious, and makes it appear as if you're saying that "well, we know he's not PC, so if he put it in his movie, it MUST be historically accurate. Or else he's stupid."

So, what is it?

Is Ridley Scott a master storyteller?

A chronicler of history to the most exacting details?

A keen observer of human nature?

Or simply another Hollyweird tool whose only goal is to provide cranial sedation for the masses in hopes of separating them from their money?

[bobs1066]

I'm in for $7.50 plus a coke & a box of popcorn. I go to fiction films for diversion.

Did anybody else see Hitchhiker's yet? Trillian looked very stunning in those knee-high argyle socks!

[seeker_two]

If I want historical accuracy, I'll watch History Channel.

This is just medeval bad-ass fun...

Besides, I have to go. My wife is making me go. One reason...

[Sean Smith]

That last sentence is quite curious, and makes it appear as if you're saying that "well, we know he's not PC, so if he put it in his movie, it MUST be historically accurate. Or else he's stupid."

Um, no.  Nice attempt to fabricate a straw man, though.  

The TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION is "Movie "Kingdom Of Heaven" really pro-Muslim propaganda?"  

My post was a suggestion that it may not be the case, based on past movies that Scott has made, and past comments that I've heard him make.  

Note that the topic is NOT, "Is thie movie historically accurate to a pedantic degree in all respects?"  If it was, I would have argued that it probably ISN'T.  But that wasn't the bloody topic, was it?  Because it isn't a binary choice between "perfect historical accuracy in all respects" and "pro-Muslim propaganda."  

So by "gone stupid" I meant "made the movie pro-Muslim PC propaganda," not, "made a movie that is not 100% historically accurate."

Look, Ridley Scott could have shuffled historical figures around, invented people and events out of whole cloth, given Saladin a goddamn laser gun.  That would play hell with the historical accuracy, but would NOT necessarily make the film pro-Muslim propaganda.  Which is the topic of this discussion, last I checked from the title of it.  

[DigMe]

Ridley Scott has also been somewhat of a spotty, hit-or-miss director IMO.  Parts of Gladiator seemed very much a hack job, especially the ending which seemed to be ripped directly from Braveheart.  However, I enjoyed Black Hawk Down immensely, which is also kind of strange since Jerry Bruckheimer was involved and many of his movies make me want to vomit.  IF you're not familiar with Ridley Scott's body of work he also directed, Thelma and Louise, GI Jane, Alien, Bladerunner, Matchstick Men, etc...

brad cook

[Bemidjiblade]

We actually have a good deal of information regarding the crusader kingdoms, since they were a large focus of political/military thought on 2 continents for about 100+years.

The infamous Knights Templar were originally created to help defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which the movie appears to be set in.

I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt until it's proven moronic.  Though I have been known to walk out of a movie theater when it proves too horrible (King Arthur, for example, made the 'knights' of the round table into non-celtic mercenaries for a people who had ceased to exist about 150 years before the events in question.  groan.  That was more than I could take.)

[RevDisk]

Movie "Kingdom Of Heaven" really pro-Muslim propaganda?

Whatcha mean?


Christians invade Holy Land.  They occupy it for a while.   Then a Iraqi Kurd drove the majority of the Christians out of the Holy Land.  End of story.  I doubt even Ridley Scott could screw up such an easy timeline, but it's still a possibility.

Neither side could be considered much better than the other.  At one point or another, every side slaughtered civilians in addition to the normal rape, looting and pillaging.  Oh yea, whenever either religion weren't killing other religion, they were busy killing members of their own religion.   I find it amusing that both sides are accusing each other of committing atrocities.  Yet both sides committed the same kinds of atrocities.   Both sides seem to ignore their own atrocities and focus on the other guy's atrocities.

Human nature really haven't changed over the centuries, eh?

Same God, different prophets/messiahs.   Why can't the religious loonies find a nice spot in the middle of nowhere, and fight it out leaving the rest of us alone?   Religious fundimentalists of all religions are trouble.

[Werewolf]

Why can't the religious loonies find a nice spot in the middle of nowhere, and fight it out leaving the rest of us alone?   Religious fundimentalists of all religions are trouble.

We should be so lucky!

[Ktulu]

So what if it is pro-Muslim?

It's a movie, all that matters is whether or not it's entertaining.

Don't tell me that there are no movies that someone could label pro-Christian propaganda.

[jefnvk]

From the link:

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

I do believe back in those days, the Muslims were the civilized ones, and the Europeans were the lesser civilized.

Reading all those quotes remind me of foreigners who write off BlackHawk Down and We Were Soldiers as American propaganda films, not realizing that they were beased on real events (even if not accurate down to the serial number on Mel Gibsons M16)

[Ron]

"Same God, different prophets/messiahs.   Why can't the religious loonies find a nice spot in the middle of nowhere, and fight it out leaving the rest of us alone?   Religious fundimentalists of all religions are trouble."

The political systems that ignore/suppress religious thought don't fare much better in the human rights dept.  How about the Soviets and Chinese for example.

"Human nature really haven't changed over the centuries, eh?"

Thats the bottom line right there,  human nature.

"I do believe back in those days, the Muslims were the civilized ones, and the Europeans were the lesser civilized."

That was my understanding also.

To try and draw parallels  between todays Protestant/Catholic churches in the US and the Roman Catholic Church of the crusades era is just plain silly.  They are not even remotely simular too each other (at least here in the states).

[trapperjohn]

 Religious fundimentalists of all religions are trouble.

yeah people like Mother Theresa, billy Graham et all caused all kinds of trouble.

Nice stereotyping there bub.

[jefnvk]

So john, you think 99.99% of Islamic clerics and holy men are causing the problems?

[duck hunt]

I had actually heard that the movie was another in the latest wave of pro-Christian propaganda vehicles out of Hollywood and dismissed it as such.

Of course, I'm naming my baby after Suleiman the Magnificent, so YMMV.

[RevDisk]

yeah people like Mother Theresa, billy Graham et all caused all kinds of trouble.

Nice stereotyping there bub.

Okey, "Religious fundamentalists who advocate violence are nothing but trouble."   Still, the theme I was trying to go for was a sort of "free fire" zone for religious wackos to work out their aggression on each other.   I wasn't being entirely serious.  But it's seems like good idea the more I think about it.

My working definition of "religious fundamentalist" are religious wackos don't mind violence, are militantly intolerant, etc.   I realize this is not the Websters definition.  Sorry mate, different terms.

[Iain]

I had actually heard that the movie was another in the latest wave of pro-Christian propaganda vehicles out of Hollywood and dismissed it as such.

Of course, I'm naming my baby after Suleiman the Magnificent, so YMMV.

Don't dismiss it as such, yet.

This is my problem with this thread, and others like it, esp ones about media bias. If you go looking you'll find that some other political viewpoint also feels victimised by the film/network/newspaper in question. Everyone thinks that everyone else is out to get them.

Went and saw Downfall last night. Now there is a film worth talking about.

[duck hunt]

I was halfway kidding -- I don't dig blockbuster epics, so I wasn't planning to see it, anyway -- but the commercials did kind of smack of "Yay, Crusades" to me.  I figured (maybe incorrectly) that the studio was trying to capture the Gladiator market and the Passion of the Christ market in one fell swoop.