The Kingdom of Heaven. Definitive edition DVD

Dir: Ridley Scott

I'm torn right down the middle over this film. I first saw it in the cinema with my friends Oleg and Tracey, and I've been chewing over it ever since. Now, here finally I've bought it, in its 'definitive edition' which means it is now the film Ridley Scott intended rather than the film some Californian test audience thought might work better. Why do they always vandalise Scotts films so that several years later he ends up releasing directors cuts? Is it just a cunning way of generating more money?


So whats wrong with this film?

Well first of all, it has virtually nothing to do with history at all. Just about every character has been taken out of context in order to carefully create a post modern yarn that doesn't offend any one.

Orlando Blooms character, Balian of Ibelin was never a French blacksmith, he was the Baron of Ibelin from the get go, and an astute, and some what treacherous politician to boot. In the film Balian prudently sits out the battle of Hattin, where as in the history books Balian was taken prisoner at Hattin by Saladin and was one of the very few to be released. He did lead the defence of Jerusalem, and he did threaten to burn the city to ashes rather than surrender, but he was under parole to Saladin at the time, having been captured and released at Hattin. He wrote a letter to Saladin begging foregiveness for breaking his parole and asking mercy for Jerusalem. (Saladin refused). Balian's wife in the film has committed suicide back in France, but actually Balian was really married to the previous queen of Jeruslam Maria Comnena, and it was this little detail that got his life spared at Hattin since Saladin had a thing about killing princes (or their husbands). In the film Balian has an affair with Queen Sibylla, which I suppose is always possible, but not likely.

That brings me to Saladin, or Sala-hadin as they refer to him in the film. Saladin comes across as a righteous, fair minded fellow on screen who only commits violence when he must, certainly he is shown cutting off Reynald de Chatillon's head, but this is after Reynald has murdered hundreds of innocent Muslims, including Saladin's sister (an event which never took place). In actual fact Saladin really cut off Reynalds head because Reynald, though captured and bound was being sassy and answering back but I guess that just doesn't convey the desired image of Saladin that was required for the purposes of this film.


Saladin's contemporary's didn't seem to share the Hollywood perspective. According to Imad ed-Din, the Turk governor of Mosul, he observed the smiling Saladin in the aftermath of Hattin, as he had the heads of two hundred knights Templar and Hospitaller cut of by the mullahs and religious teachers who acompanied his army. These prisoners were murdered for they 'represented the worst of the infidels' according to Saladin. You really only see one of the mullahs in the film, dressed in black, depicted as something of a fanatic, but in fact there were a great many of them in Saladin's army and far from being the driving force behind Saladin's brutality, they were actually under Saladin's orders to cut off the heads of the surrendered knights (a job most of them botched according to Imad ed-Din). In other words Saladin was not much different to any other mujahideen, and shared the mujahideen prediliction for cutting off the heads of prisoners.

That isn't the only example of Saladin being portrayed in the film in a light so flattering he might actually be confused for being a heroic figure. When the city of Jerusalem as defended by Orlando Bloom surrenders, Saladin grants free passage to all Christian men, women and children to Christian lands.
In reality, Saladin forced the Christians to ransom themselves. Men had to pay ten pieces of gold for their freedom, women five and children; one. The city's population had forty days to find their ransom and then any one who was left was enslaved, unless they were too old to be slaves in which case they were free to go. Not quite the mercy shown in the film... but better than being massacred I suppose. After Jerusalem fell, merchants came from all over the middle east to pick up on the bargains that were going. Slave girls, furniture and real estate were flogged off cheap to pay for Saladin's victory. Just about the only Christian who came off well in the sack of Jerusalem was the Patriarch (depicted in the film as a cowardly scum bucket) who paid his ten gold pieces and then left the city laden with all the gold plate and bullion he could lay his hands on from the churches of Jerusalem. No 'Christian charity' for the poor Christians of Jerusalem who couldn't afford the ransom it seems. Good old Saladin let the Patriarch go as he was a 'holy man'.

Its not that the Crusaders were any better (they weren't) but rather the spin which has been created in the film so that both sides can be portrayed as sympathetically as possible makes Saladin look like some prince from a fairy tale. In fact there are very few villains in this film and they are virtually all Christians. The two Templar leaders, Reynald and Guy, their side kick, the Templar Grand Master (played by Danish Ulrich Thomsen) the Patriarch and the token Muslim fanatic; the black clad mullah who pesters Saladin for war. Every one else is portrayed as being thoroughly nice people, who would just be able to get along peacefully if it weren't for the few murderous fanatics who kept upsetting the holiness for every one else. They are all suitably post modern and almost secular in their attitude towards religion with only a few of them even lending the notion any credence at all. One might be forgiven for thinking that the Crusades were actually just an accident of history where good men were forced into war by a few bad apples. I think not.


The script was written by a first timer; William Monahan so its forgiveable that a few mistakes might have cropped in along the way and doubtless he was labouring under orders not to make the religious nutters look too bad, which is more or less what he's done. In the decapitated cinematic release, the story really suffers, for there is a whole lot of extra acting (especially by Bloom) and a plot line involving Queen Sybella's son that was completely cut away. All that is back now, pushing the film to just over three hours long and giving Balian some of the humanity which was previously missing. We also learn that the priest whom Balian kills in the beginning of the film, is in fact his half brother, and that Godfrey (played by Liam Neeson) is not just Balian's father, but also the younger brother of the local Baron.

There's a lot of extra footage, spread out all through the definitive edition, and also a lot of dialogue which has been changed back to the original script to accomidate the additional story. Several times I noted the emphasis in certain sentences had been completely changed as one word was now different.

Anyway, back to history. In real life Balian's dad was also called Balian. I'm not sure who this Godfrey character is meant to represent, if any one. Perhaps, like Jeremy Irons character, they just made up some guy to fill a role. Irons plays Tiberias (shown in his huge cloak in the image below), the city marshal of Jerusalem, a man who is apparently named after a famous crusader city, and who never existed in reality. That doesn't stop Irons roaring and over-acting with his usual gusto though. This is his bread and butter!

Silence!!

Queen Sibylla really did marry Guy de Lusignan after her previus husband, William Longsword of Montferrat, died, leaving her pregnant with a son, the future King Baldwin V, so all that is correct at least. Guy de Lusignan did become King of Jerusalem too and he did lead the Christians to annhilation at Hattin, but he was not a Templar and Sibylla must have cared for him for she begged Saladin for his release after Jerusalem fell and the year after, when Saladin let him go, the pair moved to the city of Tyre which remained in Christian hands (it was the only city that did at the time) but were denied entry for political reasons. Guy fought on regardless but when Sibylla died, he lost his authority. Lots of politics involving King Richard the Lionheart and King Philip II of France followed but eventually he left the holy land and settled on Cyprus (which he bought from the Templars) where he eventually died. Sibylla never left Guy, and certainly not to travel to France with a blacksmith as she does in the film. Together with her daughters (by Guy) she died in an epidemic in 1190. She never left the holy land.

The last character worth mentioning is the Hospitaller played by David Thewlis. Never actually named, he goes through the film as a sort of guiding light for Balian, explaining both for Balians benefit and for the audience, just what is wrong with the whole idea of crusading. As such he is a veritable font of 21st century wisdom who seems utterly reasonable and thus utterly out of context for 1187. Thewlis plays brilliantly. I think its the best character he's ever played, certainly the most sympathetic and I was truly sad when his charater dies at Hattin (his decapitated head is bizarrely shown with a smile).


So, whats good about the film?

I particularly enjoyed the cavalry scene with the Norman style knights and retainers meetinng the Saracen vanguard at Kerak (see the first two images of this post). This is a short scene but its full of movement, looks historically accurate and has all the drama and excitement you could ask for. You know Balian and his men are heading for defeat but you feel the power of the horses and the blazing sun. Glorious death awaits the brave chevalier! No one in the Christian world really believes that shit any more, even if they want to, but we can still empathise with it (why else would we make so many films about combat?). Balian and his fifty retainers are in that one scene the epitome of the war gamers desire. The escapist fantasy that once upon a time, life was about more than just working in the machine.

Basically, its all about the ambience. It is a Ridley Scott film after all so the visuals are stunning. The attention to detail is also really well done for the most part, though as usual medieval artillery is shown to be about ten times as powerful as it really was with the trebuchets firing as though they were machine guns... in reality Saladin lost all his artillery because the Christians ran out the city and destroyed them when Saladin was stupid enough to put them on a hill top and leave them unguarded.

The invasion of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is cooked down to just a few days (as opposed to the decade it really took) but since we're treated to some truly grandiose scenes of medieval seige tech I can forgive this over sight after so many other glaring historical inaccuracies. Ridley Scott goes all the way once the army of Saladin reaches the walls of Jerusalem and has multiple seige towers, ballistae and about fifty trebuchet going hell for leather. Bloom gives a rallying speech as the enemy draws near, but its really thin stuff, perhaps the weakest moment in the film and thankfully it doesn't last long.

Orlando Bloom is actually given much more space in the definitive edition and it helps the film as a whole. He comes across as being a weaker actor in the cinematic version, and so much is left unexplained that I was irritated by him. Now one see's why the Balian character is the way he is and one empathises with him and understands why he makes the decisions he does. I really can't understand why they cut so much of Blooms performance from the cinematic release because they only made their film suffer for it.

There are two DVD's with additional material but I haven't looked at the yet. I'll keep them for another day.