These days, with all the seminary studying and reading to do, it is not very often that I would actually watch, much less write a review on a movie that was released in 1960. If I had the time to watch a movie, it would most likely be a newer release. Honestly, if I didn’t have to watch this movie for a History of Christianity class – and then write a review of the movie for that class - I doubt seriously that the film would have ever peaked my entertainment radar.
Nevertheless, I can say that I would recommend the 1960 Stanley Kramer film, Inherit the Wind, as an absolute must see for every Christian. It’s not that I think it is a great movie. It’s not that I think the movie has a great message. In fact, it is precisely what is wrong with the movie that makes it such a must see for Christians today. In my opinion, the movie represents absolutely everything wrong with Hollywood as it relates to their perspective of Christianity. As a Christian, it is important for us to know how we are being perceived. More importantly, it is critical that we – through our actions – do not become what non-Christians perceive us to be. If we truly behave the way this film portrays us, then we deserve every bit of the ridicule it bestows upon us.
Inherit the Wind, is a dramatic reenactment of otherwise actual events surrounding the infamous 1925 Dayton, TN Scopes Trial – otherwise known as the “Monkey Trial” - in which school teacher John T. Scopes was placed on trial for teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution. The movie is based upon a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee and significantly changes a majority of the historical facts – including character names and locale - as part of the dramatization. In the movie, John T. Scopes is replaced by the character Bertram T. Cates, portrayed by Dick York. Defense lawyer Clarence Darrow is replaced by Henry Drummond and is portrayed by Spencer Tracy. Prosecutor and statesman William Jennings Bryan is replaced by Matthew Harrison Brady and is portrayed by Fredric March. Finally, journalist H.L. Menken is replaced by E.K. Hornbeck and is portrayed by Gene Kelly. In the film, the trial takes place in the small town of Hillsborough, representing Dayton TN.
From the very first note of Give Me That Old Time Religion during the opening credits, it was intuitively obvious that Stanley Kramer intends for the movie to demonize the religious fanaticism that he believes characterized the motivations of those involved in the original prosecution of John T. Scopes, if not Christianity itself. Throughout the movie, the religious element is portrayed as overly zealous, gluttonous, bigoted, uncompassionate, and small-minded. By contrast, those who supported Bert Cates are portrayed as intelligent, compassionate, and temperate. In a word, Kramer portrays Christians in a manner that appears completely pagan while he portrays most of the non-Christians, particularly Cates and Drummond, in a manner that I would describe as patently Christian.
The movie depicts the townsfolk of Hillsborough as a blood-thirsty mob that would stop at nothing to prevent new ideas from infecting their world view. On several occasions, the lynch-mob townsfolk sang spirituals whose words had been changed to cry out for the death of both Cates and Drummond. At one point, the crowd carried a burning dummy, supposedly indicating its desire to burn the two at the stake. The local pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Brown portrayed by Claude Akins, went so far as to condemn not only Cates and Drummond to hell, but also his own daughter, who happened to be engaged to Cates. On the other side of the contest, journalist E.K. Hornbeck of the Boston Herald is equally determined to destroy the reputation of Hillsborough and expose them to the world for being the bigoted hypocrites he believes them to be. Only Cates, Drummond, and Brady’s wife Sara (portrayed by Florence Eldridge) appear to have any sense of self-containment and control.
The movie’s portrayal of the trial itself is as flamboyant and one-sided as one would expect given the pre-trial anti-religious hype established by director Stanley Kramer. The trial is supposed to be one that puts the “myth” of creation against the “enlightened truth” of evolution. Necessarily, then, Matthew Brady spouts religious intolerance as if it were the religious code of the country, doing all he can to demonize the defense. Henry Drummond, on the other hand, does everything he can to introduce “truth” and “intelligence” into the trial; but every effort is thwarted by the judge (portrayed by Harry Morgan) who, while seemingly not a part of the lynch-mob, still holds their views and inserts them into the judicial process as necessary to ensure that Cates does not receive a fair trial. Not surprisingly, when the trial ends with a jury verdict against Cates but the judge only issues a sentence of a $100 fine, the religious fanatics erupt and the scene quickly degrades into anarchistic mayhem.
The result of Inherit the Wind was to infamize what was otherwise one of the most famous and important trials of modern history. Instead of being a test-case for the separation of Church and Sate, the trial has become a symbol of religious intolerance and irrelevance. Surprisingly, despite the one-sided portrayal and liberal objectives of the movies producers, the issues covered by the Scopes Trial are incredibly important and relevant to current religious and political issues. Whereas the real trial dealt with important issues of Church and State, the movie dealt with the intolerance of religious bigotry. In stark irony, Christians today are faced with exactly the same bigotry against them coming from atheists over the issue of creation vs. evolution that Kramer portrayed as coming from Christians in Inherit the Wind. Turn about, however, is apparently not fair play. Attitudes of agnostic/atheistic “religious intolerance” and policies of separation of Church from State have made it illegal to teach creation in schools. Unfortunately, while Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union were more than willing to stand up for the freedom of free-thinking desired by those wishing to teach evolution in schools, their successors in the area of civil liberties actively oppose the religious freedom desired by those who wish to teach creation along with evolution as two, equally held theories of the origins of the species.
It is probably impossible to find this movie unless you buy it, but if you are within my circle of influence… you can borrow mine.
A journey in the daily struggle to totally surrender to Jesus Christ.
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
GET SMART Movie Review
OK… Peter Segal’s remake of the 1970 spy comedy, Get Smart is rated PG-13 for a reason. According to the MPAA, it is rated PG-13 for “rude humor, action violence, and language.” The enhanced rating summary is there so that you know what you are getting into if you take your small kids to the movie. With that said, Get Smart is one of the best and funniest retro-remakes I’ve seen in a long while.
Most retro-remakes are either absolute spoofs (and usually star Leslie Neilson - whom I do not like as an actor whatsoever) or essentially just make fun of the 60s/70s culture (such as with Starsky and Hutch). Get Smart, however, is truly a redo that updates the storyline for today’s culture. On top of that, its really quite funny – thanks primarily to Steve Carell and Dwayne Johnson (who can be surprisingly funny). What’s more, not all of the humor is crude – most, in fact, is not.
I used to love watching the old Don Adams reruns of the Get Smart TV series, so I really enjoyed the movie remake. Steve Carell made a convincing Maxwell Smart – more so than I expected, because I don’t typically enjoy the characters that he portrays (OK, can I say that I hate the fact that I find The Office funny?). Steve Carell’s Maxwell Smart character, however, was not nearly as bumbling as Don Adams. Yes, he was ridiculous. Yes, he was a bit of a buffoon, but it just seems to me that I remember the Don Adams character always beating the bad guys purely by coincidence (or more specifically because of Agent 99). Steve Carell’s character actually did some pretty intelligent things… well, sort of… but I won’t say anymore… no spoilers, you know.
On the other hand, I thought Anne Hathaway did not make a very convincing Agent 99. I enjoyed her portrayal nonetheless. I don’t remember “99” ever being antagonistic towards Maxwell Smart; and even though she came around towards the end of the movie, I thought their conflict was way overplayed… In the series, Agent 99 would have never turned her back… wait… no spoilers… Here's an interesting factoid: I read or heard somewhere that Anne Hathaway found out that she had pink-eye when she and Steve Carell k- (oops again, no spoilers - sorry).
If you never watched the TV series – which doesn’t even come on the obscure channels anymore (but hey, there’s always YouTube) – then you probably won’t appreciate the subtle, and not so subtle, tributes the movie gives the series. I found a good number of them, including the cascading iron doors, the phone booth that drops through the floor, the shoe phone, the cone of silence, "Hymie" the robot, the red MG Midget, and of course several of Don Adams' patented comments (of which I think there should have been more). I know there are others that I don't remember, and I'm sure I missed a few.
Bottom line, I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. You really should keep in mind that it is PG-13, and before you decide to take your kids, check out this more complete analysis of the content cautions from crosswalk.com - http://www.crosswalk.com/movies/11577733/page2/ (but beware there might be a spoiler or two in there).
Otherwise, enjoy a good, entertaining movie.
Most retro-remakes are either absolute spoofs (and usually star Leslie Neilson - whom I do not like as an actor whatsoever) or essentially just make fun of the 60s/70s culture (such as with Starsky and Hutch). Get Smart, however, is truly a redo that updates the storyline for today’s culture. On top of that, its really quite funny – thanks primarily to Steve Carell and Dwayne Johnson (who can be surprisingly funny). What’s more, not all of the humor is crude – most, in fact, is not.
I used to love watching the old Don Adams reruns of the Get Smart TV series, so I really enjoyed the movie remake. Steve Carell made a convincing Maxwell Smart – more so than I expected, because I don’t typically enjoy the characters that he portrays (OK, can I say that I hate the fact that I find The Office funny?). Steve Carell’s Maxwell Smart character, however, was not nearly as bumbling as Don Adams. Yes, he was ridiculous. Yes, he was a bit of a buffoon, but it just seems to me that I remember the Don Adams character always beating the bad guys purely by coincidence (or more specifically because of Agent 99). Steve Carell’s character actually did some pretty intelligent things… well, sort of… but I won’t say anymore… no spoilers, you know.
On the other hand, I thought Anne Hathaway did not make a very convincing Agent 99. I enjoyed her portrayal nonetheless. I don’t remember “99” ever being antagonistic towards Maxwell Smart; and even though she came around towards the end of the movie, I thought their conflict was way overplayed… In the series, Agent 99 would have never turned her back… wait… no spoilers… Here's an interesting factoid: I read or heard somewhere that Anne Hathaway found out that she had pink-eye when she and Steve Carell k- (oops again, no spoilers - sorry).
If you never watched the TV series – which doesn’t even come on the obscure channels anymore (but hey, there’s always YouTube) – then you probably won’t appreciate the subtle, and not so subtle, tributes the movie gives the series. I found a good number of them, including the cascading iron doors, the phone booth that drops through the floor, the shoe phone, the cone of silence, "Hymie" the robot, the red MG Midget, and of course several of Don Adams' patented comments (of which I think there should have been more). I know there are others that I don't remember, and I'm sure I missed a few.
Bottom line, I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. You really should keep in mind that it is PG-13, and before you decide to take your kids, check out this more complete analysis of the content cautions from crosswalk.com - http://www.crosswalk.com/movies/11577733/page2/ (but beware there might be a spoiler or two in there).
Otherwise, enjoy a good, entertaining movie.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Movie Review - Prince Caspian
This past weekend, my wife, younger son, and I went to see the new Chronicles of Narnia film based upon the C.S. Lewis book, “Prince Caspian” (directed by Andrew Adamson and released by Walt Disney Pictures). It has been nearly (maybe more than) 25 years since I read the 7-book series by C.S. Lewis. I was in Jr. High at the time and honestly remember very little about the books. Prior to the release of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” (“The Lion”), I specifically took time to re-read the book to refresh myself on the story line. I was pleased at how well the movie followed the book. This time, though I intentionally did not read the book before going to see the movie. I remembered almost nothing about the book, and I wanted to simply enjoy the film as the producers intended. To my shock, it took less than 10 minutes into the film before my brain was flooded with memories from the book. I couldn’t remember every detail about the book, but all the main plot points were there. It is funny how that works.
Of course, the plot to “Prince Caspian” is fairly simple – save Narnia. After the 4 Kings and Queens of Narnia left abruptly at the end of “The Lion,” Narnia was taken over by the evil Telmarines. Only one year passes in London before the children return to Narnia, but hundreds of years have passed in Narnia. During that time, Narnians have been all but eliminated by the Telmarines and are even thought to be extinct, but a small band of Narnians still thrive secretly in the deepest part of the woods.
Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy are transported from a railway station to Narnia when Prince Caspian X – who is running from his uncle, King Miraz, because he is trying to assassinate Caspian and solidify his control over the kingdom - blows Susan’s magical horn. When Prince Caspian learns of the surviving Narnians, he decides to lead them into battle to regain his throne and promises to return Narnia back to its rightful inhabitants. Enter now the Kings and Queens of old. After a very brief encounter between Peter and Caspian, all the “good guys” join forces against the evil King Miraz. Unfortunately, mistakes are made, lots of animals die, the Narnians are besieged, and only Asland can save the day – well not directly, but I don’t want to spoil everything! It is a great story that is extremely well produced with spectacular special effects. Since I haven't gone back yet and re-read “Prince Caspian,” I really can’t say how closely it follows the story. I’m sure the book is much more in depth and contained additional allegory, but honestly I really didn’t mind, because I enjoyed the movie regardless. It was overall a better produced, better filmed, and better acted sequel – and I loved the first movie so much that I bought it when it was released on DVD (technically we bought it for our kids, but we all know better, right). I'm pretty sure Prince Caspian will also be on my DVD shelf before long. Maybe now I will go back and read the book again…
As with “The Lion,” religious and philosophical themes abound in this theatrical adaptation of the great philosopher’s fictional masterpiece. It should be no surprise that Christian allegories abound throughout the film. Here are a few of the major ones:
Of course, the plot to “Prince Caspian” is fairly simple – save Narnia. After the 4 Kings and Queens of Narnia left abruptly at the end of “The Lion,” Narnia was taken over by the evil Telmarines. Only one year passes in London before the children return to Narnia, but hundreds of years have passed in Narnia. During that time, Narnians have been all but eliminated by the Telmarines and are even thought to be extinct, but a small band of Narnians still thrive secretly in the deepest part of the woods.
Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy are transported from a railway station to Narnia when Prince Caspian X – who is running from his uncle, King Miraz, because he is trying to assassinate Caspian and solidify his control over the kingdom - blows Susan’s magical horn. When Prince Caspian learns of the surviving Narnians, he decides to lead them into battle to regain his throne and promises to return Narnia back to its rightful inhabitants. Enter now the Kings and Queens of old. After a very brief encounter between Peter and Caspian, all the “good guys” join forces against the evil King Miraz. Unfortunately, mistakes are made, lots of animals die, the Narnians are besieged, and only Asland can save the day – well not directly, but I don’t want to spoil everything! It is a great story that is extremely well produced with spectacular special effects. Since I haven't gone back yet and re-read “Prince Caspian,” I really can’t say how closely it follows the story. I’m sure the book is much more in depth and contained additional allegory, but honestly I really didn’t mind, because I enjoyed the movie regardless. It was overall a better produced, better filmed, and better acted sequel – and I loved the first movie so much that I bought it when it was released on DVD (technically we bought it for our kids, but we all know better, right). I'm pretty sure Prince Caspian will also be on my DVD shelf before long. Maybe now I will go back and read the book again…
As with “The Lion,” religious and philosophical themes abound in this theatrical adaptation of the great philosopher’s fictional masterpiece. It should be no surprise that Christian allegories abound throughout the film. Here are a few of the major ones:
- Many of the Narnian animals have become dumb brutes – even dangerous wild beasts, because they have been treated as such by the Telmarines – raising questions about the way in which Christians treat each other and the world in general.
- Many of the creatures – and even King Peter himself - have difficulty maintaining faith in Asland because he has been absent so long and has done nothing to ease the pain and suffering of the Narnians, raising questions about our own faith in God given the wicked state in which the world exists today.
- The failures experienced by the Narnian army came as a direct result of their self-dependence, rather than their dependence upon Alsand.
- The manner in which Asland works to ultimately save Narnia is completely unexpected by all parties, and in reality most of the characters in the movie never see the work he performs, reminding us that God always works in his own time, in his own way, and that we do not always recognize or understand his actions. This theme was emphasized in a dream sequence in which Lucy, who is really the only one who truly remained unswervingly faithful to Asland, is told by the great lion that “things never happen the same way twice.”
- During that same encounter, Lucy comments at how Asland has grown, but Asland responds that he grows as she grows, reminding us how our knowledge and understanding of who God is grows as we grow spiritually.
- At the end of the movie, when Asland is giving the kingdom of Narnia to Prince Caspian, Prince Caspian declares his inadequacy to fill the role, but Asland sees this humility as proof of his qualification to serve. This reminds us that we truly can do nothing on our own and that we are also inadequate in our own strength, but that God is looking for our availability and he will enable us as he wills.
To me, though, the greatest religious and philosophical theme was the one that was perhaps the most simple. It occurred near the beginning of the movie when Lucy claims to have seen Asland across a great ravine. She believes that Asland wants them to cross there, but no one else saw him and no one believes she really saw him. After a long detour that ultimately brings them back to the exact same spot to cross the ravine, the others begin to question why they did not see Asland. Her response is so simple, and yet so full of truth – “you did not see him because you were not looking for him.” How often do we miss God simply because we were not looking for him?
Prince Caspian is a fabulous move. Yes it is full of action scenes, war scenes, and violence, but such was the nature of the book. It is still a great family film worth seeing – and probably worth owning.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Movie Review-The Golden Compass
After months of procrastination, I finally broke down and watched the controversial “family” movie, The Golden Compass. As I am sure you are well aware, this movie spawned a tremendous amount of controversy when it was first released and a significant portion of the religious community boycotted the movie due to its supposed anti-religious content. The movie itself is based upon the trilogy by Philip Pullman titled “His Dark Materials” and is supposed to be a fanciful tale of atheistic indoctrination. I have not read these books so I cannot give an opinion on them. Nevertheless, the hype and controversy clearly influenced my opinion of the movie before I ever saw the first introductory credit. If you combine that with the fact that because I only recently completed a seminary-level course on Philosophy of Religion I am acutely aware of the philosophical influences – religious and otherwise – on our culture, then it is no wonder that I decided to watch with an equally acute sense of expectation. With that predisposed bias (I’m trying to be as honest as possible here), I watched the movie and make the following review.
On its surface, the movie appears to be exactly what is proponents claimed it to be - a fanciful epic adventure on the order of “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings”. It is a story of a young girl, Lyra, who lives in a world where a person’s soul lives in an animal creature called a “daemon” that is bound to them for life. The two are intricately intertwined and their survival is co-dependent. To be honest, I thought the high-level plot of the movie was fairly weak. The oppressive, thought-controlling, magistrate has focused all of its formidable power into crushing all views of “truth” except their own. At the same time, the magistrate has decided that all of the evil within the world is the result of the fact that mystical cosmic “dust” – the source of evil – comes to rest on each person’s daemon. Therefore, the only way to rid the world of evil is to devise a means of separating people from their daemons. The magistrate has been stealing children and experimenting on them to perfect this process. Unknown to the magistrate, however, Lyra has come into possession of a golden compass that enables her to see “the truth” that others attempt to hide. While trying to find a friend who had been abducted, Lyra becomes aware of this plot and Lyra’s must do all she can to put an end to the magistrate’s evil plan.
Is it a fanciful story or is it a masterpiece of atheistic indoctrination? Before I answer that question, you should know that I generally approach these types of controversies from the perspective that it should be viewed first as a fictional story before passing any other kind of judgment. In fact, I’ve seen all of the Harry Potter movies and enjoyed them for the stories that they were (although I admit that I didn’t read the books either). Yes, I know, it is fairly liberal for an otherwise ultra-conservative person, but I think sometimes Christians look too hard for things to judge. If I shouldn’t watch Harry Potter, then I shouldn’t watch Indiana Jones, or Iron Man, or Hitch, or any other fanciful story put out by Hollywood. They all represent worldly entertainment produced by worldly individuals. So if I must be judged, I should be judged at the macro level and not at the micro level… So, what do I look for to determine if a movie is appropriate or inappropriate to view? Obviously, I try to steer away from overt sexual immorality. I also try to steer away from gratuitous graphic language (although this is sometimes hard to predict and I must say I have had to walk out of a movie from time to time because of the language). To my own detriment, I must admit that I have a fairly high tolerance for violence – I love war movies of any kind – although too much blood and gore is totally unnecessary. Finally, I try to steer away from movies that are overtly anti-God or anti-religious unless I am watching them strictly for educational purposes… which is why-because of the hype-that I have waited so long to watch The Golden Compass.
With that background, I believe I can answer the question – is it a fanciful story or is it a masterpiece of atheistic indoctrination? My answer is this… It is most definitely the latter, although I suspect all of the target audience will see it as nothing more than the former. Allow me to explain. If the pre-release hype had not been present and if, because of my recent seminary work, I did not have an acute sensitivity to the issue at hand, I doubt I would have made any anti-theistic or anti-religious connections. Despite the really great special effects, I think the story was just plain bad, and the indoctrinating themes were so subtle that most people probably would not see them without being specifically told they were there. But they were there, and perhaps that is what makes the movie so dangerous. The movie is filled with subtle humanist themes. Lyra, the young child who is the hero of the movie, lies multiple times, justifying the dishonest means by the noble ends. The most anti-religious theme is the movie is probably the most subtle. Because the magistrate has determined that evil enters the world through a person’s daemon, they likewise determine the only way to rid the world of evil is to separate mankind from its daemons. The hero must stop this plot, because we are only complete in our humanity when we are fully integrated with our daemons. Think about it.
Personally, I would not recommend this movie because I didn’t like the story. However, I would also not recommend this movie for young children simply because you really don’t know the long-term impact these subtle themes will have on them. Will they see them for what they are? No, but they are getting indoctrinated from so many other areas that we as parents cannot control, why would we voluntarily introduce another one?
On its surface, the movie appears to be exactly what is proponents claimed it to be - a fanciful epic adventure on the order of “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings”. It is a story of a young girl, Lyra, who lives in a world where a person’s soul lives in an animal creature called a “daemon” that is bound to them for life. The two are intricately intertwined and their survival is co-dependent. To be honest, I thought the high-level plot of the movie was fairly weak. The oppressive, thought-controlling, magistrate has focused all of its formidable power into crushing all views of “truth” except their own. At the same time, the magistrate has decided that all of the evil within the world is the result of the fact that mystical cosmic “dust” – the source of evil – comes to rest on each person’s daemon. Therefore, the only way to rid the world of evil is to devise a means of separating people from their daemons. The magistrate has been stealing children and experimenting on them to perfect this process. Unknown to the magistrate, however, Lyra has come into possession of a golden compass that enables her to see “the truth” that others attempt to hide. While trying to find a friend who had been abducted, Lyra becomes aware of this plot and Lyra’s must do all she can to put an end to the magistrate’s evil plan.
Is it a fanciful story or is it a masterpiece of atheistic indoctrination? Before I answer that question, you should know that I generally approach these types of controversies from the perspective that it should be viewed first as a fictional story before passing any other kind of judgment. In fact, I’ve seen all of the Harry Potter movies and enjoyed them for the stories that they were (although I admit that I didn’t read the books either). Yes, I know, it is fairly liberal for an otherwise ultra-conservative person, but I think sometimes Christians look too hard for things to judge. If I shouldn’t watch Harry Potter, then I shouldn’t watch Indiana Jones, or Iron Man, or Hitch, or any other fanciful story put out by Hollywood. They all represent worldly entertainment produced by worldly individuals. So if I must be judged, I should be judged at the macro level and not at the micro level… So, what do I look for to determine if a movie is appropriate or inappropriate to view? Obviously, I try to steer away from overt sexual immorality. I also try to steer away from gratuitous graphic language (although this is sometimes hard to predict and I must say I have had to walk out of a movie from time to time because of the language). To my own detriment, I must admit that I have a fairly high tolerance for violence – I love war movies of any kind – although too much blood and gore is totally unnecessary. Finally, I try to steer away from movies that are overtly anti-God or anti-religious unless I am watching them strictly for educational purposes… which is why-because of the hype-that I have waited so long to watch The Golden Compass.
With that background, I believe I can answer the question – is it a fanciful story or is it a masterpiece of atheistic indoctrination? My answer is this… It is most definitely the latter, although I suspect all of the target audience will see it as nothing more than the former. Allow me to explain. If the pre-release hype had not been present and if, because of my recent seminary work, I did not have an acute sensitivity to the issue at hand, I doubt I would have made any anti-theistic or anti-religious connections. Despite the really great special effects, I think the story was just plain bad, and the indoctrinating themes were so subtle that most people probably would not see them without being specifically told they were there. But they were there, and perhaps that is what makes the movie so dangerous. The movie is filled with subtle humanist themes. Lyra, the young child who is the hero of the movie, lies multiple times, justifying the dishonest means by the noble ends. The most anti-religious theme is the movie is probably the most subtle. Because the magistrate has determined that evil enters the world through a person’s daemon, they likewise determine the only way to rid the world of evil is to separate mankind from its daemons. The hero must stop this plot, because we are only complete in our humanity when we are fully integrated with our daemons. Think about it.
Personally, I would not recommend this movie because I didn’t like the story. However, I would also not recommend this movie for young children simply because you really don’t know the long-term impact these subtle themes will have on them. Will they see them for what they are? No, but they are getting indoctrinated from so many other areas that we as parents cannot control, why would we voluntarily introduce another one?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Movie Review-Kingdom of Heaven
Ridley Scott, Director. Kingdom of Heaven. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation. (2005)
Kingdom of Heaven is a movie I had to watch recently for my History of Christianity class. I thought I might share with you insights on its historical accuracy. Speaking from a theatrical point of view only, I will first say that the movie is very well done and well worth watching. It is not, however, a great movie to watch for its historical accuracy. The move is a theatrical account of Balian of Ibelin (portrayed by Orlando Bloom) in his historical attempt to defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem from Saladin (portrayed by Ghassan Massoud) in 1187, an event that sparked the infamous Third Crusade led by Richard the Lionhearted and others. Although there are significant factual parallels to the actual historical account of the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, the movie also contained numerous significant historical inaccuracies. This review will attempt to address many of the accuracies and inaccuracies as portrayed in the movie.
In a general sense, the underlying historical subplot of the movie is generally accurate. In this subplot, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, led by leper-King Baldwin IV, is under the constant threat of attack by the Muslim Sultan, Saladin. The armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem are generally divided between those who wished to maintain peace with the Muslims and those who wished to wage a holy war against the Muslims. The former were led primarily by Tiberias, regent of Jerusalem (in reality, the regent of Jerusalem was Raymond of Tripoli), and Balian of Ibelin. The latter were led by Knights Templar Guy of Lusignan and Raynald of Chatillon (in reality, neither were Knights Templar, but rather both were secular nobles). Upon the death of Baldwin IV, his sister Sibylla is crowned queen and subsequently crowns her husband Guy as King. Guy then leads his armies to war against Saladin, which are completely destroyed at the Battle of Hattin, leaving Jerusalem open to attack by Saladin. Balian then leads a valiant, but unsuccessful attempt to defend Jerusalem against Saladin and negotiates its surrender.
This generally accurate account leaves out many important aspects and also supplies the viewer with numerous completely inaccurate details as well, beginning with the nature of the main character himself, Balian. The movie portrays Balian as the illegitimate child of Godfrey of Ibelin, who was living as a lowly blacksmith in France until his father comes and humbly accepts his paternal responsibility, rescuing Balian from a murder charge and bestowing knight-hood upon him at his death. In reality, Godfrey of Ibelin is a fictional character. Balian the Younger, defender of Jerusalem, was the legitimate child of Barisan of Ibelin, who was also known as Balian the Elder.
The movie also provided an inaccurate account of the rise of Guy of Lusignan to the position of King of Jerusalem. In reality, the leper, Baldwin IV, and Guy had a falling out (presumably over relations with the Muslims) and Baldwin named his 5 year old nephew Baldwin V – who happened to be Sibylla’s son by her first husband – as co-King a few years prior to his death. In so doing, he ensured that Guy would not become king after his death. Baldwin V reigned as child-king with Raymond of Tripoli as his regent for one year until his death at nine years of age. At the time of his death, Raymond and Balian were attempting to have Sibylla’s half-sister (and Balian’s step-daughter) Isabella of Jerusalem crowned as queen. The coronation of Sibylla and Guy supposedly occurred in secret. The movie portrayed a romantic relationship between Balian and Sibylla that did not exist and in reality Sibylla was completely devoted to Guy. In the movie, Baldwin IV and Tiberias tried to convince Balian to marry Sibylla, who would divorce Guy. In reality, before Sibylla was crowned queen, she was forced to promise that she would divorce Guy and choose another consort, so the private coronation whereby she crowns Guy as King was a significant surprise to all.
There were also inaccuracies in the account of the Battle of Hattin. According to the movie, neither Tiberias (Raymond of Tripoli) nor Balian participated in the Battle of Hattin. Instead, Balian remained in Jerusalem to build its defenses. In reality, both Raymond and Balian played important roles in the battle, for Raymond led the first division while Balian led the rearguard. According to the anonymous text De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, Raymond and Balian fled the field of battle and ended up in Tyre. In fact, Balian was the ranking surviving noble from the Battle of Hattin and, as such, petitioned Saladin to allow him safe passage to Jerusalem to rescue the queen. Saladin grants him safe passage upon the promise that he would not take up arms against him. In Jerusalem, Patriarch Heraclius absolves him of his oath and convinces him to defend the city. As portrayed in the movie, although perhaps not to the greatest extent portrayed in the movie, Balian knights numerous burgesses and prepares for battle. Ultimately, Balian must negotiate the surrender of Jerusalem.
Despite the many inaccuracies in the movie, there were also considerable truths portrayed in the movie. For instance, Raynald of Chatillon did order numerous attacks on traveling Muslims, which did provoke Saladin to begin making preparations against the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Also, the Battle of Hattin was an absolute defeat of the Armies of Jerusalem that resulted primarily from Guy’s tactical mistake to leave the stronghold of Sephoria and attack Saladin in the desert. It is uncertain whether Saladin could have taken on the entire Jerusalem army at Jerusalem. In this battle, the movie accurately portrayed the capture of King Guy and Raynald, including the challis of ice water that was offered to Guy and the execution of Raynald.
There were other historical accuracies as well. The political friction between Baldwin IV and his allies, Raymond and Balian with Guy and Raynald most certainly existed and may have even been understated. As stated already, it is because of this friction that Baldwin IV named his 5 year old nephew as co-King prior to his death. At one point, there was virtual open warfare between Guy and Raymond, which was only thwarted by the intervention of Balian (this is not depicted in the movie). The movie portrays the war counsel prior to the Battle of Hattin with reasonable accuracy as Guy and Raynald convince the counsel against the advice of Raymond to lead the armies away from the safety of Sephoria.
As portrayed in the movie, Balian did lead the city’s defense and he did knight a number of its inhabitants. Saladin did besiege Jerusalem and, at one point, supposedly knocked down one of its primary defensive walls. Neither side could gain an advantage from this choke point in the wall. However, the movie does not portray how desperate Jerusalem became because so many men had died that at this point that there were only a few dozen men available to defend the walls. The movie’s portrayal of Sibylla’s cropping her hair was semi-accurate in that it was symbolic of the fact that many mothers did crop their children’s hair in penance, hoping that such would win them God’s favor. As portrayed in the movie, Balian did, in fact, lead the negotiations with Saladin and did threaten, at one point, to burn the city to the ground, killing all of its inhabitants. Ultimately, Balian did negotiate the safe passage of all those in Jerusalem prior to its surrender, but the movie does not point out that such safe passage only applied to those who could pay the ransom.
The movie’s inaccurate portrayal of Balian appeared again at the end of the movie when Balian supposedly returned to France to rebuild his life again as a blacksmith only to be approached by King Richard the Lionhearted to assist him in the Third Crusade. This is a complete fabrication. In reality, it is unlikely that Richard and Balian had amicable relations at all since King Guy was one of Richard’s vassals. Furthermore, Balian’s future and the future of his family remained in the Holy Land. Balian’s family of Ibelin became very powerful after the Third Crusade and remained such for several hundred years.
Despite all of these characterizations, the movie did portray in a non-historically accurate but nevertheless symbolically accurate manner certain stereo-typical sentiments related to the era. For example, while Balian was on his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, a monk is on the side of the road crying out that it was not a sin to kill an infidel. Another such example was the way in which Raynald manipulated his knights with the simple phrase “God wills it!”, which was often a battle cry of the Crusades. Similarly, the local priests – both in Balian’s home town in France as well as in Jerusalem – were portrayed as being corrupt. Likewise, the Knights Templar were portrayed as violent and ruthless while the Order of the Hospitalers were portrayed as kind and gentle. These over generalizations, while dramatically fictionalized, had some foundation in truth.
In conclusion, the movie Kingdom of Heaven was a very enjoyable portrayal of the fall of Jerusalem. While not completely accurate on a historical level, it had enough truth to make it reasonably credible and enough fiction to make it a “good movie”.
I give the movie 4 “crosses” ( VVVV ).
Sources of Historical Information used in this review:
Rickard, J. (12 December 2001), Battle of Hattin, 4 July 1187, http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_hattin.html (accessed April 14, 2008)
Wikipedia contributors, "Battle of Hattin," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hattin&oldid=204595104 (accessed April 13, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Siege of Jerusalem (1187)," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281187%29&oldid=202613440 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Kingdom of Heaven (film)," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29&oldid=205484501 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Barisan of Ibelin," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barisan_of_Ibelin&oldid=201802080 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Kingdom of Heaven is a movie I had to watch recently for my History of Christianity class. I thought I might share with you insights on its historical accuracy. Speaking from a theatrical point of view only, I will first say that the movie is very well done and well worth watching. It is not, however, a great movie to watch for its historical accuracy. The move is a theatrical account of Balian of Ibelin (portrayed by Orlando Bloom) in his historical attempt to defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem from Saladin (portrayed by Ghassan Massoud) in 1187, an event that sparked the infamous Third Crusade led by Richard the Lionhearted and others. Although there are significant factual parallels to the actual historical account of the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, the movie also contained numerous significant historical inaccuracies. This review will attempt to address many of the accuracies and inaccuracies as portrayed in the movie.
In a general sense, the underlying historical subplot of the movie is generally accurate. In this subplot, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, led by leper-King Baldwin IV, is under the constant threat of attack by the Muslim Sultan, Saladin. The armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem are generally divided between those who wished to maintain peace with the Muslims and those who wished to wage a holy war against the Muslims. The former were led primarily by Tiberias, regent of Jerusalem (in reality, the regent of Jerusalem was Raymond of Tripoli), and Balian of Ibelin. The latter were led by Knights Templar Guy of Lusignan and Raynald of Chatillon (in reality, neither were Knights Templar, but rather both were secular nobles). Upon the death of Baldwin IV, his sister Sibylla is crowned queen and subsequently crowns her husband Guy as King. Guy then leads his armies to war against Saladin, which are completely destroyed at the Battle of Hattin, leaving Jerusalem open to attack by Saladin. Balian then leads a valiant, but unsuccessful attempt to defend Jerusalem against Saladin and negotiates its surrender.
This generally accurate account leaves out many important aspects and also supplies the viewer with numerous completely inaccurate details as well, beginning with the nature of the main character himself, Balian. The movie portrays Balian as the illegitimate child of Godfrey of Ibelin, who was living as a lowly blacksmith in France until his father comes and humbly accepts his paternal responsibility, rescuing Balian from a murder charge and bestowing knight-hood upon him at his death. In reality, Godfrey of Ibelin is a fictional character. Balian the Younger, defender of Jerusalem, was the legitimate child of Barisan of Ibelin, who was also known as Balian the Elder.
The movie also provided an inaccurate account of the rise of Guy of Lusignan to the position of King of Jerusalem. In reality, the leper, Baldwin IV, and Guy had a falling out (presumably over relations with the Muslims) and Baldwin named his 5 year old nephew Baldwin V – who happened to be Sibylla’s son by her first husband – as co-King a few years prior to his death. In so doing, he ensured that Guy would not become king after his death. Baldwin V reigned as child-king with Raymond of Tripoli as his regent for one year until his death at nine years of age. At the time of his death, Raymond and Balian were attempting to have Sibylla’s half-sister (and Balian’s step-daughter) Isabella of Jerusalem crowned as queen. The coronation of Sibylla and Guy supposedly occurred in secret. The movie portrayed a romantic relationship between Balian and Sibylla that did not exist and in reality Sibylla was completely devoted to Guy. In the movie, Baldwin IV and Tiberias tried to convince Balian to marry Sibylla, who would divorce Guy. In reality, before Sibylla was crowned queen, she was forced to promise that she would divorce Guy and choose another consort, so the private coronation whereby she crowns Guy as King was a significant surprise to all.
There were also inaccuracies in the account of the Battle of Hattin. According to the movie, neither Tiberias (Raymond of Tripoli) nor Balian participated in the Battle of Hattin. Instead, Balian remained in Jerusalem to build its defenses. In reality, both Raymond and Balian played important roles in the battle, for Raymond led the first division while Balian led the rearguard. According to the anonymous text De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, Raymond and Balian fled the field of battle and ended up in Tyre. In fact, Balian was the ranking surviving noble from the Battle of Hattin and, as such, petitioned Saladin to allow him safe passage to Jerusalem to rescue the queen. Saladin grants him safe passage upon the promise that he would not take up arms against him. In Jerusalem, Patriarch Heraclius absolves him of his oath and convinces him to defend the city. As portrayed in the movie, although perhaps not to the greatest extent portrayed in the movie, Balian knights numerous burgesses and prepares for battle. Ultimately, Balian must negotiate the surrender of Jerusalem.
Despite the many inaccuracies in the movie, there were also considerable truths portrayed in the movie. For instance, Raynald of Chatillon did order numerous attacks on traveling Muslims, which did provoke Saladin to begin making preparations against the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Also, the Battle of Hattin was an absolute defeat of the Armies of Jerusalem that resulted primarily from Guy’s tactical mistake to leave the stronghold of Sephoria and attack Saladin in the desert. It is uncertain whether Saladin could have taken on the entire Jerusalem army at Jerusalem. In this battle, the movie accurately portrayed the capture of King Guy and Raynald, including the challis of ice water that was offered to Guy and the execution of Raynald.
There were other historical accuracies as well. The political friction between Baldwin IV and his allies, Raymond and Balian with Guy and Raynald most certainly existed and may have even been understated. As stated already, it is because of this friction that Baldwin IV named his 5 year old nephew as co-King prior to his death. At one point, there was virtual open warfare between Guy and Raymond, which was only thwarted by the intervention of Balian (this is not depicted in the movie). The movie portrays the war counsel prior to the Battle of Hattin with reasonable accuracy as Guy and Raynald convince the counsel against the advice of Raymond to lead the armies away from the safety of Sephoria.
As portrayed in the movie, Balian did lead the city’s defense and he did knight a number of its inhabitants. Saladin did besiege Jerusalem and, at one point, supposedly knocked down one of its primary defensive walls. Neither side could gain an advantage from this choke point in the wall. However, the movie does not portray how desperate Jerusalem became because so many men had died that at this point that there were only a few dozen men available to defend the walls. The movie’s portrayal of Sibylla’s cropping her hair was semi-accurate in that it was symbolic of the fact that many mothers did crop their children’s hair in penance, hoping that such would win them God’s favor. As portrayed in the movie, Balian did, in fact, lead the negotiations with Saladin and did threaten, at one point, to burn the city to the ground, killing all of its inhabitants. Ultimately, Balian did negotiate the safe passage of all those in Jerusalem prior to its surrender, but the movie does not point out that such safe passage only applied to those who could pay the ransom.
The movie’s inaccurate portrayal of Balian appeared again at the end of the movie when Balian supposedly returned to France to rebuild his life again as a blacksmith only to be approached by King Richard the Lionhearted to assist him in the Third Crusade. This is a complete fabrication. In reality, it is unlikely that Richard and Balian had amicable relations at all since King Guy was one of Richard’s vassals. Furthermore, Balian’s future and the future of his family remained in the Holy Land. Balian’s family of Ibelin became very powerful after the Third Crusade and remained such for several hundred years.
Despite all of these characterizations, the movie did portray in a non-historically accurate but nevertheless symbolically accurate manner certain stereo-typical sentiments related to the era. For example, while Balian was on his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, a monk is on the side of the road crying out that it was not a sin to kill an infidel. Another such example was the way in which Raynald manipulated his knights with the simple phrase “God wills it!”, which was often a battle cry of the Crusades. Similarly, the local priests – both in Balian’s home town in France as well as in Jerusalem – were portrayed as being corrupt. Likewise, the Knights Templar were portrayed as violent and ruthless while the Order of the Hospitalers were portrayed as kind and gentle. These over generalizations, while dramatically fictionalized, had some foundation in truth.
In conclusion, the movie Kingdom of Heaven was a very enjoyable portrayal of the fall of Jerusalem. While not completely accurate on a historical level, it had enough truth to make it reasonably credible and enough fiction to make it a “good movie”.
I give the movie 4 “crosses” ( VVVV ).
Sources of Historical Information used in this review:
Rickard, J. (12 December 2001), Battle of Hattin, 4 July 1187, http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_hattin.html (accessed April 14, 2008)
Wikipedia contributors, "Battle of Hattin," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hattin&oldid=204595104 (accessed April 13, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Siege of Jerusalem (1187)," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281187%29&oldid=202613440 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Kingdom of Heaven (film)," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29&oldid=205484501 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Wikipedia contributors, "Barisan of Ibelin," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barisan_of_Ibelin&oldid=201802080 (accessed April 14, 2008).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)