a new "historically correct movie" of Ridley Scott

[Theodosius the Great]

epic type films have been in decline since Gladiator, or even Braveheart as far as their success as films. I tend to agree with this. Troy was O.K., but I didn't even bother with Alexander. Perhaps they need to give the epic theme a rest for a few years.

I disagree. The Epic genre was mothballed for like 30 plus years. That's plenty of rest :wink: .

"Passion of the Christ" was a huge hit. Bigger than Braveheart AND Gladiator combined. I think for an epic to be successful it needs to have a hero. IMHO, everything hinges on the hero figure.

The Crusades are a non-starter unless a film were done on the first Crusade (since that was the only successful one). "Kingdom of Heaven" had no heroes. It's a movie about the fall of the crusader states.

A movie about the REAL crusades in Spain would be more successful, I think. There the Christians ultimately triumphed thanks to heroes like "El Cid" and other knights from all over Europe.

"Troy" had no heroes. Neither did "Alexander". William Wallace is only a local hero for most people. Maximus is a hero but he's also a fictional character.

Epic(s) w/o hero(es) = BOMB

[Uwe Bahr]

Hadrian asked:

did he "recycle" this chanfron from Gladiator?

I would say he did:

[url:2dmb5pi9]http://bhdaamov.hp.infoseek.co.jp/pic/gladiator-2.jpg[/url]

[Carlton Bach]

"Passion of the Christ" was a huge hit. Bigger than Braveheart AND Gladiator combined. I think for an epic to be successful it needs to have a hero. IMHO, everything hinges on the hero figure.

The Crusades are a non-starter unless a film were done on the first Crusade (since that was the only successful one). "Kingdom of Heaven" had no heroes. It's a movie about the fall of the crusader states.

A movie about the REAL crusades in Spain would be more successful, I think. There the Christians ultimately triumphed thanks to heroes like "El Cid" and other knights from all over Europe.

Epic(s) w/o hero(es) = BOMB

You are definitely on to something here (though I think a group of heroes will work just as well). I don't think heroes need to win, though (it makes the audience happier, but there were a number of epics that sold well even though the heroes lost)

The First Crusade, though, is woefully short of heroic figures. Maybe they could have made a proper epic about Saladin and the rise of the Ayyubids? Or the tragically heroic story of Frederick II's crusade? I find the choice of subject matter rather strange myself. If I wanted to make a story about heroic crusaders, there are better ones, and if I wanted to tell the world how evil the crusades were - what's wrong with the First or the Fourth Crusades?

No accounting for script choice, I guess.

[Theodosius the Great]

The First Crusade, though, is woefully short of heroic figures. Maybe they could have made a proper epic about Saladin and the rise of the Ayyubids? Or the tragically heroic story of Frederick II's crusade? I find the choice of subject matter rather strange myself. If I wanted to make a story about heroic crusaders, there are better ones, and if I wanted to tell the world how evil the crusades were - what's wrong with the First or the Fourth Crusades?

Personally, I think all of the First Crusaders were heroes. But I think you meant that there's no grand historical figure like a Holy Roman Emperor to fill the role. True. But I suppose such a character could be invented to make the film work.

I don't think the Fourth Crusade was evil. It was just hijacked by the Venetians and the Pope excommunicated the whole lot of all who participated in sacking Constantinople. No heroes there either.

But I agree with you that the choice of subject is strange. There's not much public interest in the eastern Crusades. And certainly there's less interest in Muslim characters like Saladin - even in Arab countries where he isn't revered because he was a Kurd.

[Magnus]

I don't agree with you Theodosius...Troy sputtered and died after it's first week-end...did anyone actually go and see Alexander? You think epic films are still on the upsoar?

Passion was destined (If I may use that term) to bring in tons of money based on it's subject matter alone. That in itself disqualifies it...same if they made a movie on who actually shot JFK. The movie might be awful, but I'm willing to bet the movie would be popular none-the-less.

No...I wouldn't qualify any of these films as "epics" just because their film budget was $150 million. It takes more than a large price tag to qualify for such a title. Take your pick as to what was lacking, but the dynamic that makes a great "epic" adventure film on all levels was missing.

[Anonymous]

This post of Robert's was from quite a while ago, but seeing the release of Kingdom of Heaven is sparking some discussion and debate about the Crusades - with a lot of myths getting aired in the process - I thought it was worth replying to.

Matt,

That's Hollywood for you: money talks and b......t walks. It's all about economics.

Same with the crusades, really. Reading all the comments on those movie sites, when are people going to realise the crusades were not about religion, but about politics?

It was certainly about politics of various kinds, including religious politics. But the statement 'It was not about religion' is contrary to vast amounts of evidence and recent research into the origins of the Crusades and the motivations of individual Crusaders, including those 'knights and kings' mentioned below.

As hard as it may be for some modern people to understand or accept, religion meant a lot to the average Twelfth Century person. It was not an option that they could decide to take or leave or a matter of private 'spirituality' as in our world - it was intrinsic to their view of the world and their place in it and it was also communal and public in a way modern 'personal beliefs' are not.

It was also pretty hard on knights, lords and members of the warrior elite in the late Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. The Church had, in the previous 100 years, increasingly come under the control of a vigorous reforming movement; one which didn't stint in its condemnation of a life lived in violence and pride - which were pretty much the average knight's stocks in trade. The reforming Church of the Eleventh Century didn't leave the warrior elite many options when it came to ensuring salvation other than (i) donating money to support monastic houses and other institutions in return for prayers on behalf of their violent, proud and sinful souls or (ii) abandoning the the world of the knightly aristocracy and becoming a monk or priest. Not surprisingly, most took the former option (though many took the later in old age).

The idea of an armed pilgrimage to win the Holy Places back from their Muslim conquerors gave then another option - one that allowed them to do what they did best (fighting) but also promised the benefits of the most holy pilgrimage a Christian could undertake.

This is why the evidence is overwhelming that the Crusades were a rather remarkable, popular, religious movement. Pope Urban was startled by the huge response his call to arms got and the enthusiasm didn't wane for over 150 years, even after decades of defeats and setbacks.

No, religion wasn't the only motivation, but it was definitely the main one, as masses of evidence and all of the most recent analysis indicates clearly. The idea that 'they were just in it for the money/power' appeals to modern prejudices, but it is contradicted by the evidence.

The knights and kings did not go there for their immortal souls (well, the lower ranks may have), but for the money.

Sorry, this is a modern myth. It used to be thought that the Crusades attracted landless second and third sons out to win territory in the East. But recent, detailed analysis of who went found the majority were landed lords and first sons; which is not surprising since going on Crusade was an expensive business and well beyond the means of penniless knights.

The idea that they went 'for the money' is also not borne out by the evidence. It cost them vast sums to fund these expeditions and analysis of who went, what it cost and the economic impact on their families show virtually no-one got rich and most Crusaders lost money in huge quantities. That's the ones that managed to get back alive. Despite this, the same analysis shows that despite these losses in both cash and lives, the same families repeatedly sent Crusaders east, over several generations. Some virtually bankrupted themselves in the process.

Clearly something other than 'the money' was motivating these people.

Genoa and Venice happily ferried them to the Holy Land, not for their place in Heaven, but to expand their hold on Meditteranean trade!

Very true.

Without these gentlefolk organising things, the masses that went along to make uo the Crusader Movement would never have gotten as far as the Balkans. <br>

Er, apart from the very large number of Crusaders who took the overland route. A majority of them in fact. And the fact that the Genoese and Venetians had an ulterior motive is not an indication of the motivations of the people they were transporting.

Look what happened to the children's crusade the only one not sponsored by kings or merchants - they were sold as slaves!

That was not the only Crusade not sponsored by kings or merchants (not that any Crusades were 'sponsored' by merchants anyway, though one was hijacked by them). And it failed because it was a bizarre mass religious movement, not a military expedition.

Some good, up-to-date overviews of the Crusades that refute many of the tangled myths are Christopher Tyerman's Fighting For Christendom: Holy War And The Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith's The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading and Ronald Finucane's Soldiers of the Faith: Crusaders and Moslems at War.

The latter is a particularly good analysis of the experience of the Crusades from the point of view of the knights and Muslim fighters that actually did the fighting. As well as dispelling some of the modern myths about the motivations of the Crusaders, it also looks at the attitudes of their opponents and counters the equally fashionable idea that the Muslims were all tolerant, wise and enlightened while the Crusaders were all scruffy barbarians. Sir Walter Scott began that one and it seems Ridley-Scott has continued it. Finucane makes it pretty clear that neither side was wholly intolerant or wholly barbaric. Both were a typically Twelfth Century mix of both.

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave, Thiudareiks.

Some good, up-to-date overviews of the Crusades that refute many of the tangled myths are Christopher Tyerman's Fighting For Christendom: Holy War And The Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith's The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading and Ronald Finucane's Soldiers of the Faith: Crusaders and Moslems at War.

These books really sound like interesting reads from what you describe.
I'll check them out soon 8) .

[Tarbicus]

You may also want to watch Terry Jones' "The Crusades" tv documentary, available on dvd. It pretty much reflects what Thiudareiks said. And, with Mr. Jones (of Monty Python) slipping in mud wearing full chainmail, and likewise jumping into the water where Richard I did, to see if he'll sink, it's a very entertaining and informative series to watch.

Cheers.

[Chariovalda]

Well, I say the movie last thursday and it actually disappointed the hell out of me: 6 out of 10. It looks pretty, but it's also boring and doesn't know whether it's an action movie or a plea for tolerance and peace - albeit an extremely dumbed-down one.
Not quite a stinker (it's too pretty and too well-made for that); may also improve in a "director's cut" version (according to some reports possibly up to 80 minutes longer in length).
If you want to watch this one, it might pay to wait till the director's cut dvd is out, then watch it at the house of a friend with a good beamer and surround system. :wink:

I suspect this movie won't be much of a commercial success; it's certainly not a critical one, as the rotten tomato meter stands at 40% (i.e. 40% of the reviews think it's an ok to good movie, and 60% that it's, well...)
Now it's just a matter of waiting how Diesel's Hannibal and Gibson's Boudicca flick turn out; should they fail commercially, that will be the end of the "historical epic" revival. And frankly, if all they can do is turn out turkeys and half-lame borefests like this, that's fine by me.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Tim,

You may be right on all accounts, but even so I fear you're generalising a bit. I have no doubt that for the untold masses, the main reason to go on crusade was religion. I'll gladly cede you that one. But may I retain my doubts about the lords and knights? I'm sure that religion was one of the most prominent drives in their daily life, but nonetheless I have my doubts about any explanation that all crusades, even for them, were purely or even maily religious-inspired. I seem to recall (but it's all long time ago and I may be totally wrong about this) that the crusades presented an opportunity to gain social status for some, political gains for others, where this was impossible or much harder in Europe. For a king, it could be a way to gain leverage (with the Pope, maybe) over a rival king where this would be much harder on the field of battle. For a knight it might be a way to show his valor. For a nobleman and even a first son there would have been the posibility of gaining lands and/or money.

I'm sure that you're correct in citing these studies about the downside - it cost the crusaders much more than they gained. But isn't that hindsight? Can we actually tell that if they would have know the crusades would cost them that much, they might still have gone anyway? With as much hindsight as that, I could as easily say that if the crusaders would have had more success against the various Muslim dynasties, the crusaders might have made an overall profit? And would we still have used that as an argument to decide if the crusades were mainly a religious movement or not? But it's a moot point, I fear..

Anyway, as much as you may be right on that point, could you explain the sack of Constantinople for me, out of a religious crusading context?

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, I say the movie last thursday and it actually disappointed the hell out of me: 6 out of 10. It looks pretty, but it's also boring and doesn't know whether it's an action movie or a plea for tolerance and peace - albeit an extremely dumbed-down one.

Hi Chariovalda, I saw it yesterday. Nice, all those flags and frocks dancing in the wind, etc., etc.. But apart from Jerusalem apparently being relocated to some flat desert location instead of the rocky hills of Judaea, it looked nice enough.

Although..i seriously would have ended the movie with the shot of the two lovers, holding hands, alking into the dusty evening with the thousands of released jebusites!
NOT that awful shot of them in (again) a wintry France, imposibly meeting with King Richard on his way to the Holy Land! :twisted:

[Chariovalda]

apart from Jerusalem apparently being relocated to some flat desert location instead of the rocky hills of Judaea, it looked nice enough

It's not the look I am complaining about, it's about the lack of entertainment value; not entirely absent (nice eye candy) but not particularly abundant either.

As for the Fourth Crusade, I'm too lazy to provide you with a summary, but you can borrow my copy of Michael Angold's "The Fourth Crusade" if you like. Suffice to say that the book tries to be fair and sympathetic to both sides, and shares the blame (though not necessarily equally).
Also, I think you should differentiate between the various crusades, as well as between the different groups of participants, and the fact that the whole movement was itself a "historical process" which went through a lot of changes. Even in a single individuals, motivations would change over time due through specific circumstances, from, say, predominantly genuine religious enthusiasm through pragmatism (increasingly ruthless in order to survive) to genuine, first-hand hatred of specific groups of Muslims and Christians.

Anyway, this movie will probably quickly sink beneath the waves, especially when Star Wars ep III premieres. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Anyway, this movie will probably quickly sink beneath the waves, especially when Star Wars ep III premieres.

My thoughts exactly. When shall we go and see it? Or what about going to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in June?

[Anonymous]

You may be right on all accounts, but even so I fear you're generalising a bit.

Actually, I’m striving to counter an overgeneralisation. As with any such enterprise, there were a wide variety of motivations for crusading for all involved. But I keep coming across these rather glib overgeneralisations that the Crusades were ‘really just about power and money’ and dismissing the religious motivations. This is a total distortion of the facts and the religious motivations were actually very important.

I have no doubt that for the untold masses, the main reason to go on crusade was religion. I'll gladly cede you that one. But may I retain my doubts about the lords and knights? I'm sure that religion was one of the most prominent drives in their daily life, but nonetheless I have my doubts about any explanation that all crusades, even for them, were purely or even maily religious-inspired.

I can only go on the evidence available to us. Those lords and knights left accounts of their motivations and religious concerns were actually clearly prominent amongst them. That isn’t to say they were the only motivations, but I’ve never said that.

I seem to recall (but it's all long time ago and I may be totally wrong about this) that the crusades presented an opportunity to gain social status for some, political gains for others, where this was impossible or much harder in Europe. For a king, it could be a way to gain leverage (with the Pope, maybe) over a rival king where this would be much harder on the field of battle. For a knight it might be a way to show his valor. For a nobleman and even a first son there would have been the posibility of gaining lands and/or money.

These were all motivations for many. This doesn’t mean the generalisation about how the Crusades were ‘really about money’ is correct.

I'm sure that you're correct in citing these studies about the downside - it cost the crusaders much more than they gained. But isn't that hindsight? Can we actually tell that if they would have know the crusades would cost them that much, they might still have gone anyway?

Yes, we can. As I mentioned, Tyerman’s research shows that the same families kept sending crusaders to the Outremer despite the fact each of these expeditions cost them dearly. Some of these families did this for the entire 200 years of the major Crusading period. So either these families were really dumb, or something other than cash was motivating them.

With as much hindsight as that, I could as easily say that if the crusaders would have had more success against the various Muslim dynasties, the crusaders might have made an overall profit? And would we still have used that as an argument to decide if the crusades were mainly a religious movement or not? But it's a moot point, I fear..

It’s always hard for a historian to get a grasp on the psychology of any such movement. And my point has always been that the religious factor was very important and can’t be easily dismissed. I’ve never said it was the only factor or even the major one.

Anyway, as much as you may be right on that point, could you explain the sack of Constantinople for me, out of a religious crusading context?

Sure. Relations between the Crusaders and the Byzantines were never good to begin with and a large part of this was the mutual feeling that the others were schismatics and heretics. This distrust was exacerbated by economic rivalries, especially between the Greeks and the Italian states, and by political pressures once the Crusader Kingdoms were established in the East. As early as the Third Crusade the Byzantines were making overtures to Saladin regarding joint military operations against the Crusader States and relations worsened as the Twelfth Century progressed. The kingdoms of Western Christendom came to regard the Byzantines as a perfidious obstacle to the Crusading objectives in the East and a positive hinderance to the survival of the Outremer.

The idea of attacking the Byzantines was definitely that of the Italians and was definitely motivated by economic considerations. But the reasons the majority of the Crusaders went along with the idea are more complex. Over a century of mistrust of the ‘Schismatics’ in Constantinople and their perceived undermining of the objectives of the Crusades was part of it. A feeling that these ‘Schismatics’ were only marginally better than the Saracens themselves in a religious sense was another.

Not all of the men of the Fourth Crusade felt this way, however. Some abandoned the Crusade when it was diverted, declaring that they had not taken the Cross to fight fellow Christians. And Pope Innocent III was furious for precisely the same reason and promptly excommunicated the entire Crusade en masse.

But the feeling that the eastern Orthodox ‘heretics’ were little better than the Saracens themselves persisted. As late as the early Fourteenth Century, with the last strongholds in Palestine long lost, there were plans in Europe at the highest level to attack Byzantium first and then use Byzantine territory as a jumping off point for a new wave of counter-attacks against the Muslims in the Holy Land. Nothing came of these plans, but they were being made in France by King Philip the Fair and his (French) puppet Pope Clement IV, not by Venetian and Genoese merchants. They were motivated by political and strategic concerns, but the fact that the Byzantines were ‘heretics’ meant that they were seen as an expendable obstacle to the movements wider objectives.

[Chariovalda]

Thiudareiks,

I suppose I'm somewhere in the middle between you and Vorty concerning my view of the Crusades.
But concerning the movie itself: did you see it and what did you make of it?

Valete,

Chariovalda