Ridley Scott criticized for new Crusades film

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-24 12:44pm

I don't think guerrilla fighters living in caves have multiplexes.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-24 01:25pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:You might also ask why the Moors were wont to raid Italy for slaves..

More african slaves were taken into the Arab/Muslim world than were transported across the Atlantic to the New World...hmm, backbreaking
work on some farm, or having my balls cut off? Hmm choices choices

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 05:21pm

revprez wrote:Anyone want to respond to the charge that such a portrayal would be red meat for the Islamists?

Rev Prez

Anyone give a shit what the Islamic fundies think? I'm tired of this "ohhhh, don't say this or that; how will the Islamic fundies react?" attitude that's crept into the lexicon since 9/11.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-01-24 06:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:The Crusaders, when faced with civilians whose religious affiliation was unknown, were instructed to "kill them all; God will know his own". Hard to believe someone might portray the Crusaders in a bad light

Actually Mike, that was said by a French bishop on the Albigensian crusade, against a heretical Christian sect known as the Cathars. This took place in the Languedoc region of southern France. To the best of my knowledge, no such advice was ever given to the men who went Crusading in the Middle east.

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, especially after centuries of Christians trying to portray the Crusades in the best possible light, this sort of thing is overdue. I dunno about this "Templar" thing, but the notion of Christians behaving much worse than Muslims during the Crusades is hardly a distortion of history.

Read an excellent three volume history of the Crusades by the late Sir Steven Runciman. It gives a pretty complete account of the Crusades, and doesn't whitewash bad behavior. An interesting thing is, the Christian invaders who captured Jerusalem in the First Crusade settled down and, not unlike the Romans who conquered Greece, very influenced by the somewhat more sophisticated culture of the Muslims among whom they dwelt, and they eventually settled down to establish a modus vivendi with them. Then later waves of Crusaders came from Western Europe, many full of self-rightousness and scorn for their "heathen" enemies, and they were often resented by the descendants of the first settlers, because despite the military aid they brought, their narrow minded outlook created all kinds of new problems.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-24 06:45pm

Actually Mike, that was said by a French bishop on the Albigensian crusade, against a heretical Christian sect known as the Cathars. This took place in the Languedoc region of southern France. To the best of my knowledge, no such advice was ever given to the men who went Crusading in the Middle east.

Of course, the Albigensian crusade was more rephrensible than the crusades in the holy land or in the Baltic, so it does not reflect particularly well on the Catholic Church in any case.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-01-24 07:09pm

Here's a link to a detail account of the Albigensian crusade for anyone who's interested. http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-25 05:31am

Robert Treder wrote:Arabs weren't villains in Gladiator...

What version of Gladiator did you watch?

Maximus became a gladiator in the first place because he was taken prisoner by Arab slavers and sold to some rich guy in North Africa. (one of the most glaring historical inaccuracies in that film)

Okay, the word "Arab" was never uttered on-screen, but I clearly recall hearing some of the Northern African slavers speaking Arabic.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-01-25 10:24am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Robert Treder wrote:Arabs weren't villains in Gladiator...
What version of Gladiator did you watch?

Maximus became a gladiator in the first place because he was taken prisoner by Arab slavers and sold to some rich guy in North Africa. (one of the most glaring historical inaccuracies in that film)

Okay, the word "Arab" was never uttered on-screen, but I clearly recall hearing some of the Northern African slavers speaking Arabic.

While inaccurate you are grasping at straws here.

I mean the Arab was an owner of slaves...but he's a villain because of that's how the age was?

And that's Scott had the traitorous roman Emperor and his best friend betray Maximus.

And for kickers had the Arab owner help Maximus in his failed coup.

Because you must've seen a far different movie then I did.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-25 11:31am

Peregrin Toker wrote:What version of Gladiator did you watch?

Maximus became a gladiator in the first place because he was taken prisoner by Arab slavers and sold to some rich guy in North Africa. (one of the most glaring historical inaccuracies in that film)

Okay, the word "Arab" was never uttered on-screen, but I clearly recall hearing some of the Northern African slavers speaking Arabic.

Speaking Arabic? Are you certain? Because Arabic was a rinky-dink little off-shoot of the Semetic language of the time that barely anyone except a some nomads on the Arabian pennesula spoke until the advent of Islam. The North Afrricans wouldn't be Arabs or speaking Arabic.

Besides, there were rich people in North Africa. The Romans most certainly had colonies there, plus there were all the Carthegian cities that the Romans took but didn't share the same fate as Cathage herself.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-25 12:29pm

Ghost Rider wrote:And for kickers had the Arab owner help Maximus in his failed coup.

Because you must've seen a far different movie then I did.

The "Arab owner"? I assume you are referring to Proximo, who IIRC was supposed to be a Roman rather than an Arab.

BTW - I have indeed seen Gladiator and remember it clearly.

Gil Hamilton wrote:Speaking Arabic? Are you certain? Because Arabic was a rinky-dink little off-shoot of the Semetic language of the time that barely anyone except a some nomads on the Arabian pennesula spoke until the advent of Islam. The North Afrricans wouldn't be Arabs or speaking Arabic.

While the fictional village of Zacchabar (where Maximus began fighting in gladiatorial combat) probably was intended to be Carthaginian/Phoenician, this does not change the fact that the actors portraying the villagers of Zacchabar spoke a lot of Arabic in the background and the fact that the look of Zacchabar was stereotypically Arabic.

(To be honest, I couldn't identify the language spoken in Zacchabar, but according to Jack G. Shaheen's book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People the slavers in Gladiator spoke Arabic)

What you have done now is not a refutation of my argument, but you have unintentionally pointed out yet another of the glaring historical inaccuracies in Gladiator.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-25 12:37pm

revprez wrote:Anyone want to respond to the charge that such a portrayal would be red meat for the Islamists?

Rev Prez

The Islamists pretty much hate anyone who isn't Islamist, so I don't think it really matters one way or another...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-25 12:58pm

Actually Zucchabar is was a real place, in Algeria, but it wasn't a Roman province.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-25 02:15pm

I don't think they had much of a choice. I hear that its rather difficult to find Cartho-Phoenician extras nowadays.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-25 02:19pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually Zucchabar is was a real place, in Algeria, but it wasn't a Roman province.

Provide sources.

According to Reel Bad Arabs' entry on "Gladiator", Zucchabar is fictional.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-01-25 02:40pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually Zucchabar is was a real place, in Algeria, but it wasn't a Roman province.
Provide sources.

According to Reel Bad Arabs' entry on "Gladiator", Zucchabar is fictional.

Be amazed what google can do.

And the man became a Roman citizen when he WON his freedom.

You've still yet to PROVE that the Arabs weren't a background piece and somehow elevated to VILLAIN.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-26 02:19am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Robert Treder wrote:Arabs weren't villains in Gladiator...
What version of Gladiator did you watch?

Maximus became a gladiator in the first place because he was taken prisoner by Arab slavers and sold to some rich guy in North Africa. (one of the most glaring historical inaccuracies in that film)

Okay, the word "Arab" was never uttered on-screen, but I clearly recall hearing some of the Northern African slavers speaking Arabic.

Does it matter ? Arabs did not become muslims untill Islam started sometime in the sixth century (0 hizri in Arabic years). They were infidels and very bad people before that.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-26 09:47am

Ghost Rider wrote:You've still yet to PROVE that the Arabs weren't a background piece and somehow elevated to VILLAIN.

well, they were the ones who enslaved Maximus... and were thusly minor villains...

in any case, they were portrayed in a mostly negative light... which probably captured the attention of Jack Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs, wherein he uses Gladiator as one out of many examples to prove that Arabs have been vilified more by Hollywood than any other ethnicity.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-26 03:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:I'd like to know why they consulted a professor of Christian "Ecclesiastical History" about the events of the Crusades.

'The history of the Church' does not equal 'history from the Church's point of view,' Mike.

I've read Jonathan Riley-Smith in history classes at my school (a top tier secular liberal arts college), and he is a fantastic historian. The very best credentials, thorough work, participation in the scholary discourse, everything you would hope for.

___

On the subject of the film, one remark. IF there was an arch-villan in that period, it would have been Guy de Lusignan, Raymond, and the factions that tore the Kingdom apart after Baldin IV died at the age of 24. They were all corrupt and useless. In my studies I've always thought that the person who compared favorably to them was actually Baldwin IV. I've wondered if Baldwin had survived past his early 20s, what might have happened to the Kingdom of Jerusalem?

As for the Templars, I'm not qualified to comment. They were often politically opposed to the Hospitalliers, who I am very interested in and have studied at some length.

I've never though of comparing Guy de Lusignan to Saladin, however.
__

I suspect that this is all a matter of degree. Saladin was an interesting figure worth admiring, and some of the Crusaders did suck. I think that Riley-Smith & co. are probably offended by exaggeration in the film.

___

On Gladiator: The Arabs more or less stayed in Arabia until after the death of the prophet Muhammad. The north-africans seen in Gladiator we certainly simple North Africans, possibly berbers, or some other group in the north west. And of course they were Roman subjects.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-01-26 04:06pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:in any case, they were portrayed in a mostly negative light... which probably captured the attention of Jack Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs, wherein he uses Gladiator as one out of many examples to prove that Arabs have been vilified more by Hollywood than any other ethnicity.

More than the fine christian aryan Germans even?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-01-26 05:51pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:You've still yet to PROVE that the Arabs weren't a background piece and somehow elevated to VILLAIN.
well, they were the ones who enslaved Maximus... and were thusly minor villains...

in any case, they were portrayed in a mostly negative light... which probably captured the attention of Jack Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs, wherein he uses Gladiator as one out of many examples to prove that Arabs have been vilified more by Hollywood than any other ethnicity.

What did the "Arabs" in Gladiator do that was worse than the Romans when Maximus eventually made it to Rome?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-26 07:14pm

I think Raymond would be a better choice than Guy de Lusignian. If I had to pick two Crusader arch-villians, they would be Guy and Raynald de Chatillion.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-01-26 08:12pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:Well, thing was that Arabs were presented as villains in two previous movies also by Ridley Scott - G.I. Jane and Gladiator.

It's very possible that upon realizing that Arabs have been vilified more by movies than any other ethnicity (perhaps with the exception of Russians), Ridley Scott decided to portray Arabs in a positive light in order to

You are forgetting Germans...
You've got either the tall, blond, blue-eyed guy who likes to march all day, and drinks beer by the gallon while killing someone, or it's the bald, fat, ugly schemer, listening to Wagner all the day, trying to take over the world using Nazi gold.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-27 10:58am

CJvR wrote:
Peregrin Toker wrote:in any case, they were portrayed in a mostly negative light... which probably captured the attention of Jack Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs, wherein he uses Gladiator as one out of many examples to prove that Arabs have been vilified more by Hollywood than any other ethnicity.
More than the fine christian aryan Germans even?

Indeed - I don't recall any movies other than WW2 flicks vilifying Germans, while pretty much any genre - from 1903 today - has harboured flicks presenting Arabs in a negative light.

Dahak wrote:You are forgetting Germans...
You've got either the tall, blond, blue-eyed guy who likes to march all day, and drinks beer by the gallon while killing someone, or it's the bald, fat, ugly schemer, listening to Wagner all the day, trying to take over the world using Nazi gold.

I'm not saying that Arabs and Russians are the only ethnical groups which have been vilified by Hollywood. But the vilfication of Germans in American movies is insignificant compared to that which Arabs have been subjected to.

Worlds Spanner wrote:On Gladiator: The Arabs more or less stayed in Arabia until after the death of the prophet Muhammad. The north-africans seen in Gladiator we certainly simple North Africans, possibly berbers, or some other group in the north west. And of course they were Roman subjects.

Okay, then blame my faulty reasoning on Jack Shaheen, since it's from his book Reel Bad Arabs that I've got the idea that the North Africans in Gladiator were supposed to be Arabs.